[JordanFarmer]

This is a sad effect of national media attention (Click bait and headline bait). I watch the news sometimes and wonder if we'd all be better off if it didn't exist...

Obligatory mention that There were more murders in Chicago this week and it gets no media headlines.

[amelius]

Ultimately it's all because of ads. If we all had to pay for our news, then we'd be more cautious and reluctant about clickbait headlines. And media would not be in a race to the bottom, affecting news quality.

[Ygg2]

I doubt this. Reason clickbait works is because it's more attention grabbing. It's more attention grabbing because it appeals to human innate fears.

And even if clickbait is banned and subscription mandatory, media would be in a race to the bottom. Just a slightly different one.

[TeMPOraL]

Reason clickbait works is because it is needed to drive page views. In a subscription model, media sites would have an incentive to put out stories that are interesting beyond the first page view.

[Ygg2]

Ok. But if you can't view more than a paragraph, why not just judge the article by the headline.

[otakucode]

If there were no media headlines, then the amount of murders would fall if headlines were the causal effect. You're undoing your own point.

[anigbrowl]

There were more murders in Chicago this week

Oops, you forgot to change the capitalization on your copypasta.

[mathgeek]

News that is free to consume is the same as any other free product: the reader/viewer is the product.

[foolrush]

Many countries with a tremendous backbone in journalistic research have done pretty well using public funded news.

The BBC and it’s ilk was a beacon for years. The trope is exhausting.

[mathgeek]

Funded via public revenue isn’t the same as ad-supported. The former is still paid for by the group that many consumers are a part of. It’s only “free” in the manner that a public road is “free”.