Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Cameron’s incurable European headache (Financial Times)

This is where the irresistible force of rising Tory europhobia meets the immovable object of geopolitical reality, writes Philip Stephens.

2. It’s too early for the Tories to assume defeat is inevitable in 2015 (Daily Telegraph)

David Cameron could be a transformative leader if he had more faith in his power to change minds, says Fraser Nelson.

3. Algeria spills more blood (Guardian)

The violent end to this standoff is only the start of a new chapter in the country's savage history, writes Nabila Ramdani.

4. Don’t reject a referendum, Ed. Fast-track it (Times) (£)

The Labour leader should seize his chance to appeal to British business and voters, says Philip Collins. He must offer an in-out vote now.

5. Mali is not a global conflict. It doesn't require a global response (Independent)

The notion of a global threat from a revived al-Qa'ida should be familiar by now; it's the same flawed reasoning the led the US to launch its "war against terror", says Adrian Hamilton.

6. A living wage, or a much higher minimum wage, is worth paying (Daily Telegraph)

As City profits soar, the low-skilled, service areas of the economy continue to suffer a fall in income, writes Jeremy Warner. Radical action might avoid a social catastrophe.

7. A funny way of firing up the locomotive (Financial Times)

Now and in the interwar period, austerity policies have often failed in their own terms as they have made deficits worse, writes Samuel Brittan.

8. Mr Cameron and the speech that never was (Daily Mail)

The Prime Minister is confronting one of the most crucial issues of our times while Ed Miliband has nothing useful to say, argues a Daily Mail editorial.

9. Hugh Gaitskell: New Labour's old roots (Guardian)

Tony Blair never acknowledged the influence of his most like-minded predecessor, who died 50 years ago this week, says a Guardian editorial.

10. Why today’s American presidents need a third term (Independent)

There are compelling reasons why two four-year terms may not be enough for a competent and popular US president today, writes Mary Dejevsky.

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