Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Tell them less, Ed. You'll only scare them (Times)

Matthew Parris doubts the Labour leader knows what he'd do in power and advises him to stay quiet about it.

2. David Cameron's lonely ministers have been abandoned (Daily Telegraph)

Charles Moore joins the chorus lamenting panic and cowardice in the No.10 machine.

3. Pope Benedict has to answer for his failure on child abuse (Guardian)

The retiring pontiff needs to be held to account - in this life, not the next - writes Jonathan Freedland.

4. The Liberal Democrats are the only fair tax party (Guardian)

Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander is unimpressed by Labour's late conversion to a Mansion Tax, among other things.

5. The horsemeat scandal shows how well our system works (Times)

A bit of rogue filly in the filet? No harm done, says Emma Duncan.

6. One more shambles, George, and you can kiss goodbye to the next election. (Daily Mail

Simon Heffer leans menacingly over the Chancellor as he does his fiscal homework.

7. More policies, Ed, you've misunderstood history (Independent)

By the equivalent stage in opposition, Blair and Brown had way more to say, according to Andrew Grice.

8. I have not felt the wrath of a special advisor - until this week (Independent)

Richard Garner agrees with the view that Michale Gove's political operation is ferocious.

9. Cyber-skullduggery threatens us all (Financial Times)

Misha Glenny on the disturbing implications of hi-tech crime.

10. Look up to anyone, just not sportsmen (Independent)

Philip Hensher is unimpressed by our athletic role models.

 

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