An alternative view of tonight's British Press Awards

COLUMNIST OF THE YEAR

Shortlist: Nick Cohen, The Observer; Armando Iannucci, The Observer; Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph; Matthew Parris, The Times; Jeff Randall, The Daily Telegraph; Janet Street-Porter, The Independent on Sunday; Polly Toynbee, The Guardian; Janice Turner, The Times

Deborah Moggach, novelist

The one I like here is Matthew Parris. As well as being very funny, the important thing for me about him is that he has no received opinions. It's not as if he's an authority figure telling us what he thinks we don't know; it's more like he's just an intelligent one of us. I can never predict his reaction to something, which is good in a columnist.

With Polly Toynbee, you can usually guess what she's going to say. Cohen is good, Boris a hoot, JSP rather gets my back up. Of those not on the list, I like Catherine Bennett (The Guardian) and Terence Blacker (The Independent); he can be blissfully funny but also trenchant. A good column should be a nice one-way conversation with someone you'd like to get to know better.

Alistair Beaton, playwright

I would like Matthew Parris to win as he is consistently witty and well informed. He has a scalpel-like precision. I admire his courage, his knowledge and his willingness to say shocking things: for example, he has said he thinks Blair is delusional, not for the sake of being shocking.

Armando Iannucci is also precise, and has an offbeat enthusiasm that is very enjoyable. Nick Cohen used to be a trenchant journalist, but is sadly wasted in attacking the Left. He is on what I call the Paul Johnson curve, which is starting out on the left and ending up on the right. Polly Toynbee is a very important voice. She focuses on the fundamentals.

Columnists inform, but they also entertain. Boris Johnson is hugely entertaining. He is an intelligent clown. It is important that we have intelligent clowns, but I don't think he should think that he is a politician.

INTERVIEWER

Shortlist: Lynn Barber, The Observer; Carol Cadwalladr, The Observer; Robert Crampton, The Times; Jan Moir, The Daily Telegraph; Sarah Sands, Daily Mail

Nigel Williams, novelist and documentary-maker

Robert Crampton's work I really like. Somehow, he combines showmanship with something like self-effacement in a very entertaining way. To me he sounds like he's telling the truth, which is one of the most difficult things to pull off in journalism. His opinions sound hard-won and thought through, and that's to do with his prose style, which puts me in mind of what Orwell said about good prose being like a window. I don't like interviews in which an interviewer describes what they felt like while waiting in the hotel lobby or whatever.

I met Lynn Barber at a party recently. She was this extraordinarily nice person; I couldn't square her with the person who's written some quite vicious things about people. I can't really see the point of doing that unless it really is someone criminal.

Fi Glover, broadcaster

Lynn Barber is probably the finest interviewer around, and has been for some time. She makes that brave choice where she doesn't care what her subject is going to think of her, and in this increasingly close world of PRs and newspapers and editors, there aren't enough interviewers still doing that. You know when you read a Barber interview that you are going to get absolute veracity, even if you've met the person and don't agree with her. She's one of those people you don't say no to; it's a benchmark of your career if you've been "Lynn Barber-ed".

When Robert Crampton goes along to interview someone, you know he hasn't taken any baggage along with him. He did a piece on Bruce Springsteen in which he managed to convey something of the weirdness of being such an almighty star, and also the absolute normality of being a father and a husband. It was a beautiful piece, as well as being quite moving and saccharine and sickly.

CARTOONIST

Shortlist: Peter Brookes, The Times; Dave Brown, The Independent; Michael Heath; The Mail on Sunday; Mac, Daily Mail; Matt Pritchett, The Daily Telegraph & Sunday Telegraph

Barry Fantoni, cartoonist

I would choose Michael Heath or Matt. When Matt is on form, he is the funniest pocket cartoonist in Britain. His cartoons are deliberately underdrawn. Everybody's face looks the same. In the end, they leave one wanting more. Michael Heath draws better and is more observant and more stinging. He gets the precise details right in terms of dress and shoes.

Peter Brookes isn't funny and can't draw. His cartoons are ugly, ill-conceived and utterly witless. His accolades are totally misplaced. Mac appeals to the Daily Mail readers who are worried about their house prices. I think Nick Newman, who does cartoons for The Sunday Times, should also be on the list.

