Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Cameron's speech on Europe makes it less likely he will be Prime Minister after the next election (Independent)

His position on Europe means that another coalition with the Lib Dems is impossible, says Steve Richards. Given the likelihood of another hung parliament, that spells danger for him.

2. Cameron may have finished off the Tories – but he had no choice (Daily Telegraph)

David Cameron's Conservative Party gamble over Europe has been tried before, by Labour. It fatally split the party, writes Peter Oborne.

3. By offering an in/out referendum, Cameron made Ukip stronger (Independent)

It is Ukip which will be leading the campaign for independence, says Nigel Farage.

4 Can Netanyahu survive Israel's middle-class revolt? (Guardian)

The election has given Israel a new kingmaker in Yair Lapid, writes Aluf Benn. But Binyamin Netanyahu is a master of survival.

5. From outside, it's clear why Britain has to stay in Europe (Guardian)

Cameron's speech could have been a lot worse, but five years of anxious uncertainty are bad news for Europe and the world, writes Timothy Garton Ash.

6. Davos: infotainment, not a conspiracy (Financial Times)

Most people here spend their days debating corporate social responsibility and the global economy, writes John Gapper. 

7. The speech of his life! And if the PM can follow through, he might just seal a historic triumph (Daily Mail)

Cameron fulfilled the foremost duty of a Prime Minister by articulating every anxiety felt by his people about Europe, says Max Hastings.

8. In-out EU referendum: Cameron's hokey-cokey (Guardian)

The real concern of  the PM's speech was not economics but politics – the politics of a restive Tory backbench, an insurgent Ukip and a mostly Europhobic press, says a Guardian editorial.

9. At last, voters are trusted to choose Britain’s future (Daily Telegraph)

David Cameron has given Britain a far better chance of securing a satisfactory settlement with the European Union, says a Telegraph editorial.

10. Our island must stop living in the Tudor past (Times) (£)

While we celebrate progress over Catholics and the succession we should also ask why we are so slow to change, says David Aaronovitch.

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