Samantha Brick, Carole Malone: rewarded for “saying the unsayable”
There is a place for divisive opinions, but it is unpalatable to express horrible thoughts and get p
By Steve Baxter Published 18 May 2012 8:15
The columnist Carole Malone has been causing controversy this week. It's seen her upset a bereaved family, be vilified on Twitter and have her profile considerably raised — so, all in all, job done.
Yes yes, the bereaved family, blah blah blah, but can't you see the big picture? The phone will be melting soon as calls come flooding in to be a talking head on future discussion programmes. If you've got a deadline, you need someone to say something deliberately controversial and/or outrageous — and David Starkey is for some reason uncontactable — you now need look no further than Malone.
Some columnists seem little more than paid trolls, rewarded for the bravery of "saying the unsayable" — or, as the rest of us might call it, expressing thoroughly disgusting thoughts in a way that creates as much of a buzz as possible.
Do they know what they're saying? Malone was talking on live TV, where there is a huge impetus to fill the silence with something — anything — that comes into your head. Perhaps we might be generous and imagine that the words were poorly chosen on the spur of the moment, and that she didn't mean to be so crass and insensitive in the wake of such a family tragedy. But it is so hard to tell.
You suspect that some happen to be deeply sociopathic individuals whose casual misanthropy, vacuum of empathy and disregard for the feelings of other human beings happen to coincide perfectly with their chosen profession.
Others have to be a little more cold and calculating, confecting extreme outlying "contrarian" positions on the issues of the day not because they even believe what they're saying, but simply to annoy the people they know will react with the most anger. The very best, perhaps, if you can use the word best, are a combination of the two.
Whatever it is, you can't argue that if you make waves, you get rewarded. Samantha Brick is the Daily Mail's Aunt Sally du jour, having driven a huge torrent of traffic to Mail Online with her recent article about how beautiful she is. It must have been like writing the follow-up to Sergeant Pepper ever since for poor Samantha, but this week's column has a familiar ring, as she's doing the "Some people have been mean to me" one (as well as the "Ooh, look at her!" one).
Says Brick:
Since I wrote a piece for this newspaper expressing how difficult life can be when you are beautiful, my popularity has plummeted to an all-time low in the rural village where I live. Yes, I have received hate mail from women around the world, but none of it as vicious as that from French women. Much of their condemnation is unprintable and I have been stunned at their choice of language.
Sound familiar? This is fast becoming a trope for columnists: say something controversial; get some abuse for it; focus solely on the most extreme examples of abuse you get; write a column in which you make yourself out to be the victim; repeat until the cheques run out.
Now, I'm not saying that anyone deserves to be abused, but the "My hell at the hands of the evil Twitter mob" column from a handsomely paid columnist is fast writing itself. Want to raise your profile as a writer? Why bother with reasoned arguments when you can go for broke, "do a Moir" and see if the fruit machine's going to pay out on that particular day? You've just got to hope that the useful angry liberals on Twitter aren't busy getting annoyed by someone else when you fly your brightly coloured kite.
Brick's column is familiar in another way, too. It's reminiscent of the Mail's Liz Jones, who wrote about her "faintly Amish" neighbours and then expressed shock that they were annoyed about it. You have to wonder if Jones and Brick might fight for supremacy as Top Pro Troll at the Mail any time soon, but the message is clear: write without fear, without shame, without thinking of the consequences, and you will be rewarded.
I'm sure Malone will do very nicely out of this incident. She was on the programme to stir things up a bit in the first place, and that's what she went and did. It's the reason why you see people like Starkey, Malone, Kelvin MacKenzie and friends on television; their kind of opinion-spouting makes for more exciting fare than someone who's going to umm and ahh and agonise about what they're going to say.
At the time of writing, Malone's Wikipedia entry had quote marks around the word "journalist". There's a place for fierce opinions in journalism, divisive opinions, maybe even sickening and appalling opinions, if they're sincerely held. No one wants a world in which only those in broad agreement dominate debate. On the other hand, though, some of us might think it's a little bit unpalatable to express horrible thoughts and get paid for it.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















22 comments
In blaming the parents of the victims of the fire, she did nothing drastically different to Peter Oborne on Question Time when he blamed the parents of the victims of sexual exploitation.
Carole malone is a hatefull woman, i think her attacks on the unemployed are to deflect from her own inner feelings of being inadequate. her face is in my opinion contorted in a vicious aray of hatefull lines,etched through years, being screwed up as she writes her hate.
Well I am pleased for Samantha Brick that at least one person finds her beautiful-herself. A for the comments from French women she purports to have received, I am now convinced that they are just as much inventions as her claim to be head-turningly beautiful. You see Samantha dear French women who read foreign newspapers in the vernacular tend to have something which you so desperately lack -class!
journalism 101: you have to at least give a brief precis of the incident you discuss. Who is she? What did she say? Where did she say it? Who is upset? I'm baffled. Also, NS equally guilty of publishing pieces by people upset by comments made about them on Twitter/comments under articles and so on. You pay Laurie Penny and Helen Lewis Hastely, don't you?
