Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. A short history of austerity: it almost never works (Guardian)

You have to be one of Vince Cable's 'austerity jihadists' to believe you can cut your way out of a slump, writes Aditya Chakrabortty.

2. Labour and the Tories both think they'll lose 2015 and they can't both be right (Independent)

The mood in each camp is downbeat and introspective, but “Sorry we blew it last time" isn't the kind of slogan that wins elections, writes Steve Richards. 

3. Punish them, yes. But jail doesn’t fit this crime (Times) (£)

Huhne and Pryce broke the law, writes Rachel Sylvester. But locking them up in our expensive, overcrowded prisons serves no purpose.

4. Prison is the right place for Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce (Daily Telegraph)

If they’d got off lightly for swapping penalty points for speeding, how many others would be encouraged to test the legal system, asks Philip Johnston.

5. Prepare for endgame in North Korea (Financial Times)

The US and China should pool ideas on the nuclear threat, says Gideon Rachman.

6. If Cameron wants his troops to rally, he must act like a general (Daily Telegraph)

MPs would fight to the death for victory, but they need the PM in the trenches with them, says Benedict Brogan.

7. A mansion tax can stop this mountain of wealth crushing us (Guardian)

Labour barely breathed on the super-rich when in power, says Polly Toynbee. In backing a mansion tax, they are at last offering an alternative.

8. Time for the media to find a compromise on Leveson recommendations (Independent)

The sluggish progress that has followed the inquiry risks the worst possible outcome, says an Independent editorial.

9. Immigration exposes political weakness (Financial Times)

Conservatives are caught between the right and left, writes Stanley Greenberg.

10. I'm leaving the Liberal Democrats too (Guardian)

The justice and security bill will have a corrosive impact on individual rights, writes Philippe Sands. The party's support for it is a coalition compromise too far.

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