With clickbait no longer confined to tabloids, legacy media outlets have joined the race for views in an increasingly competitive industry. “If it bleeds, it leads” is no longer a cliché—it’s an understatement. A new study, led by Arash Amini, introduces a mathematical model that explores how the pursuit of clicks and attention may drive news organizations toward misinformation as a survival tactic.
The findings describe a troubling, escalating “arms race” in which mainstream media outlets struggle to stand out amid a flood of content. This pressure can incentivize sacrificing accuracy for traffic. Amini and his team developed the study to help researchers better understand the trade-off between short-term rewards—like more clicks or views—and the long-term costs, such as a loss of public trust.
Arash Amini and his colleagues note, “Our results emphasize the effectiveness of educational initiatives aimed at improving media literacy and lower susceptibility. By equipping individuals with the skills to better assess the credibility of the information they consume, one can decrease the overall susceptibility to the community.”
“We’re witnessing a kind of ‘misinformation arms race’ among news outlets,” Kathryn Kolaczek, CEO of Alchemy Communications, a crisis communications firm, told The Debrief. “It’s not always a conscious choice—often, it’s a matter of survival. When one outlet resorts to exaggerated or false stories to attract readers, others feel compelled to follow suit just to keep up. This isn’t necessarily about malice; it’s about adapting to the realities of a fiercely competitive market.”
Employing a game-theory-based framework to model how news sources decide what information to share, the team used a zero-sum game approach, where the model simulates how media entities choose between publishing accurate reporting or resorting to misinformation. Central to the model is the concept of quantal response equilibrium, which assumes that players may make errors in judgment when deciding which strategy to pursue.
The researchers incorporated three key variables: the source’s credibility score, the number of accurate articles published, and the audience’s preexisting beliefs. The model also accounted for real-world factors such as exposure to misinformation and how credibility aligns with the audience’s core values.
Unsurprisingly, the data reflected the polarized nature of today’s media landscape and demonstrated how easily a news outlet’s credibility can fluctuate based on content choices, large or small. The model shows how a misinformation “arms race” can rapidly emerge—once one outlet embraces false or sensational content, others may follow suit to remain competitive.
The model also suggests how an “arms race” would increase the polarization of the audience, leading to echo chambers. The study’s authors state, “In other words, we cannot explicitly label news sources that strategically use misinformation as malicious, as their decision-making may have emerged through repeated interactions, making information distortion a natural outcome for hyperpartisan media.”
“The real cost of this short-term chase for traffic is the erosion of credibility,” Kolaczek warns. “When media outlets sacrifice accuracy for attention, public trust suffers, and that’s a direct threat to democracy. If people can’t rely on the press for truthful information, how can they make informed decisions about their leaders and policies?”
Not only is the media shaping public perception, but public relations agencies are sometimes quietly influencing what gets published.
“Public relations professionals play a significant role in shaping what gets reported, especially during crises,” Kolaczek explains. “When journalists are stretched thin, they often rely on press releases, which can lead to the spread of unchecked or misleading information. If PR is driven by media impressions rather than ethics, it can become a powerful vector for misinformation.”
As far as a solution in terms of addressing a media landscape awash in clickbait and polarization, Kolaczek suggests that “to protect democracy and ensure the survival of independent media, we need to move away from advertising-driven models.”
“Subscription services, reader donations, and partnerships offer more stable and ethical alternatives that allow newsrooms to prioritize accuracy and public service over clickbait,” Kolaczek says.
As the study highlights, misinformation appears to be increasingly embedded in mainstream media strategy. With traditional outlets rarely holding journalists accountable, the growth of independent, vetted journalism may continue. But in a climate so saturated with distortion, the deeper question remains: can we still trust one another to tell the truth?
Chrissy Newton is a PR professional and founder of VOCAB Communications. She currently appears on The Discovery Channel and Max and hosts the Rebelliously Curious podcast, which can be found on YouTube and on all audio podcast streaming platforms. Follow her on X: @ChrissyNewton, Instagram: @BeingChrissyNewton, and chrissynewton.com.