Scandal sells, and on today’s networks it sells fast. A new peer-reviewed analysis finds lower-quality news domains circulating most intensely on right-leaning platforms, but the bigger lesson cuts across the spectrum: on nearly every major platform, lower-quality news provokes more likes, shares, and comments than higher-quality reporting.
The pattern is not an internet glitch. It is the predictable outcome of human psychology meeting engagement-driven design, where the most clickable beats the most careful.
What the new research adds to a familiar story
Researchers assessed thousands of news domains using aggregated ratings from professional fact-checkers, journalists, and academic experts. Those ratings focus on the trustworthiness and sourcing practices of outlets, not their politics. With that baseline in place, the team tracked how links to those domains performed across multiple social platforms with different audiences and moderation rules.
The headline finding is stark. Right-leaning platforms hosted a greater share of links from lower-quality domains than left-leaning platforms. Yet even where higher-quality journalism is plentiful, posts from lower-quality sources still pull ahead on the metrics that matter to algorithms and ad markets, namely reactions, comments, and reshares.
That echoes earlier work. In 2018, a large-scale study in Science examined millions of cascades and found that false material spread faster and wider than accurate information across Twitter. As the authors wrote:
Falsehood diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth in all categories of information.
Put differently, the physics of viral attention tend to favor the dramatic and the novel, which often describes the output of lower-quality sites.
Why low-quality content wins the engagement race
Start with human nature. People are drawn to novelty, threat, and outrage. Lower-quality outlets lean into that appetite with headlines that promise shock, certainty, or conflict in a few blunt words. High-quality outlets, by contrast, often foreground nuance, caveats, and context that do not translate cleanly into a snappy social post.
Emotion supercharges sharing. As misinformation scholar Claire Wardle has put it, “The currency of misinformation is emotion.” If a story makes readers feel anger or triumph, they are more likely to hit share before they have finished reading, and often before they have considered whether the claim is true.
Design choices amplify those impulses. For years, the largest platforms optimized ranking systems to prioritize engagement signals, which are inexpensive to measure and correlate with time-on-site and ad revenue. A post that outrages reliably collects comments, replies, and reaction clicks, so the system learns to push similar content higher in feeds. That feedback loop rewards producers that package content for maximum engagement, regardless of accuracy.
Economics play a role too. Many reputable outlets rely on subscriptions to fund reporting. Paywalls and meter limits can deter casual readers who encounter an article through a social feed. Lower-quality sites often keep pages open, chase display ads, and accept the cost of higher bounce rates in exchange for wider reach. In the contest for quick engagement, free beats friction.
Why the partisan platform split matters
The study’s cross-platform comparison is important, because not all networks operate with the same norms. Right-leaning platforms tend to be ideologically homogeneous, with weaker moderation and fewer friction features that slow down suspect links. In that environment, outlets that tell audiences what they already believe can spread with little resistance.
Audience incentives matter as well. When a platform cultivates an identity as an alternative to mainstream media, accounts that repeatedly attack legacy outlets and elevate fringe sources gain status. Over time, those networks can become efficient distribution systems for lower-quality domains, especially during breaking news or political crises.
None of this means left-leaning spaces are immune. The core mechanics, novelty plus outrage plus engagement-based ranking, operate everywhere. The difference is one of degree and design, not an exemption.
Newsrooms in an engagement-first ecosystem
For editors, the findings pose a familiar dilemma. Do you write a cautious headline that captures the uncertainty inherent in early reporting, or do you pull the most arresting quote and risk overstating the case. The right answer is to keep the nuance, but in a feed full of rivals that do not, careful work can look dull.
There are responsible ways to compete. Clear language beats hedging. Front-loading what readers most care about, while avoiding speculative claims, helps stories travel without sacrificing integrity. Visual cues, smart subheads, and crisp summaries can provide the immediacy that social audiences expect.
At the same time, publishers need sustainable business models that do not force a choice between access and accountability. Flexible paywalls for public interest reporting, reader-supported memberships, and partnerships that syndicate explainers beyond subscriber walls can widen exposure for high-quality work without abandoning revenue.
What platforms can change now
First, stop treating raw engagement as a stand-in for value. Incorporating quality and provenance signals into ranking can reduce the structural advantage enjoyed by lower-quality sources, especially during breaking events when users are vulnerable to rumors.
Second, add speed bumps where they work. Experiments have shown that subtle prompts to consider accuracy before sharing can reduce the spread of misleading posts. Lightweight friction, such as previewing the article text before a reshare or flagging an outlet with a poor reliability record, nudges users to slow down without heavy-handed censorship.
Third, invest in visibility for trustworthy publishers. Elevating explainers and updates from established outlets during emergencies helps inoculate feeds against false narratives. Sunsetting engagement bait, reducing the weight of rage reactions, and demoting repeat offenders can shift attention without silencing debate.
Finally, open the black box. Researchers and independent auditors need access to platform data, with strong privacy protections, to evaluate how policy changes affect the information ecosystem. Transparency will not eliminate bad incentives, but it makes them harder to ignore.
How readers can tilt the balance
Individual choices still matter. Read past the headline. Ask who is the source, what evidence is offered, and whether other reputable outlets match the claim. Reward journalism that shows its work by spending time on it, subscribing if you can, and sharing the piece that informs rather than the post that inflames.
It also helps to diversify your information diet. Following a mix of local and national outlets, plus subject specialists who cite primary sources, reduces the odds that a single sensational frame becomes your entire picture of the world.
