Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

  1. Why these cults of hate beguile the lost boys (Times)
    Whether it is radical Islam or street gangs, powerless, alienated teenagers need protection from false certainties, writes Janice Turner
  2. Tim Cook: Apple’s quiet leader (Financial Times)
    A defence of the tech group’s tax affairs has boosted the chief’s profile, writes Tim Bradshaw.
  3. Woolwich attack: When killers strike, should we listen to what they say? (Guardian)
    Just as Breivik's views on Islam did not deserve a hearing by the right, so the left should not use Woolwich to make its case on foreign policy, writes Jonathan Freedland.
  4. Dave must move against the Tory dark forces (Times)
    Every time the PM moves to the Right, they want more. Unless he makes an example of a malcontent he is doomed, writes Matthew Parris
  5. The West is fighting on behalf of ordinary Muslims – and winning (Telegraph)
    Our enemies are utterly misguided in their denunciation of Britain’s interventions overseas, writes Con Coughlin.
  6. Nigel Farage bombed in Edinburgh – what does that really tell us about Scottish antipathy to the English? (Guardian)
    It could be to do with class more than nationality, writes Ian Jack
  7. Dogma will always lead to murder. In the end, scepticism is the only answer (Independent)
    The Woolwich killers were certain that faith supported their actions, writes A C Grayling.
  8. The fate of Sally Bercow suggests it's all to easy to side with the baying mob (Telegraph)
    The ill-judged clamour over Lord McAlpine swept many of us to a false conclusion, writes Graeme Archer.
  9. Farewell, Shameless. Your heirs have work to do (Independent)
    The undeserving poor – the feckless, the workshy, the scrounging – are the exception, not the norm. If only our television screens reflected that, writes Owen Jones.
  10. Britain is at risk of creating another housing bubble (Financial Times)
    The chancellor should be working to build homes, not push prices up further, writes Chris Giles

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

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