We're inundated with spammy sensationalist click-bait. You know what I mean--the little boxes containing eye-candy photos and headlines such as "you won't believe how badly these stars have aged," "7 tricks to losing weight during Thanksgiving," "These children of celebs are so good looking your jaw will drop," "9 surprising signs of dementia" and outre classics such as "Hitler's shocking final words."
The "news" is "shocking," "secrets are revealed," and "surprising facts" are promised. Authorities are always cited as unimpeachable sources, and the headlines are quasi-plausible. (Why wouldn't good-looking celebs have good-looking offspring?)
But the "authorities," "facts" and "secrets" are all dubious. The spammy click-bait is self-serving to those promoting the sensationalist content, and to the media sites that promote the spammy content.
According to The New York Times, unidentified sources in the spammy sensationalist click-bait industry report that “We have been told from major, major publishers that we have become their No. 1 revenue provider."
So the spammy sensationalist click-bait content serves the interests of those originating the bogus spam and the media that publishes it. Talk about a two-fer; no wonder this junk is everywhere in the Corporate Media.
Though the Corporate Media denies it, of course, the lines between propaganda, paid content and actual reporting have blurred. The C.I.A. has played a major role in the Corporate Media for decades. If you doubt this, please study the following:
So what's the difference between "fake news," spammy sensationalist click-bait and so-called "mainstream news" that serves the interests of the corporate-state? It's getting hard to tell, as these examples illustrate.
I just pulled these examples of spammy sensationalist click-bait garbage off the mainstream Corporate Media more or less at random.
Oh wait a minute--isn't this "Trump is a stooge of Russia" and "Russia is threatening our precious bodily fluids" what The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN et al. are presenting as "factual" "news"?
Given the media's insatiable appetite for spammy sensationalist click-bait "news," it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see these next in the Corporate Media.
The Old Media followed this nostrum: If it bleeds, it leads, meaning the gory airline crash or auto pile-up was the leading "news story." In an era in which fact-free, evidence-free accusations that just happen to align with CIA agendas are passed off as "news," and anyone who questions the "authorities" is slandered as "promoting fake news" (talk about doublespeak), that promotion of mere gore now seems quaint.