CLICKBAIT-DRIVEN, purposefully crafted headlines, texts and presentation modes influence readers. Many of us are familiar with the algorithms that drive clickbait on social media. As mainstream media outlets have become largely dependent on social media platforms, general readers no longer feel the need to visit news websites regularly. At the same time, once a reader clicks on a piece of clickbait, similar content repeatedly appears on their social media homepage.
We know that computer-mediated communication reshaped and reorganised everyday human behaviour in relation to technology, a process Roger Silverstone and Eric Hirsch describe as ‘domestication’ (Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces, 1992; Domestication of Media and Technology, 2005). Silverstone and Hirsch describe domestication as the process by which technologies are taken into everyday life and made familiar. It involves appropriation, objectification, incorporation, and conversion. Through this process, technologies gain social and cultural meaning beyond their technical functions.
Clickbait journalism exploits human cognitive behaviour by creating curiosity through a knowledge gap, triggering emotional responses. Clickbait not only reflects a credibility crisis in journalism but also shows how digitised human behaviour and clickbait reinforce each other. The relationship among technology, psychology and manipulation is extensive and intricate.
Based on various studies, the most significant crisis associated with clickbait is the spread of misinformation. It i8s necessary to question the ongoing unethical practices in digital and online media driven by commercial expansion. How does mainstream clickbait journalism interact with power dynamics, reinforces negative gender stereotypes, and normalises insensitivity — ultimately perpetuating systemic injustices within journalistic practices?
Clickbait journalism and power
MANY are familiar with Sarba Mitra Chakma, an executive member of the Dhaka University Central Students’ Union and his activities affiliated with the Islami Chhatra Shibir. He recently led an eviction drive on the University of Dhaka campus. The primary mode of the coverage in this case was undoubtedly clickbait. The way this operation was reported — particularly in digital media — stands as a striking example of the relationship between clickbait journalism and power. We have witnessed extensive media coverage on digital platforms surrounding this eviction drive. The objective of the media campaign was not only to inform, but to manufacture support for the operation while obscuring or neutralising criticism against it.
Journalism has historically been linked to the state, government and power; this relationship has been a topic of intense discussion within media discourse. As Noam Chomsky argues, campaigns centred on such operations are often closely aligned with elite interests (Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, 2003).
Clickbait journalism focused on poverty, drugs, hate speech, and class hatred when covering Sarba Mitra’s actions. Since the operation was led by the university’s ruling student body with the support of the Dhaka University administration, any citizen-centred or humanitarian perspective was intentionally sidelined. In fact, it was to generate support for a discriminatory operation while simultaneously maximising click-driven content circulation. Consider the following headlines published by established national media outlets: (1) ‘Batons were charged, and drugs were found inside the sacks: Sarba Mitra Chakma’ (Samakal/Facebook page, November 9, 2025); and, (2) There is no way but to take up sticks to chase them away: Sarba Mitra Chakma (Kaler Kantho/Facebook, November 5, 2025)
In the headlines, specific words like ‘batons’, ‘drugs’, and ‘chased away’ are intentionally chosen to present Sarba Mitra’s actions in a light that suggests they are both justified and necessary. On the same day, the Bangla daily newspaper Kaler Kantho published two separate photo cards within just thirty minutes, both promoting similar statements by Sarba Mitra. The issue extended beyond headlines; the reports heavily relied on his voice, allowing him to consistently legitimise and gather support for a questionable operation.
Despite this strong media backing, Sarba Mitra Chakma could not evade public criticism of the eviction drive. On November 6, 2025, he released a self-produced video, positioning himself as the central character, in which he theatrically portrayed all impoverished people sheltering on campus as ‘muggers’. Earlier, he had already attempted to justify the operation by labelling homeless individuals as ‘sexual harassers’ and ‘drug dealers’. Once again, this staged content was amplified by mainstream media in Sarba Mitra’s favour.
Many news outlets used the same headline, ‘What DU teacher Monami said about the Sarba Mitra Chakma video.’ (Jugantor, Kaler Kantho, RTV Online, November 6, 2025).
While the headline itself contains no factual inaccuracies, it’s crafted in a way that compels readers to ‘click’ and subtly signals by placing a university teacher’s opinion that Sarba Mitra has made the right choice again. However, in our observations on social media, the leaders of the DUCSU exhibited disrespectful behaviour towards street vendors and against elders in acts of violence, using sticks during late-night incidents. These videos triggered widespread criticism. Rarely, any mainstream media outlet produced an objective report on these incidents. No journalist spoke to the victims. The voices of those who were evicted and assaulted remained absent from news coverage.
There was extensive discussion on social media regarding whether the DUCSU mandate grant any authority to conduct such eviction operations, whether elected student leaders have the legal mandate to carry out such actions, and whether the university administration can legitimately endorse or encourage displays of brute force by student leaders. Yet the mainstream media chose not to investigate these questions. None of the eight core functions in the DUCSU mandate includes eviction operations of this kind. Rather, it emphasises academic, cultural, classroom-based, and residential activities within the university. No DUCSU policy provision allows leaders to conduct raids on impoverished communities using sticks and physical force. DUCSU leaders repeatedly violated their own mandate, while the university administration provided direct encouragement and protection, and the media actively legitimised and supported them.
A close look at the campaign by DUCSU leaders to evict small businesses and homes of uprooted people, supported by the DU administration, shows how ‘clickbait journalism’ and ‘power’ serves mutual interests.
In this arrangement, there is no concern for the public good. The underlying assumption appears to be that poor people do not have the right to live near universities. Their homes can be invaded at will. They can be insulted at will. The educated and ruling class beat the poor with batons. From the media’s perspective, none of this qualifies as a crime.
Samia Rahman Preema is a researcher at Drik Picture Library.
