- Clickbait Culture: When The Hunt For Clicks Compromises Media Ethics
In today's digital media landscape, attention is everything. With millions of stories competing for eyeballs every second, publishers often resort to flashy, misleading, or emotionally charged headlines to stand out. While these tactics might bring short-term traffic spikes, they raise serious ethical concerns and contribute to a growing mistrust of the media.
Have you ever clicked on a headline that promised to 'reveal the shocking truth' only to find a bland, underwhelming article? That's the bait – and you just got hooked. Welcome to the world of clickbait.
The modern internet runs on attention. Every click, view, and share can be converted into ad revenue. As social media platforms use algorithms that promote high-engagement content, the incentive for news outlets is clear: be the loudest, most provocative voice in the room – even if it comes at the cost of accuracy.
Experts in media psychology have noted that these tactics rely on what's called a "curiosity gap" – the space between what the headline teases and what the story actually reveals. By deliberately withholding key information, content creators make readers feel compelled to click just to satisfy that curiosity. In many cases, the payoff is disappointing. And the more that happens, the more readers become sceptical – not just of the outlet, but of journalism itself.
Clickbait is a strategy designed to do one thing: make you click. It often takes the form of over-the-top headlines, dramatic thumbnail images, or cryptic social media captions that prey on your curiosity. These hooks are engineered to be irresistible -tapping into human impulses like the fear of missing out (FOMO), outrage, or suspense.
Clickbait isn't just annoying – it's dangerous. Studies have shown that people who repeatedly engage with clickbait headlines are more likely to distrust the media. A 2022 survey found that even when readers know a headline is exaggerated, repeated exposure leads to a general scepticism toward all news.
Another reason clickbait thrives is that many of us no longer read full articles. We scroll through headlines on social media, letting those few words shape our understanding of complex events. In this environment, a misleading headline can have more influence than a well-researched article buried beneath it.
Digital media researcher Fahim Rahman pointed out in 2023 that media companies are under constant pressure to generate revenue, and 'engagement metrics have quietly replaced editorial integrity'. He argued that when journalism is reduced to a numbers game, sensationalism often wins.
This effect becomes especially troubling during times of crises. Take the COVID-19 pandemic, for example. Viral headlines about "miracle cures" or "what doctors don't want you to know" spread like wildfire. Many of these claims were not only misleading – they were harmful. People changed their health behaviours based on content designed to generate clicks, not deliver facts.
What's worse is that even when the article itself is accurate, a misleading headline can leave a lasting impression. Readers may not retain the nuanced truth – they remember the emotional pull of the exaggerated claim. Over time, this distorts public understanding and contributes to the spread of misinformation.
In 2016, Facebook took a public stand against clickbait after facing backlash over its role in spreading sensational and misleading content during the U.S. presidential election. The tech giant rolled out an algorithm tweak that demoted posts with headlines like 'You'll Never Believe What Happened Next!' or 'This Simple Trick Changed Everything!'
Adam Mosseri, then head of Facebook's News Feed team, explained that the platform had developed a system to detect commonly used clickbait phrases and reduce their visibility in users' feeds. The move was a step in the right direction – at least on paper.
But the strategy had its limits. Publishers quickly found ways around the filters by tweaking their wording just enough to avoid detection. This arms race between content creators and algorithm designers revealed a deeper truth: technical fixes alone won't solve a cultural problem.
The ethical dilemma
At its core, clickbait raises tough ethical questions. Is it acceptable to mislead people – even a little – if it means drawing attention to an important issue? Some would argue yes, especially under a utilitarian view where the outcome justifies the means.
But many ethicists strongly disagree. They point out that journalism is not just about what's effective – it's about what's right. The moment media organisations compromise on honesty, they breach the fundamental trust that holds the public and the press together.
Communication ethics also stresses the importance of respecting the audience. Misleading headlines manipulate readers rather than inform them. As consumers become more aware of this manipulation, media outlets face a choice: regain trust through transparency, or risk losing credibility altogether.
So how do we fix the clickbait problem?
It starts with better newsroom practices. Editors and journalists need to apply the same standards to headlines as they do to body text. That means no exaggerations, no half-truths, and no emotional manipulation for the sake of traffic.
Technology can help, too. Some publishers are experimenting with AI tools to analyse headlines for sensationalism before articles go live. Others are adding trust indicators – like estimated reading time or content previews – to set clearer expectations for readers.
But the responsibility isn't just on the creators. As consumers, we need stronger digital literacy. Schools, universities, and public education campaigns should teach people how to evaluate online content, spot manipulative tactics, and think critically about what they read and share.
Rahman suggests that lasting change will require a combined effort: platforms enforcing consistent policies, publishers upholding ethical standards, and readers staying informed and sceptical. 'Clickbait thrives in ignorance,' he notes. 'Education is our best defence.'
Clickbait may seem like a harmless marketing trick – but it reflects a deeper conflict between profit and principle in the digital age. While the race for clicks can boost numbers on a dashboard, it chips away at something far more valuable: public trust.
