I think you are missing lifetime value calculations.

If your goal is to get people to click through on social media to read your article and then monetize the visit, then you should create sensational content and fake news. The model existed long before social media. The National Enquirer made a business on this when social media was what you read at the check-out counter.

The Economist didn’t sell many issues at the check-out counter and most of their articles would not work as cover-stories that drive purchase, but they still created a pretty effective business model.

Saying “great content is fiscally irresponsible” is like saying that you shouldn’t build quality shoes, because you can sell good looking shoes that fall apart at higher profit margins. That is sometimes true and there is a place for terrible shoes, but there are companies that sell quality shoes — and they do pretty well.

“But you can charge higher dollars for quality shoes. You can’t change more for quality content”. But you can get readers to come back to you directly when you generate quality content. You can get SOME traffic from social media, but then you can lock in readers who you don’t need to acquire every time.

Do you really think The Economist and The Atlantic would be more profitable in twenty years if they just drop their model and start producing fake news?

I will bet on the long term success of quality over crap every time.