Probably a TL; DR comment from me, but here goes. . . . This article lives up to the provocative (and duplicitous) clickbait-y headline, but it also makes some valid points. I’d like to mention a few things I don’t think have been mentioned yet by way of criticism (there are a lot of comments, so please forgive me if I’ve missed these in the mix).

First, it seems to me that Mr. Loeb presumes everyone is clicking on his article because of some kind of anti-Hillary schadenfreude. Although that is sometimes the case, anecdotally, my reason for reading the article was probably closer to what has been characterized in years past as the ‘outrage machine’ that is the Internet. As a former newspaper copyeditor and fact-checker in the publishing industry, I welcome rigorously factual articles. That said, I read the headline as the “bullshit” magnet it was meant to be; hat-tip to Mr. Loeb by way of Mr. Hemingway, the latter of whom, if memory serves, preferred the term “bullshit detector”. But I digress. The use of the clickbait headline — in a serious, non-Oniony piece — to decry clickbait headlines (and stories) seems to me like one of the textbook definitions of cynicism: expecting the worst from your reader and then giving it to them.

Second, I’d like to put in a word for the working writer, among whom I proudly count myself, although I’m likely longer in the tooth than most online writers. Mr. Loeb levels criticism (some of it rightfully so) against the idea that just anyone — that is, a person with no “name” and no online presence — can be a writer in today’s society. As evidence, he points out that some of the writers of USUncut and Occupy Democrats (among others) pieces are unknowns, with little to no online presence. I’d like to propose a reason why here that will speak to the seeming lack of online presence as well as what I see as the larger issue at contention (consumers getting something for a pittance or, worse still, for free or the promise of ‘exposure’; these facts are themselves driven by the economic disparities inherent in our capitalist system). I’ll bet that at least a few of these political site writers use a pseudonym, out of common sense. For one painfully obvious reason, they don’t need the true ‘gun nuts’ and “Second Amendment people” (or those with a beef against whatever it is they’re espousing or railing against) to come after them, either online or in person. So, beyond the hopes of avoiding trolls, they simply want to do the work that they do, (one hopes) get paid for it to support their families, and leave the work behind at the office, so to speak. For myself, I don’t fault the writers for the BS links that appear on a site around their writing. But it does speak to the real and really big problem of most of today’s journalism, from print to television to online. That of revenue. Mr. Loeb, I suspect you’ve seen John Oliver’s recent show about the dwindling newspaper industry. So, instead of pillorying the writers who work for USUncut or Occupy Democrats or whatever sites most raise your hackles, why not pillory the model? And, perchance, even society (and most definitely the model of rampant, free-market capitalism, when it comes down to it)? Some people want the Kardashian crap and Michael Phelps-face memes and furry kittens, and there’s a place for that, to alleviate boredom and elicit humor and so forth; that’s how advertising (for good or ill) works. I’ve been reading several back issues of the Smithsonian magazine today, and it’s no different there. There are the equivalent of many pages of pop-up ads and annoying music and videos you can’t shut off; for one such example (March 2015 issue, p. 86), there is an advertorial for a product promising “Choose Life: Grow Young with HGH.” Farther down the page for this full-page color ad, it says “The Reverse Aging Miracle.” Now, anyone with critical thinking skills does not pause at this article to appraise how truthful it is and how well it works (because it doesn’t). So, I liken these ads around (sometimes legitimate) stories to a bubble-wrapping effect; and you see it online, from Slate to National Geographic to, yes, Raw Story, USUncut, and the like. That’s the way, sadly, seen to make revenue. And revenue keeps these ventures afloat, as you know.

Now, I didn’t want to be an apologist for advertising. I hate corporations, Citizens United, and unfettered capitalism (and probably more than the next person). But I also didn’t like the tone of this article in attacking writers. They are possibly young writers, just starting off their careers perhaps, or, truly, any age of writer (new to the business or in a lateral career or otherwise).

I also want to float another idea. Go ahead, look at Problogger’s list of jobs today. You’ll find at least one advertised job for headline writer (sometimes, at least in the recent past, they were called headline ninjas or headline gurus). Mr. Loeb, just perhaps these clickbait headlines that you decry are being written by editors and/or by someone other than the writer of the article; perhaps the same could be said for some of the content? I’ve worked for a couple online content providers and the editors did, obviously, have control over what could be written (whether ginned up or not). As far as the headlines, some, to be sure, were crafted by the authors; yet, others might not have been. I’m old enough to have worked in print journalism when they still had copyeditors and not AI or some employee who used to be a photographer but who now has to be the graphic designer/copyeditor/sports reporter/sports editor/photographer because big corporations decided copyeditors (or city desk editors or features editors or, in magazines, fact-checkers. . .) were no longer necessary and so they could expand their profits. Back in those days, we copyeditors wrote a lot of the headlines, with input from the section editors and editor in chief, of course. But, in effect, we were beholden to the graphic design and a headline had to be a certain point size, font, leading, and so on. There’s not so much concern in that way with online journalism, but there might still be a gatekeeper of sorts who sees to writing the headlines and, perhaps, that the article is SEO-maximized.

Finally, said another way, Mr. Loeb’s article smacks of the privilege afforded to some in the arts world — whether its literature, music, photography, dance, theater, film, or sculpture — who take home great pay (or at least closer to what their sweat, time, and skills are worth) and can look down their noses at those who scrape to make ends meet. Do some of these writers and artists of other kinds need to give up the arts? Sure; you could say that, but it’s not my decision to make as to whether they are subpar in their highly subjective field.

I am 100% for transparency, factuality, eschewing bullshit (as reader, writer, and editor), and the dogged pursuit of truth, but I am also for believing that some (if not most) people are legitimately trying to learn their craft and to reach out to other people with whatever service or product they provide, in order to pursue either a lofty dream or a humble career to support themselves and the people they love. In my eyes, Mr. Loeb’s article failed to consider some of these concerns and the many salient points raised by other commenters already (such as embedding links, looking at sources other than USUncut, and so on). So, bullshit curators is perhaps a bit harsh, especially applied with such a broad brush as done here, unless you are pointing to mega-corporations like, oh, Fox News and other news conglomerates, and the billionaire class (as pointed out in the Oliver piece vis-a-vis Sheldon Adelson’s purchase of the Las Vegas newspaper) and not pointing a well-manicured finger at the little cog in the machine: that person reporting on city council meetings or even someone reacting to the news that Hillary did or didn’t do XYZ or Trump said something reprehensible (what’s new there?). I will echo Hillary on this: there is more that unites us as liberals (if one must characterize oneself) than divides us. To double-down on the most die-hard among the Bernie supporters as you’ve done here is really a disservice to democracy. (And, lest you quibble: I support Bernie and would have gladly voted for him for president, but I’m not with him now — at least not in the sense that I would not support Hillary and have Herr Trump as our next leader instead.)