In the end, every headline is a promise. When that promise is broken – again and again – the damage isn't just to one article or one outlet. It's to journalism itself.
So, the next time you see a headline that screams for your attention, take a moment to ask: is this worth the click? And more importantly, is it worth the compromise?
-- BERNAMA
Akmal Nadzmi Azlan and Dr Mohd Istajib Mokhtar are from the Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, Universiti Malaya. They may be reached at ista.ajib@um.edu.my .
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
a day ago
- New Straits Times
Free food cafe serving the poor closes after five years amid funding crunch
ALOR SETAR: A free food cafe that once served as a lifeline for the homeless and the poor has been forced to shut down after nearly five years due to a lack of funding. The cafe, run by Food Bank Malaysia, first opened at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 at premises on Jalan Sultanah and had since become a fixture for free meal distribution. Its founder, Mohd Azrul Mohd Razak, 40, said the initiative started with food basket distributions after seeing how many people were struggling during the pandemic. "Many came asking for help. Some had lost their jobs, others became homeless. I also thought about those renting small rooms without kitchens. "They were hungry too, but had no place to cook. That's when I started turning the space below our office into a cafe where they could come and eat," he said. Starting with a small kitchen and help from friends, Azrul and a team of volunteers prepared food every Friday. They served rice, dishes, vegetables and either fruit or ice cream for the children. "Those who came were not only allowed to eat there, but could also pack food for their families at home, especially if someone was unwell and couldn't come. "We created a restaurant-like concept so that children from poor families could enjoy the experience of dining out, which they usually only watched others do," said the father of four. Azrul said the cafe saw a steady flow of 50 to 80 visitors each week. Preparations would begin as early as 3pm, with food served after Maghrib prayers until 10pm or 11pm. What made the cafe even more special was how it provided side income opportunities for single mothers and asnaf (eligible zakat recipients), who were paid to cook and clean. "This wasn't just a place to eat. It was a space to help more people whether they were hungry or in need of work to support their families," he said. However, since the beginning of this year, the cafe's regular funding began to dry up. Azrul said that from February onwards, he and his fellow volunteers relied on their savings and personal contributions to keep things going. "Last week, on July 12, that was our last day of operations. Once the money completely ran out, we had no choice but to close," he said. The closure, he added, was felt not only by the recipients but also by the volunteers, who had become like a big family. "This place wasn't just for meals. It was where they shared stories, laughed, and relieved stress. That atmosphere is gone now," he said. Each meal session cost up to RM1,000, including ingredients and wages, amounting to around RM4,000 monthly, a burden that became unsustainable without regular sponsorship. Now, although the cafe's doors are shut, Azrul and his team continue distributing food baskets to the best of their ability. "We use our own salaries and chip in a little each. Just so they'll still have some groceries at home," he said. Azrul said he truly understands the hardship of going hungry, having experienced it himself as a child. "Because I've felt hunger, I know how painful it is. When God gives more, I just want to give back," he said.
Barnama
a day ago
- Barnama
- Clickbait Culture: When The Hunt For Clicks Compromises Media Ethics
Opinions on topical issues from thought leaders, columnists and editors. In today's digital media landscape, attention is everything. With millions of stories competing for eyeballs every second, publishers often resort to flashy, misleading, or emotionally charged headlines to stand out. While these tactics might bring short-term traffic spikes, they raise serious ethical concerns and contribute to a growing mistrust of the media. Have you ever clicked on a headline that promised to 'reveal the shocking truth' only to find a bland, underwhelming article? That's the bait – and you just got hooked. Welcome to the world of clickbait. The modern internet runs on attention. Every click, view, and share can be converted into ad revenue. As social media platforms use algorithms that promote high-engagement content, the incentive for news outlets is clear: be the loudest, most provocative voice in the room – even if it comes at the cost of accuracy. Experts in media psychology have noted that these tactics rely on what's called a "curiosity gap" – the space between what the headline teases and what the story actually reveals. By deliberately withholding key information, content creators make readers feel compelled to click just to satisfy that curiosity. In many cases, the payoff is disappointing. And the more that happens, the more readers become sceptical – not just of the outlet, but of journalism itself. Clickbait is a strategy designed to do one thing: make you click. It often takes the form of over-the-top headlines, dramatic thumbnail images, or cryptic social media captions that prey on your curiosity. These hooks are engineered to be irresistible -tapping into human impulses like the fear of missing out (FOMO), outrage, or suspense. Clickbait isn't just annoying – it's dangerous. Studies have shown that people who repeatedly engage with clickbait headlines are more likely to distrust the media. A 2022 survey found that even when readers know a headline is exaggerated, repeated exposure leads to a general scepticism toward all news. Another reason clickbait thrives is that many of us no longer read full articles. We scroll through headlines on social media, letting those few words shape our understanding of complex events. In this environment, a misleading headline can have more influence than a well-researched article buried beneath it. Digital media researcher Fahim Rahman pointed out in 2023 that media companies are under constant pressure to generate revenue, and 'engagement metrics have quietly replaced editorial integrity'. He argued