Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Everyone thinks David Cameron has screwed up over the EU - except for the voting public (Independent)

The main story this week for journalists has been the Conservative decision to stage a case study in disunity - but is that what most interests the public, asks John Rentoul.

2. David Cameron must not cave in to the UKIP threat (Daily Telegraph)

For his own sake and that of the country, Cameron has to make the case for staying in the EU, says Peter Mandelson.

3. History is more than one thing after another (Times)

Whether its art, books or political ideas, arranging things in strict order of time is not as logical as it looks, says Philip Collins.

4. The truth is that we can’t afford a shiny new transport system like HS2 (Daily Telegraph)

History is littered with failed projects that appealed to politicians in thrall to modernity, writes Fraser Nelson.

5. The flight paths of Britain and Poland diverge in a disunited Europe (Guardian)

Poland is eyeing a place in the group of leading EU nations just as Britain seems to be leaving, writes Timothy Garton Ash.

6. Britons want more work – let’s help them (Financial Times)

There is very substantial spare capacity in the British economy, writes Samuel Brittan.

7. Xenophobia in Italy bodes ill for migrants right across Europe (Independent)

Today's battleground is on the right to citizenship, writes Peter Popham.

8. France: waiting for Godot (Guardian)

A pressing task for Mr Hollande is to persuade a French audience he is capable of pulling his country out of its torpor, says a Guardian editorial. And on that test, he is failing

9. Brass Tax (Times)

The government must lead efforts to change cross-border tax rules that are being exploited by the multinationals, says a Times editorial.

10. Leaving Europe would be bad for British business (Guardian)

We must not lose sight of what's important – economic growth, says John Cridland. This means maintaining access to, and influence over, the EU.

 

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