Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The truth is we are all living on Benefits Street (Guardian)

Everyone is on the take, and whole industries are on white-collar subsidies, writes Simon Jenkins. Some of us are just smarter at concealing it.

2. Dave and Nick, time to prepare your divorce papers (Times)

The coalition must run right up to the election, but there is a danger of civil war unless a strategy is put in place, writes Daniel Finkelstein. 

3. Britain is educating its children for jobs that soon won’t exist (Daily Telegraph)

The fate of the 'Neets’ is tragic, but they aren’t the only ones being failed by the system, says Mary Riddell. 

4. 5 ways to cheer up the Tories (and kill off the 'nasty party') (Guardian)

Asking Conservatives to stop sounding negative may be naive but I agree with Nicky Morgan: they need a change of tone, says Melissa Kite.

5. This evil should shame us into halting Assad (Times)

Britain can no longer avert its eyes from the brutal reality of life, and death, in Syria’s Dark Ages, says Roger Boyes. 

6. It’s time to reject crony capitalism and embrace the real thing (Daily Telegraph)

The solution is to promote competition, tear up barriers to entry, unleash consumer choice, and eliminate subsidies and soft loans, says Allister Heath. 

7. Cost of living? What about the cost of being dead? (Guardian)

The spiralling price of funerals is a symptom of the triumph of the market and the accompanying poverty of civic life, writes Zoe Williams.

8. The very model of a modern central banker (Financial Times)

Ben Bernanke, outgoing chairman, deserves credit for the Fed’s handling of the crisis, says Martin Wolf.

9. There's optimism in the global economy - but only the wealthy are feeling the effects (Independent)

In the UK, it is ‘fat cats’; here in the US, it is Wall Street versus Main Street, writes Hamish McRae. 

10. For truth on immigration, look to the Bard not politicians (Financial Times)

The debate has not been changed by new facts so much as the complexion of the government, writes John Kay. 

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