The Modern-Day James Callenders
A notorious journalist from the 1790s would likely thrive in today's "clickbait" environment.
In the late 1790's, when the U.S. Constitution wasn't even 10 years old, James Callender made his way from Scotland to Philadelphia, where he became prominent in finding ways to reveal one scandal after another about those in power.
First came Alexander Hamilton, in which Callender reported about an affair Hamilton had with another woman, then claimed that Hamilton tried to silence the woman's husband with a bribe. Hamilton admitted to the affair but denied the bribe, the latter which was never proven.
Meanwhile, Thomas Jefferson, who opposed numerous policies that Hamilton and President George Washington supported, had been giving Callender financial support while Jefferson had served as Washington's Secretary of State. When John Adams became President and Jefferson became Vice President, Callender's attacks on Federalists continued.
Only now, Callender was attacking Adams, claiming that he was "mentally deranged" planning to crown himself king and grooming his son John Quincy Adams to take over.
Callender was later jailed under the Sedition Act, but after Jefferson won the Presidency, he pardoned Callender (the Sedition Act was later repealed). Callender then demanded that Jefferson appoint him as postmaster of Richmond, Va. Jefferson was unwilling to do so.
That prompted Callender to switch sides and attack Jefferson, revealing Jefferson's financial support earlier, then reporting Jefferson's own scandal that he had fathered a child with a slave.
Callender is a prime example of the journalist whose primary motive was to fuel outrage, even if what he reported was true. This type of journalist has not gone away and, in today's environment, thrives thanks to the business model that dominates.
The "clickbait journalism" model will sometimes have correct information, but it's framed in a way that's designed to drive emotion, whether it's "rah rah rah" or "boooo, BOOOO!" It's not about giving people as much information as possible and letting people draw their own conclusions; it's about feeding people’s outrage.
In today's environment, I would expect Callender to thrive, because people are drawn to "scandals," whether they turn out to be true or not. And while plenty of journalists who have fallen into the "clickbait" mindset aren't likely to switch sides because they got dissed by somebody on their side, the "clickbait" mindset is all that's needed to ensure they thrive.
Because while lots of people talk about how they are losing trust in the media, who is to say that these same people aren't falling into the "clickbait" trap themselves? Regardless of what is or isn't true about the behavior of certain journalists, the fact that people can't stop talking about it is exactly what's driving the business model.
The business dynamic for journalism has changed — and some might say "and not in a good way." As Matt Taibbi wrote in his book Hate Inc., local newspapers, radio and TV stations could corner the advertising in their local markets. In today's environment, that's gone, largely thanks to the Internet and the ability to reach more people at a lower cost or even for no fee.
Thus, the desire for "clickbait" increases -- and it works because people keep taking the bait. It's one of the reasons why Les Moonves once declared about the Donald Trump 2016 Presidential campaign: "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."
Whether it was "rah rah rah" or "boooo, BOOOO!" the reason why Moonves said what he said is because, when the media covered Trump, people watched and, thus, the "clickbait" model worked.
The "clickbait" model is the reason why I don't expect to see anything to happen to certain journalists who are screwing up all the time, because what matters less is what they get right and what matters more is if they keep the traffic flowing.
If the Washington Post has suffered little from how it screwed up its reporting on Nicholas Sandmann's encounter with Nathan Phillips, then why would anyone expect it to suffer if Taylor Lorenz keeps showing how terrible she (and the Post) is with journalistic ethics, when all that's really happening is the "clickbait" model thriving, whether it's in favor of the Post or in favor of those criticizing the Washington Post.
This is not a call for all criticism to end. It's a call for people to be careful not to fall into the trap of "clickbait" and avoid feeding those who seek it. Here are some suggestions I would offer.
* Train your brain to spot "clickbait" and avoid clicking on it, especially if it boosts your politics.
* Ask yourself if it's better to ignore somebody than endlessly criticize them, particularly if that somebody never changes their approach or tactics.
* Seek out those who will challenge your own beliefs, but do so in a manner that makes you think rather than react.
* Realize that you shouldn't immerse yourself in the world of news all the time. Shut off the 24-7 news station, delete the apps, and don't tell yourself you must always stay informed about the latest controversy.
While I don't see the modern-day James Callenders fading away any time soon, you may be able limit the influence they have. And, who knows -- if enough people decide they are done with "clickbait," you might see the influence of the modern-day James Callenders diminish, at least.