that when journalism is reduced to a numbers game, sensationalism often wins. This effect becomes especially troubling during times of crises. Take the COVID-19 pandemic, for example. Viral headlines about "miracle cures" or "what doctors don't want you to know" spread like wildfire. Many of these claims were not only misleading – they were harmful. People changed their health behaviours based on content designed to generate clicks, not deliver facts. What's worse is that even when the article itself is accurate, a misleading headline can leave a lasting impression. Readers may not retain the nuanced truth – they remember the emotional pull of the exaggerated claim. Over time, this distorts public understanding and contributes to the spread of misinformation. In 2016, Facebook took a public stand against clickbait after facing backlash over its role in spreading sensational and misleading content during the U.S. presidential election. The tech giant rolled out an algorithm tweak that demoted posts with headlines like 'You'll Never Believe What Happened Next!' or 'This Simple Trick Changed Everything!' Adam Mosseri, then head of Facebook's News Feed team, explained that the platform had developed a system to detect commonly used clickbait phrases and reduce their visibility in users' feeds. The move was a step in the right direction – at least on paper. But the strategy had its limits. Publishers quickly found ways around the filters by tweaking their wording just enough to avoid detection. This arms race between content creators and algorithm designers revealed a deeper truth: technical fixes alone won't solve a cultural problem. The ethical dilemma At its core, clickbait raises tough ethical questions. Is it acceptable to mislead people – even a little – if it means drawing attention to an important issue? Some would argue yes, especially under a utilitarian view where the outcome justifies the means. But many ethicists strongly disagree. They point out that journalism is not just about what's effective – it's about what's right. The moment media organisations compromise on honesty, they breach the fundamental trust that holds the public and the press together. Communication ethics also stresses the importance of respecting the audience. Misleading headlines manipulate readers rather than inform them. As consumers become more aware of this manipulation, media outlets face a choice: regain trust through transparency, or risk losing credibility altogether. So how do we fix the clickbait problem? It starts with better newsroom practices. Editors and journalists need to apply the same standards to headlines as they do to body text. That means no exaggerations, no half-truths, and no emotional manipulation for the sake of traffic. Technology can help, too. Some publishers are experimenting with AI tools to analyse headlines for sensationalism before articles go live. Others are adding trust indicators – like estimated reading time or content previews – to set clearer expectations for readers. But the responsibility isn't just on the creators. As consumers, we need stronger digital literacy. Schools, universities, and public education campaigns should teach people how to evaluate online content, spot manipulative tactics, and think critically about what they read and share. Rahman suggests that lasting change will require a combined effort: platforms enforcing consistent policies, publishers upholding ethical standards, and readers staying informed and sceptical. 'Clickbait thrives in ignorance,' he notes. 'Education is our best defence.' Clickbait may seem like a harmless marketing trick – but it reflects a deeper conflict between profit and principle in the digital age. While the race for clicks can boost numbers on a dashboard, it chips away at something far more valuable: public trust. In the end, every headline is a promise. When that promise is broken – again and again – the damage isn't just to one article or one outlet. It's to journalism itself. So, the next time you see a headline that screams for your attention, take a moment to ask: is this worth the click? And more importantly, is it worth the compromise? -- BERNAMA Akmal Nadzmi Azlan and Dr Mohd Istajib Mokhtar are from the Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, Universiti Malaya. They may be reached at .
New Straits Times
3 days ago
- New Straits Times
Development goals progress insufficient, says UN
NEW YORK: Ten years after the United Nations (UN) adopted its Sustainable Development Goals, it said more people now have access to the Internet, but major issues like hunger have worsened. UN member states committed in 2015 to pursuing 17 goals that range from ending extreme poverty and hunger to pursuing gender equality and clean energy by 2030. In a report published on Monday, the UN said 35 per cent of the objectives were advancing, while around half had stagnated and the rest were heading backwards. This scorecard, it said, showed that the progress was "insufficient". Among the most successful was improving access to electricity, with 92 per cent of the world connected by 2023. Internet usage has also risen from 40 per cent to 68 per cent worldwide in the last decade. Some 110 million more children and young people had entered school since 2015, the report said, while maternal mortality had fallen from 228 deaths per 100,000 births in 2015 to 197 in 2023. But some goals have receded despite this progress. In 2023, 757 million people (9.1 per cent of the world's population) were suffering from hunger, compared with 713 million (7.5 per cent) in 2019, the report said. More than 800 million people, around one in 10 people worldwide, are living in extreme poverty. "Eradicating extreme poverty by 2030 appears highly unlikely due to slow recovery from Covid-19 pandemic impacts, economic instability, climate shocks and sluggish growth in sub-Saharan Africa," the report said. UN chief Antonio Guterres warned that the world was facing a global development emergency. It was, he added, "an emergency measured in the over 800 million people still living in extreme poverty. In intensifying climate impacts. And in relentless debt service, draining the resources that countries need to invest in their people". However, Guterres struck a positive tone on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, saying that if they didn't exist, "many of these achievements would never have been reached".
