Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Talk of ‘shirkers’ echoes Victorian past (Financial Times)

If for Beveridge the welfare state was a vehicle for social solidarity, this government uses it as a partisan dividing line, writes Tristram Hunt.

2. Assad could still hold power in Damascus a year from now (Independent)

The rebel insistence that Assad’s departure be a precondition for talks is unrealistic since he controls most of the Syrian population, says Patrick Cockburn.

3. The Tories have a moral mission – and David Cameron should say so (Daily Telegraph)

After Labour’s failures, Conservative reforms are about saving lives rather than money, writes Fraser Nelson.

4. US pivot gives Europe an opportunity (Financial Times)

Atlanticist nominations offer the continent a chance to break free of euro-crisis introversion, says Philip Stephens.

5. Britain and the EU: Europe's lost voices (Guardian)

Pro-Europeans should shed their anxieties, says a Guardian editorial. Voices that have been silent for too long need to make themselves heard.

6. Our interests come first, not those of America (Daily Telegraph)

The United States wants Britain to stay in the European Union for its benefit - not ours, says a Telegraph editorial.

7. A long way to go in our response to sex crimes (Independent)

Weaknesses in the police and criminal justice systems are only part of the problem, says an Independent editorial.

8. Grayling takes one step forward, then one giant step back (Guardian)

The reform of the probation services and closing of creaking Victorian prisons are welcome – but the plan for new mega-jails is a disaster, says Ian Birrell.

9. To do or not to do – that is the PM’s question (Times) (£)

If David Cameron wants to win in 2015 he must find a big problem to take on, says Philip Collins. Championing care of the elderly fits the bill.

10. Europe offers the best deal for Britain (Guardian)

Britain's future in Europe must be defined by its national interests, not those of the Conservative Party, says Menzies Campbell.

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