How Twinkies Acquitted a Man From Murder
Before I dive into my article I must apologize to my readers for the actual subject
of this article is clickbait– I simply could not think of a better way to open an article on
the topic than . . . well . . . clickbait. For those deeply invested in the “Twinkie Defense,”
however, I have linked an article elaborating on the case to satisfy those curiosities,
though I still hope you all take the time to read this article as well.
In the writing of this article, I came across a wide range of definitions for clickbait,
but I believe this quote summarizes the spread: “At its best, clickbait is simply a
headline meant to generate interest for readers. At its worst, clickbait is a headline
meant to cause harm by spreading false or misleading information for the purpose of
increasing page views.”1 If clickbait was only a clever headline that creates interest on
the subject, I would likely favor its use in the media. Unfortunately I would argue that
this is not the case, and that this spectrum is far too broad. The term ‘clickbait’ itself may
allow for this broad interpretation, but the broad use of the term lends itself far better to
Jennifer Hester’s definition– a headline that “over-promises in its headline and
under-delivers in its content.” For the sake of this article, this is the definition/form of
clickbait that I will be referring to.
So now the big question: is it ethical? In short, I would argue that it is not ethical at all. This rests heavily on the idea
that the media has a responsibility to avoid publishing false information. This seems to
be a relatively uncontroversial claim; allowing the media to publish blatantly false
information is bound to undermine trust in the media and cause chaos. The bigger
question here is whether misleading information is fair game or not– as most traditional
clickbait is not blatantly false, but rather misleading in its claim/content. Here again, I
would argue that it should not be permitted. According to one estimate, roughly 60% of
U.S. adults admit to only reading article headlines when browsing news on social media
(the main method of contemporary news consumption). If that number is anywhere near
accurate, it is far too great of a risk to allow misleading headlines in an effort to drive
‘clicks.’ The amount of misinformation that would spread as a result is far too great to
justify, and like the aforementioned false reports may ultimately undermine the
legitimacy of the media altogether.
Pushback on this claim may come in two ways. The first would be that clickbait
can be used to push positive agendas. One can imagine a falsely titled article meant to
educate someone on the dangers of clickbait (LOL). Even so, the cons outweigh those
potential benefits. It would not be worth undermining the legitimacy of the media for
such a small number of cases.
The other obvious pushback is to argue that clickbait is protected by free speech.
It may be the case that false information can be published, but that it shouldn’t. It is
entirely possible for something to be legal but still be inconsistent with moral obligations.
One could even take the stance that false information (clickbait included) is morally
impermissible, but should not be made illegal due to potential repercussions from
limiting free speech. That is to say the media is morally obligated to avoid publishing
false/misleading information, but we cannot take legal action on the matter because if
we did we risk having our own rights to free speech violated. Regardless, I do not see
the government taking action on this matter in the near future. Perhaps for now we
should just do our best to avoid such information and double-check our sources.
Twinkie Defense: here
Sources:
- https://platformmagazine.org/2018/11/20/clickbait-the-good-the-bad-and-theugly/
- https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/what-is-the-twinkie-defe