Morning Call: the pick of the papers

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

Cameron is right about Leveson. This is a Rubicon we must not cross (Guardian)

Simon Jenkins argues against statutory underpinning for press regulation.

 

Carney will gain by exploring the territory (Financial Times)

 

Adam Posen writes that the new Bank of England governor will have to prioritise open debate and public engagement.

 

Nick Boles wants to build on the greenbelt, but it's too soon for us to admire man-made landscapes (Independent)

 

Tom Sutcliffe explores the aesthetics of nature and human development.

 

With Ukip's surge, do we still have a progressive majority? (Guardian

 

John Harris argues that Ukip's strong by-election results indicate widespread distrust of politicians.

 

Mick and Sonny are still rockin' on, but will Madonna and Robbie last as long? (Independent

 

David Lister asks why age expectations are different for musicians in rock, jazz and blues.

 

So what happened to your defence of liberty, Harriet Harman? (Telegraph

 

Dan Hodges argues that Labour's support for Leveson is driven by a desire for political revenge.

 

Keep the kids in Beer St, not Vodka Plaza (Times) (£) 

 

Janice Turner argues that education, not raising alcohol prices, will cut down on binge-drinking.

 

The Chancellor George Osborne's alarming device is just the weapon for a country at war (Telegraph

 

Charles Moore says that Quantitive Easing has prevented the crisis from becoming even deeper.

 

Here's what to do in the Middle East: nothing (Times) (£) 

 

Matthew Parris says Britain should intervene less in overseas conflicts.

 

Morsi has squandered Egypt's goodwill (Financial Times

 

Roula Khalaf and Heba Saleh explain that Egypt's president is no longer a unifying figure.

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