You aren’t cool for slapping a provocative statement on a story for reaction—that’s unethical.

In this day and age, I’ve noticed that having a story amped up by sensationalism quite literally makes the entire event fade away in a flicker. Creating headlines that mislead about the very thing that you’re supposed to inform? If that’s your preferred practice, then congratulations! You’re prioritizing reaction instead of responsibility. Journalism isn’t just based on shock factor; it’s guided by key factors such as speed, information, reliability, and public service. It’s like a stake to the heart to see young journalists adopt such habits. Having to continue such activities to grow in a professional field often raises reactions while almost diminishing credibility.

While I can see the need for exciting words to bring in readers, are you truly ready to raise emotion more than ethics? Because if so, then you’re most likely to destroy trust in information—and that’s backed up by research. In a study led by Corina Pelau, they found that pieces that are presented in a “breaking news” style can attract viewers in the short term. However, the adverse effect of that is the reduced credibility of the content. While using such tones can be beneficial, you must never apply them recklessly to ensure the stability of your piece.

While we’re at it, I might as well include an example of such reports, like the Summer of the Shark in 2001. That was sensationalist coverage of shark attacks during the summer that started in early July, following the shark incident involving 8-year-old Jessie Arbogast. The report continued—almost nonstop—despite evidence that there was no increase in shark attacks. If you asked me, would that reporting be a good example of twisting stories for clicks? I would say that, personally, that portrayal is a great example of spreading a story without any factual basis or merit.

Abusing reporting styles like these not only misleads, but also conditions, formulates, and incubates the audience to distrust journalism as a whole. When exaggeration evolves into a routine, readers grow numb, skeptical, or even worse—indifferent. Facts begin to feel negotiable, like a mother bargaining with a seller. The truth is seen as an opinion, like a shapeshifter performing as someone else. For a student journalist to adopt this erratic manner, the field they enter begins to crumble—bit by bit.

Journalism isn’t a drama rendition for self-branding and being the main character; it’s a responsibility inherited from professionals who built the walls of credibility through strain and accuracy. When you decide to evoke emotions rather than substance, you are throwing bombs at the very building that the field stands on. When you decide to evoke emotions rather than matter, you are actively damaging a story that deserves to be heard by the public. When you decide to evoke emotions rather than body, you are murdering the trust that connects the information with the people. You may say that you stand with the truth, but you may never say that you never stood in front of it.

So, maybe you can call yourself cool for that, but sure, keep lying to yourself.

The Frontman