In an online reality that thrives on brief attention spans and the necessity of clicks and site visits, clickbait is an inextricable concept.
It is often understood, whether incorrectly or not, as rife with inaccuracy. To be merely “clickbait” and nothing more implies a sense of mindlessness and distraction.
Yet its importance is undeniable. It is content that breeds discourse. It creates revenue through website traffic. It even generates employment. There are people, after all, who think of the attention-robbing titles, write the arresting stories, and plot out the fanciful tabloid headlines to scatter across the Internet.
Clickbait is part and parcel of realms like the entertainment industry. Veracity of “reports” notwithstanding, it is a mechanism that quickly sells narratives of run-of-the-mill celebrities—the happily domestic ex-movie star, the playboy boybander, the perfect pop princess. It constitutes the masterwork of public relations, with how personalities are given personalities for an audience to be aware of.
It is entirely different–and certainly more problematic–when this practice inches its way through the political sphere.
The election season has been seeing and will see more of one-liners and headlines written for shock factor, for clicks and shares. It will see more of quotes praised and lambasted throughout social media–quotes that will turn out to have been published sans context. It will see more of the vitriolic and the vindictive as individuals express views that are poorly and inadequately informed.
It is nothing less than irresponsible journalism to sensationalize statements of candidates at a time of voter discernment and discourse. Major, supposedly reputable publications become nothing more than gossip sites when they create content merely to sell, without regard for the integrity of information. Only, the effects are more complex. Electoral candidates are not celebrities with narratives that can be changed and layered, regardless of their authenticity. Celebrities primarily sell entertainment. Candidates, on the other hand, are potential policy makers. They are to be responsible for changes that affect lives on multiple levels through government mechanisms, economic strategies, and welfare, among others. Selling narratives of these individuals that are contrary to the truth by misreporting their statements and sensationalizing their actions thus becomes dangerous and problematic for a public in the midst of discerning their choices.
On the other hand, it is also a matter of voter responsibility to be critical of material being shared and spread. Regardless of whether one votes or not, there is a latent accountability for whatever facts and opinions are posted and disseminated. It is one thing to believe in and be entertained by the narratives presented by entertainment gossip sites and industry “news” about distant celebrities. It is a completely different matter to form rash, inadequately informed opinions on future public authorities based off on a headline or quote without figuring out contexts.
Sensationalism and clickbaiting are inevitable aspects of reportage and media, especially in the digital world. Yet in a field like politics, with its far-reaching impact, a greater discernment–a more critical outlook in the part of both the audience and the harbingers of news–is indubitably necessary.