What I would say is three cheers for anyone who can produce a cartoon every day. I did a daily cartoon for The Times for years and I was told that it would kill me and it very nearly did. It is hard work being funny.

John Lloyd, former producer, 'Spitting Image'

We get the Telegraph, and I think Matt Pritchett is a genius. He wins at the Press Awards all the time. I judged him in a section for the British Cartoon Awards about 10 years ago and he won then. I think he is flawless. I do not understand how someone can be so consistent over so many years. Michael Heath I'm a big fan of as well. If I was a judge this year, Matt would win and Michael Heath would get the silver.

It is a fantastic skill to be a cartoonist, especially a topical cartoonist - to be able to come up with the ideas every day. When I did Spitting Image, we only had to do it once a week, and that was hard enough.

FOREIGN REPORTER

Shortlist: Patrick Cockburn, The Independent; Rupert Cornwell, The Independent; Robert Fisk, The Independent; Martin Fletcher, The Times; Hala Jaber, The Sunday Times; Barbara Jones, The Mail on Sunday; Christina Lamb, The Sunday Times; Simon Parry, The Mail on Sunday

Charles Glass, author

It's a very strong list, but I'd have to give the nod to Patrick Cockburn. His reporting has been consistently precise, accurate and informative, and he's been in Iraq more than anyone else for far longer. Obviously he's got an excellent writing style, but what counts with him is good, solid reporting. I don't look to him for editorialising or prejudices. I like Rupert Cornwell's stuff from Washington, but I think Cockburn wins just for the sheer difficulty in reporting from Iraq.

Clare Short MP, former International Development Secretary

It's got to be Patrick Cockburn. His coverage has been exemplary. It's authoritative, high-quality reporting, and in an age when the power of journalism has been much depleted by spin, he seems to me to speak the truth. Columnists can rail against spin, but the effect is not the same as the kind of reporting you get from Cockburn. I'm just very impressed. I read everything he writes.

SPORTS JOURNALIST

Shortlist: Matthew Engel, Financial Times; Paul Hayward, Daily Mail; Paul Kimmage, The Sunday Times; Ian Ridley, The Mail on Sunday; Martin Samuel, The Times

Jon Holmes, broadcast agent

I'd think Martin Samuel's the favourite because he bridges the gap between broadsheet and tabloid better than anyone. Matthew Engel is brilliant, but he isn't given much of a canvas on which to paint. Others I would have considered are Hugh McIlvanney (The Sunday Times), who's still a giant of the trade; Jim Lawton (The Independent), who consistently takes a strong line on the major sporting issues of the day; and Mike Atherton (The Sunday Telegraph). I know I'm biased, but I think Mike disproves the theory that you can't comment properly on the game if you've also played it professionally.

Sebastian Faulks, novelist

I'd put Martin Samuel on top of that list. He's very punchy, very clear and very thorough. He does his homework. He's also a very good feature writer on non-sport subjects. I like Matthew Engel as well; an elegant writer who brings an obliquely interesting angle to subjects. He's intellectual but not to the extent that he's detached. You feel he really loves the game. I also like Richard Williams (The Guardian) and Simon Barnes (The Times). Henry Winter (The Daily Telegraph) does a good job but he's not as good a writer as Engel, Williams or, in his own way, Samuel.

Barry Davies, sports broadcaster

I'd probably go for Paul Kimmage, because the art of interviewing is special. As a TV interviewer, I often feel a little jealous of the print interviewer, who has the opportunity - if I can put it this way - to improve his subject's syntax and to go into greater depth. Martin Samuel would be my runner-up from this shortlist. There are plenty of other very good sportswriters around - Andrew Longmore (The Sunday Times) is a favourite of mine - but if I had to choose only one piece by one writer during the year, it would be something by Simon Barnes (The Times). He does sometimes take a totally different angle on something, one that really makes you think.

CRITIC

Shortlist: Nancy Banks-Smith, The Guardian; Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian; Craig Brown, The Mail on Sunday; Tom Lubbock, The Independent; Ally Ross, The Sun

Charles Saumarez Smith, National Gallery director

I think critics have an important role in acting as both the voice of the general public and the mediator of exhibitions to the general public. I enjoy Nancy Banks-Smith, but in the main I read the visual arts critics. I admire and respect Tom Lubbock, not least because he has the great virtue of not being predictable, which I think is essential for a critic. I am also a fan of Richard Dorment in The Daily Telegraph because he has a great range, and is able to talk as knowledgeably about Old Masters as he does on contemporary work. He takes the trouble to understand in detail how and why an exhibition is being put together, and does it very sympathetically.

