I would have like to see more reasoning and less emotional appeal in your argument. I’m deeply skeptical of this commonly-stated theory that people do something

I would have like to see more reasoning and less emotional appeal in your argument. I’m deeply skeptical of this commonly-stated theory that people do something because it generates clicks/sells books/whatever. Money is not the only motivator, it’s not a durable motivator, and even if it’s motivating to the business owners of the NYT, the reporter is not getting paid per click. (Or maybe they are! I’d be very surprised. Prove me wrong.) Do we have a systemic problem regarding what sort of headlines attract attention? I believe so, yes. Does that mean that everything—-or even just the things we dislike—-produced on a for-profit site is inherently biased? I doubt it. Such a position strikes me as profoundly naïve; in fact, it’s the same sort of naïvety that this article is talking about.