Graphic courtesy of Nick Youngson via Pix4free.
By Aoife Paul Healy ’26 and Gabriella Rodriguez ’27
Staff Writer | Section Editor
With many news stations relying on viewer engagement to support their newspapers, online journalism has seen an overwhelming prevalence of clickbait and paywalls, so much so that it has become the new norm for online newspapers. As journalistic standards are an expense, what happens to those who can’t afford it?
Algorithms determine what kind of content readers engage with and shuttle them toward a constant feed of similar content. For example, if a user frequently clicks on Facebook links from a particular news source, then Facebook will push them towards more content from those sites. The use of these “filter bubbles” — mechanisms that ensure users are exposed to more “filtered” content from particular sources — means that, by tracking their browser history, the algorithm shows users material that is guaranteed to grab and hold their attention for as long as possible. Consequently, they are rarely exposed to different viewpoints, like other political opinions. Isolating users from diverse perspectives will only lead them to seek out information that strengthens their own confirmation biases. This is dangerous as people often become more polarized and hostile towards those who share different opinions than them, impeding their ability to have a civil discussion.
As a tremendous amount of content is being shared on social media platforms at any given time, engagement increasingly depends on whether or not authors can grab and hold the reader’s attention. Clickbait’s overwhelming prevalence undermines the credibility of news on social media platforms. Though we understand that many news reporters need site traffic and viewer engagement to draw in revenue, the bait-and-switch nature of titles along the lines of “you won’t believe” and “this shocking thing happened” is a forced and unprofessional way to draw user interest.
Oftentimes, while the articles themselves may be thorough and insightful, the clickbait-style titles that accompany them diminish their credibility and image. While we can certainly sympathize with news stations trying to draw in viewership and spread their work, reductive and clickbait-style titles ultimately damage their integrity.
Clickbait preys upon instant gratification and short attention spans, which seem to be the core tenets of social media. We are hard-wired to seek out information, but when we are flooded with information on social media, our brains must devise new ways of selecting what is most eye-catching and important. As a result, we are often drawn to whatever seems most straightforward, shocking and essential, such as titles with buzzwords and lists. Newspaper reporters understand this, to an extent, and exploit this quality to draw viewers to their websites. Unfortunately, with such a deluge of information, and not all of it verifiable, hooking readers’ attention becomes the most important thing.
Misinformation is deeply entrenched in online information narratives, most likely because success is measured via clicks, financially incentivizing clickbait articles and contributing heavily to their online prevalence. Because engagement is the measurement of interest, this content is persistent, effectively overcoming its journalistically superior counterparts in both popularity and revenue. How can genuine journalism compete?
The real answer seems to be that it can’t — not without finding a different source of income. The other alternative, then, is locking news behind a paywall. That is, readers can only access a newspaper article if they subscribe to a newspaper or their free trial. At its core, it is a reasonable necessity; these news collectives need money to sustain themselves. But what happens when access to every form of well-researched and high-quality journalism becomes a question of wealth?
When accessing information becomes contingent on whether or not someone can pay, some demographics are barred from it. Either from a lack of affordability, an issue of accessibility via online-only payments, or an unreliable source of income unable to keep up with several subscription charges, the reasons why an individual may not have access to a paywalled article are wide-reaching.
With these ideas in mind, the working designs of social media and journalistic standards seem almost diametrically opposed. The fact that financially, social media backs misinformation over integrity only adds further opposition between them.
The overwhelming amount of clickbait and newspaper articles locked behind paywalls is damaging the image and integrity of online journalism. While there is still essential news and valuable journalism being shared in the age of social media, it seems increasingly shrouded by flashy clickbait titles—or dependent on whether or not people can pay for it. If high-quality news is becoming an expense and most Americans say they are living paycheck to paycheck, what will be left for the majority of citizens to read?