Pro-Cameron Times changes headline to suit the Tories

Headline declaring: “Cameron risks backlash with early talk of victory” is scrapped.

After endorsing the Conservatives at the weekend, one would expect the Times to be keen to minimise damaging stories about David Cameron. So imagine the media's surprise when, at 10.20 last night, the next day's front page was sent to them with the headline "Cameron risks backlash with early talk of victory".

The story appeared to encourage the idea that the Tory leader, a man used to getting his own way, is already measuring the curtains for No 10. With the polls still pointing to a hung parliament, surely the Tories could expect a little more support from the Murdoch-owned paper?

Version 1

Times03.05

Well, clearly someone at Wapping thought better of it, because just 45 minutes later a new version was emailed out with the rather bland, neutral-sounding headline: "Cameron outlines plans for first days in power".

That striking claim, "Cameron risks backlash with early talk of victory", was still there but it had been relegated to the standfirst.

Version 2

Times03.05newnew

This isn't the first time that the Times has been caught out by its indecision. After the second leaders' debate on TV, the paper featured a picture of Cameron and Nick Clegg with the headline "Neck and neck". But, after a revised version of the paper's Populus poll put Cameron just a point ahead, the headline had metamorphosed into "Cameron nicks it".

Some will no doubt imagine that James Murdoch or Rebekah Brooks (old Rupe is occupied with the Wall Street Journal these days) put in a call to the paper to demand the revision. But here's the point: they probably didn't need to. Successful Murdoch editors usually internalise the prejudices of their proprietor to the degree that no intervention is required.

As the thoughtful former Sun editor David Yelland remarked in a recent interview:

[Y]ou don't admit to yourself that you're being influenced. Most Murdoch editors wake up in the morning, switch on the radio, hear that something has happened and think, 'What would Rupert think about this?' It's like a mantra inside your head. It's like a prism. You look at the world through Rupert's eyes.

Either way, the second favourable headline change for the Tories in less than a month begins to raise natural suspicions.

Hat-tip: PoliticsHome.

Follow the New Statesman team on Facebook.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496