I’m tired of the algorithm excuse.

Every time a media critic points to declining editorial standards—clickbait headlines, outrage-driven coverage, the erosion of nuance—someone inevitably blames “the algorithm.” Facebook made us do it. Google forced our hand. TikTok’s feed demands we dumb things down.

This is cowardice dressed up as structural analysis. And it needs to stop.

The Narrative We Tell Ourselves

The story goes like this: social media algorithms reward engagement. Engagement means clicks, shares, and comments. Outrage drives engagement better than nuance. Therefore, pursuing audience means pursuing outrage.

Publishers, in this telling, are victims of platform design. They’d love to do better journalism, but the algorithms won’t let them. The incentive structure is impossible to resist.

I’ve heard variations of this argument from journalists, editors, and media executives for a decade now. And I’m calling nonsense.

The Problems with This Story

First, plenty of publishers produce excellent journalism and thrive. The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian, and others have built substantial digital audiences without abandoning editorial standards. If the algorithms made bad journalism inevitable, how do these organizations exist?

Second, the algorithm excuse ignores agency. Nobody forces editors to write misleading headlines. Nobody makes publishers chase celebrity gossip or political outrage. These are choices—business choices, to be sure, but choices nonetheless.

Third, the timing doesn’t work. Tabloid journalism, sensationalism, and click-chasing predate social media by centuries. Yellow journalism flourished in the 1890s. Algorithms didn’t invent bad editorial judgment.

What Actually Happened

Here’s a more honest story:

Social media did change distribution. Attention did become more competitive. Revenue did become harder to generate.

In response to these pressures, many publishers made choices. They chased traffic over value. They optimized for attention rather than trust. They prioritized speed over accuracy, volume over quality.

These were choices. Made by human beings. In pursuit of business goals.

Some publishers made different choices. They invested in quality. They built subscription models that rewarded value over volume. They accepted smaller audiences in exchange for deeper engagement.

The algorithm didn’t determine which path publishers took. Strategy did. Values did. Leadership did.

The Convenience of Victimhood

Blaming algorithms is convenient for several reasons.

It absolves individual responsibility. If the platform made me do it, I’m not accountable.

It positions publishers as victims deserving of sympathy and support. Victims of Big Tech’s power, not agents of their own decline.

It redirects attention from business model failures. Easier to blame Facebook than to admit your advertising-dependent model was unsustainable.

And it provides an excuse for not changing. We’d love to improve, but the algorithms won’t let us.

This victimhood narrative has real costs. It prevents honest reckoning with what went wrong. It delays necessary adaptation. And it erodes credibility with audiences who see through the excuse.

Algorithms Are Not Neutral

To be clear, I’m not arguing that platforms are blameless. Algorithms are designed by humans with specific goals, usually maximizing engagement and ad revenue. Those designs have consequences.

The amplification of misinformation, the creation of filter bubbles, the incentivization of emotional content—these are real phenomena with real effects on public discourse.

But acknowledging platform design problems is different from using them as an excuse for editorial failures.

We can critique platforms while also demanding editorial accountability. We can advocate for platform reform while also expecting publishers to make good choices.

Both things can be true simultaneously.

What Accountability Looks Like

If we drop the algorithm excuse, what does accountability look like?

Honest assessment of choices. When publishers chase traffic at the expense of quality, call it what it is—a business decision with trade-offs, not an algorithm-forced inevitability.

Strategy over excuse. Instead of lamenting algorithmic pressures, develop strategies that work within or around them. Plenty of publishers have figured this out.

Quality metrics. Measure what matters beyond clicks. Engagement depth, subscriber conversion, trust metrics, audience loyalty. Optimize for value, not just volume.

Editorial standards that hold. Traffic pressure doesn’t justify misleading headlines, false balance, or outrage optimization. Standards exist precisely to constrain commercial pressure.

The Role of Technology

There’s an interesting irony here. Many publishers blame algorithms while simultaneously adopting AI tools to optimize for those same algorithms.

If you’re using AI to generate more content faster, write more engaging headlines, or optimize for platform distribution—you’re not a victim of algorithmic pressure. You’re an active participant.

This isn’t necessarily wrong. Using technology effectively is part of competing in modern media. But it undermines the victim narrative.

Some publishers are using AI more thoughtfully, working with business AI solutions providers to enhance quality rather than just volume. The technology is neutral—how you use it reflects your values.

A Call for Honesty

What I’m asking for is honesty.

If you publish clickbait, own it. Maybe it’s the right business decision for your situation. But don’t blame the algorithm while collecting the traffic.

If you chase outrage, acknowledge the choice. Perhaps your audience wants it. But stop pretending you’d love to do serious journalism if only Facebook would let you.

If you’ve traded quality for volume, be honest about the trade-off. There are legitimate reasons publishers make this choice. But it is a choice.

And if you’re investing in quality—if you’re building subscriber relationships, producing original work, maintaining standards despite commercial pressure—own that too. Take credit for the harder path.

The Path Forward

Media’s future depends on publishers making good choices, not on platforms becoming benevolent.

The publishers who’ll thrive are those who build direct audience relationships not dependent on algorithmic distribution. Those who create content valuable enough that people seek it out. Those who develop business models that reward quality over volume.

None of this requires platform reform. All of it requires editorial and business discipline.

Algorithms aren’t going away. Neither is the pressure they create. The question is how publishers respond—with victimhood or with strategy.

Bringing in expertise can help. Working with Team 400 to understand and work with algorithms rather than just complaining about them is one approach. But the fundamental choice—quality or volume, value or attention—remains a human decision.

The Bottom Line

I’ve spent 16 years in journalism, watching the industry change and often struggle. I have sympathy for the challenges publishers face.

But I’ve lost patience with the algorithm excuse. It’s intellectually lazy, strategically useless, and increasingly unconvincing to audiences who see publishers actively optimizing for the platforms they claim to be victimized by.

The algorithm isn’t forcing anyone to be a worse journalist. We’re choosing that ourselves.

Let’s at least be honest about it.

---

This is obviously a provocation. I’d love to hear counterarguments—what am I missing about algorithmic pressure and publisher choice?