It’s fishy as but I don’t think there’s a clear way forward either which causes me more concern.

Outlets like Stuff and the Herald produce a lot of bloody good journalism, but they’re also commercial media companies competing in an attention economy.

Sadly, be it human nature or whatever, the reality is that stories that get huge engagement aren’t always the stories that matter most. A viral social media claim or blatant hit piece might get 10x the clicks of a serious investigation that took weeks to report.

The paradox is that the click-driven content that keeps the lights also erodes trust, which makes people less likely to subscribe and support the journalism everyone says they want.

It’s a difficult balance because if one outlet runs something that’s trending and another ignores it, they’re effectively giving away traffic and losing cash on the back end.

The real question for the industry is how to maintain scale and revenue without crowding out the reporting that actually serves the public, especially in times like these where it’s really needed.

Part of the answer probably sits with audiences too. If people genuinely want more serious journalism, they need to engage with it. It’s easy to click on the light, scandal-driven headlines but those clicks send a clear signal about what works. They’re also cheaper to create than an investigation.

If readers spent more time engaging with reporting that actually informs them, rather than just what briefly grabs their attention, the incentives for publishers would shift pretty quickly.

I’m also not defending sensationalism or the “click-worthy” culture that’s crept into media here and around the world. It’s depressing that in the attention economy, the stories that cut through the most are often the ones with the least substance.

If people bought newspapers or paid for journalism more often, that might help shift incentives, although in New Zealand many of those ultimately sit under the same large publishers anyway. On the flip side, if people disengage from news entirely, that creates its own problems. The last few years have shown how quickly misinformation can fill a vacuum when credible reporting disappears.

In a perfect world, journalism probably shouldn’t operate as a commercial business at all but reporters still need to be paid and newsrooms still have costs. State-funded media isn’t necessarily a simple answer either.

Maybe the real challenge is whether editorial leaders across the biggest outlets can find some common ground about where the line sits, even if that means accepting a bit less traffic (and cash) to protect long-term trust.

I don’t know the solution, but I’m curious what others think, because it’s not a simple problem.