It's a tough dilemma for any ad-supported news organization. You get paid by getting eyeballs on a story. With most people getting their news via social network

It's a tough dilemma for any ad-supported news organization. You get paid by getting eyeballs on a story. With most people getting their news via social networks and aggregators you need a headline that is shareable and yet still gets people to click through for the remaining article. If the headline is too informative you get fewer eyeballs and less revenue. So, if you're the editor of Washington Post, what do you choose? The headline that appeals to emotion and encourages clicks, or an accurate headline that is less appealing and less vague? Especially knowing that there's a fleet of rebloggers out there who will take your story, turn it into 10 pages of slides and "credit" you but have the more clickbait headline?