Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The threat of another euro crisis (Financial Times)

Two German institutions have now objected to the policies underpinning the euro, writes Gideon Rachman. 

2. The greater the challenge, the more hope Clegg has (Independent)

Like Tony Blair, he came to politics relatively late, but now seems to be partly enjoying power even though poll ratings are dire, writes Steve Richards. 

3. Without women, Tories face a lost cause (Financial Times)

If the UK prime minister wants change, he must impose all-women shortlists, says Helen Lewis.

4. This treatment would save children's lives – so why won't the government allow it? (Guardian)

Mitochondrial replacement, developed in the UK, looks set to be lost to the US because the government is too timid to back it, writes Polly Toynbee.

5. Scottish independence: There are two men who could help Mr Cameron save Britain (Daily Telegraph)

The contribution of John Major and Gordon Brown would make sense of the PM's call to arms, says Benedict Brogan. 

6. Cameron must stop and search his conscience (Times)

Theresa May is right to curtail this power, says Rachel Sylvester. Its reform would improve Conservative and police relations with minorities.

7. We need a Bismarck to tame the machines (Financial Times)

The power of the new technology barons must be held in check, says Michael Ignatieff.

8. Orwell was hailed a hero for fighting in Spain. Today he'd be guilty of terrorism (Guardian)

The International Brigades were hailed for bravery, writes George Monbiot. But British citizens who fight in Syria are damned. If only they did it for the money.

9. Accidental damage at Barclays (Daily Mail)

The leak of the profits projection gives the impression of a bank that has not only lost its moral compass but is also accident prone, writes Alex Brummer. 

10. The GOP must learn how to talk about sex (Times)

It’s not the Republicans’ policies that are off-putting for women, but how they are expressed, writes Hugo Rifkind. 

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