This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/kevin-myers-controversy-katie-hopkins-piers-morgan

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Kevin Myers is just another product of the toxic controversy industry Kevin Myers is just another product of the toxic controversy industry
(8 days later)
Mon 31 Jul 2017 17.23 BST
Last modified on Mon 27 Nov 2017 19.13 GMT
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
View more sharing options
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Google+
Share on WhatsApp
Share on Messenger
Close
At the weekend, many of us had the pleasure of meeting a new troll for the first time, someone hitherto inflicted only on Irish readers. In a column in that country’s edition of the Sunday Times, one Kevin Myers commented that women who wanted pay parity with men had to, in summary, earn it by being more ambitious and not having babies. The article was a stinking piece of professional misogyny of a kind we are now unfortunately too accustomed to, but just to make sure that he would get the fireworks he no doubt felt his original thinking deserved, Myers threw in some rank antisemitism for good measure. Commenting on the pay packets of the Jewish journalists Vanessa Feltz and Claudia Winkleman, he wrote “Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price, which is the most useful measure there is of inveterate, lost-with-all-hands stupidity”.At the weekend, many of us had the pleasure of meeting a new troll for the first time, someone hitherto inflicted only on Irish readers. In a column in that country’s edition of the Sunday Times, one Kevin Myers commented that women who wanted pay parity with men had to, in summary, earn it by being more ambitious and not having babies. The article was a stinking piece of professional misogyny of a kind we are now unfortunately too accustomed to, but just to make sure that he would get the fireworks he no doubt felt his original thinking deserved, Myers threw in some rank antisemitism for good measure. Commenting on the pay packets of the Jewish journalists Vanessa Feltz and Claudia Winkleman, he wrote “Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price, which is the most useful measure there is of inveterate, lost-with-all-hands stupidity”.
The article was swiftly pulled, apologies were issued and Myers was sacked from his role after an entirely justified outcry. But the Sunday Times’s action in publishing him was unusual not so much because of the content of the piece, but because it went too far in the now established tradition of confecting controversy for clicks. Myers couldn’t simply have a different take on the gender pay gap. He had to be nonsensically offensive, to declare that men are just better than women, and include a slug of racism as well. Someone at the paper was evidently only too happy to leave it all in, launching this two-bit Icarus towards the sun.The article was swiftly pulled, apologies were issued and Myers was sacked from his role after an entirely justified outcry. But the Sunday Times’s action in publishing him was unusual not so much because of the content of the piece, but because it went too far in the now established tradition of confecting controversy for clicks. Myers couldn’t simply have a different take on the gender pay gap. He had to be nonsensically offensive, to declare that men are just better than women, and include a slug of racism as well. Someone at the paper was evidently only too happy to leave it all in, launching this two-bit Icarus towards the sun.
Myers joins an established stable of “controversialists” – a term I detest. Piers Morgan, Katie Hopkins, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Nigel Farage, Rod Liddle and several others who crop up regularly in certain sections of the media are now part of an entire genre that tries to pass itself off as journalism. In fact it’s merely opportunistic outrage-surfing peddled by people who either need the money and don’t really know how to earn it otherwise, or who have mistaken attention for relevance.Myers joins an established stable of “controversialists” – a term I detest. Piers Morgan, Katie Hopkins, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Nigel Farage, Rod Liddle and several others who crop up regularly in certain sections of the media are now part of an entire genre that tries to pass itself off as journalism. In fact it’s merely opportunistic outrage-surfing peddled by people who either need the money and don’t really know how to earn it otherwise, or who have mistaken attention for relevance.
“Contrarian” is another one. It is used to legitimise and professionalise what frequently amounts to selling hate. The word implies that simply arguing the opposite of the conventional wisdom is in itself a skill. It’s not hard to say “What if Hitler didn’t really kill 6 million Jews / child abuse really is more prevalent among Muslims / a woman’s place really is in the home?”“Contrarian” is another one. It is used to legitimise and professionalise what frequently amounts to selling hate. The word implies that simply arguing the opposite of the conventional wisdom is in itself a skill. It’s not hard to say “What if Hitler didn’t really kill 6 million Jews / child abuse really is more prevalent among Muslims / a woman’s place really is in the home?”
We are told that our objection to their views is precious, privileged pearl-clutchingWe are told that our objection to their views is precious, privileged pearl-clutching
Yet the people who utter these things just because they go against the grain are not “controversialists” but attention-seeking bores. They don’t have the intelligence or talent to distinguish themselves within mainstream discourse so they try to do so outside of it. And they’re not exactly persuasive. When we happen upon them we don’t say: “Actually, it’s important that I step out of my bubble and contemplate this view,” we don’t argue against the person with facts and figures and logic. We pretend we’ve seen someone we know and get the hell out of there.Yet the people who utter these things just because they go against the grain are not “controversialists” but attention-seeking bores. They don’t have the intelligence or talent to distinguish themselves within mainstream discourse so they try to do so outside of it. And they’re not exactly persuasive. When we happen upon them we don’t say: “Actually, it’s important that I step out of my bubble and contemplate this view,” we don’t argue against the person with facts and figures and logic. We pretend we’ve seen someone we know and get the hell out of there.
Because Morgan, Hopkins et al are presented to us by editors and publishers and media institutions that have a financial interest in advancing their views as legitimate opinions, rather than drunken dinner-party chat, we are told that our objection to their views is precious, privileged pearl-clutching. It’s like pushing a drug then saying there are millions of people who consume it and believe it is important – so maybe stop being so elitist?Because Morgan, Hopkins et al are presented to us by editors and publishers and media institutions that have a financial interest in advancing their views as legitimate opinions, rather than drunken dinner-party chat, we are told that our objection to their views is precious, privileged pearl-clutching. It’s like pushing a drug then saying there are millions of people who consume it and believe it is important – so maybe stop being so elitist?
Mainstream opinion is now in a race to the bottom. Professional provocateurs and the organisations that employ them have turned opinion and commentary into a version of scripted sports entertainment where some people boo and others cheer, and at the end of the day wrestlers and their sponsors get paid. Some white person used the N-word? Slather some oil on Piers Morgan and get him in the ring.Mainstream opinion is now in a race to the bottom. Professional provocateurs and the organisations that employ them have turned opinion and commentary into a version of scripted sports entertainment where some people boo and others cheer, and at the end of the day wrestlers and their sponsors get paid. Some white person used the N-word? Slather some oil on Piers Morgan and get him in the ring.
Myers’s work has, up to now, fallen into the sweet spot where clicks and hate intersect without leading to litigation or sacking. The person who edited that piece and did not remove the antisemitic passage may just have lost all sensitivity to views that cross the line. Commission content just this side of lawsuit or boycott, and you’ve struck gold. Unfortunately for us, I don’t think his article will lead to a rethink of the entire genre of dinner-bore writing. The rewards are too high. We can perhaps look forward to a temporary lull. Enjoy it while it lasts.Myers’s work has, up to now, fallen into the sweet spot where clicks and hate intersect without leading to litigation or sacking. The person who edited that piece and did not remove the antisemitic passage may just have lost all sensitivity to views that cross the line. Commission content just this side of lawsuit or boycott, and you’ve struck gold. Unfortunately for us, I don’t think his article will lead to a rethink of the entire genre of dinner-bore writing. The rewards are too high. We can perhaps look forward to a temporary lull. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Media
Opinion
BBC
Pay
Sunday Times
Newspapers
Newspapers & magazines
comment
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Google+
Share on WhatsApp
Share on Messenger
Reuse this content