Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Britain’s perilous austerity bunker (Financial Times)

Cameron’s arguments against fiscal policy flexibility are wrong, says Martin Wolf.

2. Labour needs to do more than simply wait for Cameron to fail (Daily Telegraph)

If Ed Miliband wants to keep his lead he must be bold and address his party’s past failings, writes Mary Riddell.

3. This isn't self-determination. It's a Ruritanian colonial relic (Guardian)

The vote for British rule in the Falklands referendum dodges the point, says Seumas Milne. It's time for a negotiated settlement with Argentina.

4. There’s only one solution to the PM’s dilemma (Times) (£)

How do you appease rebels and yet pursue policies they oppose, asks Daniel Finkelstein. Appeal to swing voters – and show you are a winner.

5. Syria: don't fan the flames of conflict (Guardian

Offering support to Syria's rebels risks intensifying a tragic civil war, says Douglas Alexander. We must work with Russia for a political transition.

6. The world needs to understand Putin (Financial Times)

This conservative is no friend of a tired status quo, writes Alexandr Dugin.

7. 'Like' it or not, privacy has changed in the Facebook age (Guardian)

It's hardly a shock to learn that fans of The L Word are lesbians, writes Helen Lewis. We need to relax about online privacy

8. Could the yoke of Merkel's austerity really lead to conflict in Europe again? (Daily Mail)

Ever more citizens in the Mediterranean countries argue that for the third time in less than 100 years Germany is trying to take control of Europe, writes Dominic Sandbrook. 

9. The seeds of an NHS revolution are sown (Daily Telegraph)

Health expert Don Berwick's decree that 'no harm should be regarded as acceptable' must prove to be a turning point, says a Telegraph leader.

10. Why we went our own way on Leveson (Independent)

Private talks between the press and a Prime Minister who said he could deliver a non-statutory formula have sapped collective confidence, says Independent editor Chris Blackhurst.

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