> Sensationalist news is more successful in spreading / catching interest than accurate news. This is largely a direct result of the advertising model of the i

> Sensationalist news is more successful in spreading / catching interest than accurate news. This is largely a direct result of the advertising model of the internet/news where advertisers believe they can measure "engagement" on websites. Sensationalist news grabs more eyeballs, and keeps them grabbed more (i.e., more "engagement" being measured) which internet advertisers are willing to pay more to obtain [1]. Since the "news" is advertiser funded in very large part, the "news" is drawn to publish ever more sensationalist stories to increase their magic "engagement" number that the advertiser believe is telling them something in order to bring in more money for the "news". Repeat the cycle over about a ten to fifteen year period [2] and you get the current crop of stories specifically designed to make nearly everything maximally sensationalist. So it would seem that one solution is to find a way where "the news" is not perversely incentivized to sensationalize every story for the purpose of maximizing their own revenue. I am, however, unsure of exactly what form that solution might take. [1] I'm ignoring counter arguments that would argue that their measures are likely faulty and/or are not measuring what they think they are measuring. Those arguments, while likely true, miss the fact that the advertisers believe their measurements are measuring what they believe is being measured, so they pay more for more of it, whether it is really there or not. I.e., they have convinced themselves that their measurements are accurate, regardless of reality. [2] which is about how long it has been since major "news" really /discovered/ the internet and figured out how to try to profit from it.