Still. Take your point on paid trollers. I think that's the point of the Mail's features section
The trouble is that you lefties only believe in free speech when you agree with what is being said.
the trouble with you righties is that you think only lefties are guilty of this...
Our sentiments are with you, but, is it not interesting how the right-wing blogsites - The Spectator, John Redwood MP and even our local Tory one - all deny instant publication of their bloggers opinions pending review.
What are they scared of ?!
@Steven Baxter:
Your first paragraph says it all, really - the extraordinary thing being that so many people feed the monster by reacting to it. Attention is what it craves. Ignore it, and it will probably pine away, and be forgot, in no time at all. Feed it, and it will continue coming back for more, and more, and...
...kind of agree with what you're saying...a lot of media people make their living by trying to being controversial and building a reputation of 'saying it like it is'! Usually, the sentiments of this half baked bint, while irritating, are easily ignored as right wing bigotry. However, in this instance, what she said was highly offensive &, in my opinion, dangerous...almost justifying what has happened to this family. I can't stand the mouthy sow, and it annoys me that she even generates that emotion in me, but I think she needs to be put in her place on this occasion, and to my mind she needs a long exile from t.v.!
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
http://ppt.cc/7mA7
Totally, these people are pros.
People who genuinely don't know any better I can sympathise with. People who absolutely do know what they're doing and use people's genuine feelings to paint THEMSELVES as a victim I can't.
sssh let her carry on. in many ways carole malone has confirmed what many of us believe, that hatred against people on benefits is being whipped up by politicians and the media.
at this rate duncan smith and cameron might end up in the next cell to mladic, and this is very useful evidence.
let her carry on............................you give people enough rope they always end up hanging themselves.
NEw Statesman paying Samantha Brick??? The woman who implied that Mary Beard is too ugly and unkempt for television?
Then we read: "Some columnists seem little more than paid trolls..."
Was Ms Brick looking in the mirror?
Oops - stop press: Samantha Brick not being paid by the New Stateman.
from Sam Brick Quote
"... Much of their condemnation is unprintable and I have been stunned at their choice of language."
What, French?
"Sound familiar? This is fast becoming a trope for columnists: say something controversial; get some abuse for it; focus solely on the most extreme examples of abuse you get; write a column in which you make yourself out to be the victim; repeat until the cheques run out."
Sounds just like your colleagues Laurie Penny and Helen Hastely
I'm convinced that the only way to deal with the likes of Malone or Starkey (or that gargantuan bellend Clarkson) is with satire. Carol Malone needs to be satirised to the very limits of the english language. Then some more.
Apart from attempting to blame the victims themselves for an alleged criminal act caused by others, what was this woman attempting to achieve?
Presumably self promotion?
To attempt to focus the public's supposed anger (with recipients of taxpayer funded benefits) onto the family grieving over the deaths of six children is simply disgusting.
Similar attitudes were expressed in 1930s Germany with chilling repercussions.
Whilst it may seem unfair to link the Daily Mail with it previous proprietor Lord Rothermere (it was after all 80 years ago) I include an excerpt from 'I know these Dictators' by G.Ward Price, the Paper's Chief Correspondent and acknowledged to be Lord Rothermere's mouthpiece:
In the chapter ‘Germany’s Jewish Problem’ (the title’s something of a giveaway), Price explains how the Jews only had themselves to blame as there had been too large a Jewish immigration to Germany following World War I: ‘The cause of this migration was the collapse of the German currency, which gave the Jews of neighbouring countries a chance after their own heart to make big profits.
With daily attacks in the press aimed at the unemployed (workshy), single mothers (feckless), disabled (benefit scroungers), even the teenage female victims of a sex ring failed to escape blame for their situation, it's not too difficult to see the same scapegoating redolent of Nazi Germany.
Why do people buy and read this rubbish?
Further to what you say, BARRIE J, I'd like to know to what extent the tabloid press in whipping up such hatred can be deemed to have incited the murderous attack on Mr Philpott's family? After all, if a man can be jailed for tweeting a joke about blowing up an airport and others can be jailed for supposedly inciting rioters, what about newspapers that are read by millions stoking up hatred, especially in such a personalised way in the case of the Philpotts? And should another attack occur in the wake of Malone's rancid ravings, to what extent might she be held personally criminally culpable? Sod-all chance, I suspect.
@Simon see http://thenewjournalist.co.uk for details of Malone's comments.
what did Malone actually say? This is the first time I've ever heard of her...
"I have been stunned at their choice of language"
It's French, Samantha. That's how they talk. It's regrettable I know but some people can't help being foreign.