Sensationalism, the Attention Economy, and the Crisis of Trust in News

A conversation with Newsjunkie publisher Gordon Whiting, hosted by Matt Fidler

In this episode of Who’s Behind the News from Newsjunkie.net, host and producer Matt Fidler speaks with Newsjunkie co-founder and publisher Gordon Whiting about sensationalism, the attention economy, and the erosion of public trust in journalism. Their discussion traces the business incentives that have shaped news from 19th-century newspapers to modern social media, and explores whether sustainable alternatives for journalism can emerge.

What gets incentivized in today’s attention economy?
Rage bait. You need eyeballs and ears. Without attention, you don’t have a business.

Do you think the news media is broken right now?
Some of it works, but much of it doesn’t. Many things that claim to be news aren’t serving the purpose of journalism or the community. It’s not nonfunctional, but it may be headed for the emergency room.

You often avoid the term “media.” Why? How does it differ from journalism?
“Media” simply means something that carries a message. It isn’t journalism per se. It’s the channel—the delivery system—from the originator to the audience. Over time, the term has become synonymous with journalism, but they aren’t the same thing.

What connects newspapers, radio, television, and the internet?
The attention economy. The term is new, but the concept isn’t. Hearst, Pulitzer, and Harmsworth had perfected it by the late 19th century. Sensational headlines attracted attention and sold papers. That same model adapted to radio, then television, and later to cable news and the internet. The form changed, but the psychology stayed the same.

How were early newspapers supported? Was journalism always a business?
Even in Thomas Jefferson’s time, newspapers sold copies and ran advertisements. The Civil War created enormous demand for news, and by the 1880s, Pulitzer and Hearst elevated sensationalism to a new level. “Extra! Extra!” meant something major had happened—much like “breaking news” today, though now that label is often overused.

Why were readership numbers so important?
They validated legitimacy and drove advertising revenue. Circulation numbers were audited and printed in the masthead. Higher readership meant higher ad rates. That’s where the modern attention economy really took shape.

Broadcast news once functioned as a public service. What changed?
Originally, radio and television balanced public service with entertainment. If you wanted I Love Lucy, you also had to support Edward R. Murrow. Over time, networks pushed advertising further and further, until content existed primarily to support ads rather than the other way around.

How did cable news and the internet intensify these incentives?
The internet lowered the cost of entry into the attention game. Now thousands—or hundreds of thousands—of creators compete for the same audience. That competition rewards outrage and confirmation bias.

How does psychology factor into this?
It’s about dopamine. Humans are prone to addiction, and sensational content delivers chemical rewards. It often comes wrapped in the appearance of journalism, which makes it feel legitimate—even when it’s incomplete or distorted.

There are still many good journalists. Why is trust so low?
The industry bears some responsibility due to its commercial orientation. Serious reporting is often inseparable from advertising. On top of that, there’s relentless political attack on the press. When leaders repeatedly label journalism as “fake,” it undermines trust across society.

Could nonprofit journalism solve this problem?
Nonprofit news is having a strong moment, but sustainability remains uncertain. Grant funding can be fragile, especially when political winds shift. There’s a lot of experimentation happening, but no single model has clearly emerged as the answer.

What gives you hope for the future of journalism?
Holding power to account is essential to democracy, and people aren’t giving up on that. New distribution models—subscriptions, direct support, independent platforms—show promise. Legacy media may not recover, but journalism itself isn’t going away.

Edited from a recorded conversation originally produced for Newsjunkie.net