Though I read all the critics, of course I would go to the art exhibitions anyway. The critics I am influenced by are the film critics, as I follow what is coming out and they help me to judge what film to go to. I usually read the critics in the London Evening Standard.

Stuart Maconie, broadcaster

I once said to Brian Eno that he'd make a good critic, and he said he couldn't think of anything worse than trying to persuade people not to like things. He had a point, but good critics should enthuse you too.

That's why my vote would go to Peter Bradshaw. Although he doesn't shy away from slagging off the rubbish, he does also inspire me to see movies. I guess I trust him. He's intelligent without being poncey. He might like a very slow-moving three-hour Iranian drama about a family eking out a living somewhere, but if there's a good Hollywood blockbuster or British romcom, he'll say so. He's not populist and he's not elitist.

I think Tom Lubbock is very readable. That's not damning with faint praise, because it's a vital quality in a critic that you often don't get. Nancy Banks-Smith is just one of those people who made me want to write in the first place. Hers is such an easy and attractive style. She wears her learning so lightly.

POLITICAL JOURNALIST

Shortlist: Kevin Maguire, Daily Mirror; Matthew Parris, The Times; Andrew Rawnsley, The Observer; Simon Walters, The Mail on Sunday; Patrick Wintour, The Guardian

Denis MacShane, former Foreign Office minister

Andrew Rawnsley is a must-read. Kevin Maguire is the cheekiest and the best informed about Labour's Politburo manoeuvrers. Matthew Parris's elegy for Tony Blair's kinder, more tolerant Britain was the nicest thing I have read about our Prime Minister. I haven't had many dealings with Simon Walters since The Mail on Sunday harassed my children and my late mother.

In any event, I would go for Patrick Wintour, because he has taken over from Michael White, the most respected and senior political editor in the Lobby, in my judgement, and he has done so in a completely seamless way. He has generated original stories, and has been scrupulous in citing his sources. He is truly a reporter's reporter.

Ann Widdecombe MP, former Home Office minister

What a choice. Three of them are very good choices. In fact, four of them are good choices. I would not vote for Kevin Maguire. I would say it's a choice between Matthew Parris and Andrew Rawnsley. I would say Parris, but only by a whisker. He writes on a very great range of topics, he writes impartially, and he is not afraid to express his opinions, sometimes quite outspoken opinions. All his columns are brilliantly, brilliantly written. When you start reading a Parris, by God, you don't half want to read to the end.

Andrew Rawnsley is well informed, he is critical, he is not wholly impartial, and he also covers a range of topics, but he is a bit more narrowly political than Matthew.

BUSINESS & FINANCE JOURNALIST

Shortlist: Chris Blackhurst, London Evening Standard; Liam Halligan, The Sunday Telegraph; Ashley Seager, The Guardian; David Smith, The Sunday Times; Elizabeth Rigby, Financial Times

Howard Davies, director of the LSE and former Financial Services Authority chairman

My choice would be David Smith because he is always interesting. He has a blind spot about the European Union, which no doubt pleases his editor, but that apart, he has a fine critical sense and a good turn of phrase.

Trevor Bish-Jones, chief executive of Woolworths

I like Elizabeth Rigby because she has an articulate point of view on her subject matter. She regularly comes up with new and interesting story lines and she presents them in a way that is balanced.

Somewhat myopically, I always read about insurance companies and retail. Of the city editors I read regularly, I always enjoy Jeremy Warner (business editor, The Independent) and I think some of the stuff Damian Reece [City editor, The Daily Telegraph] does is usually on the money.

David Harding, chief executive, William Hill

I read The Sunday Times and I always turn to David Smith's column. I find his commentary very good. He gives good analytical insight that goes beyond just reporting what happened yesterday. I always read Tempus [the share-tipping column in The Times] and Questor (The Daily Telegraph's version, edited by James Quinn) because their advice goes beyond just parroting the obvious, which is what so many journalists do.

Interviews by Andy McSmith, Susie Mesure, Paul Newman, Sophie Morris, Simon O'Hagan and Nicola Rayner