I'm worried about journalism, you guys. But not in the way you think. Most complaints about the direction that reporting is going are coming from old geezers who don't want to learn how to use the internet and despise political correctness.
That's not me.
What I'm worried about is the ongoing devolution of smart, insightful writing in exchange for overly-generalized ploys by websites to get views. And it goes beyond just writing. I'm sure many of you have seen the popular Facebook image of a minute diamond with the caption "If a man proposed to you with this, would you say yes?" This image exists to incite a response of outrage, indignation, or, in some cases, refusal. It creates controversy because it exploits instantaneous reactions from its viewers. But whether you're for or against this image's concept, the creator does not care. They are getting shares, which often correspond to the amount that they will be paid for making it, as is the case with even this article that you're reading right now.
Yup. That's right. Even this article isn't immune.
This trend also extends beyond journalism to new media, like YouTube videos. A video entitled "Dear Fat People" has been viewed millions of times, and while the message of the video was mean-spirited and insulting to the vast majority of people, the creator monetized that video and received money whether you agreed with her or commented on it negatively (although she took the comments section and ability to like or dislike the video off due to the overwhelming rejection of everything she said).
Companies that own websites and hire creators and writers have decided to make content a numbers game. By encouraging writers to make "attention-grabbing" headlines about personal, controversial, or just overly-generalized topics, they are sending a message that they don't care about the quality of an article, just the quantity of views that their website gets overall. By giving in to this social media tendency to provoke discussion--any discussion--whether it adds to our cultural value or if it's just a reaction piece about some poor famous woman's makeup "blunder".
(Amy Schumer isn't here for that trash.)
Another weakness in this system is the near-instant demand for articles, which makes them by default lower in quality. A lot of these articles are reactionary to a single occurrence (i.e. Did Gigi Hadid cut her hair? The answer: Irrelevant. Famous people don't play by the same hair rules as us mortals.) so clicking on the article usually only leads to an Instagram post or YouTube video.
The solution to this frenzy of over-sharing is simple and it starts with you, as a consumer of media. Think about what you're sharing. If you, like many others, think that Kylie Jenner's wheelchair photo shoot was in poor taste, pick a reactionary article to share that was actually written by someone in a wheelchair. Let people in minority populations represent themselves, choose your arguments with your gun-hungry conservative relatives sparingly, or better yet, do your own research and make your own posts! 
Don't limit yourself to the one culturally insensitive article in front of you, and don't hate-watch videos that you know conflict with your own values. Consume wisely.
