The Content Crisis: Why We Read What We Want, Not What We Should

In a world where information is more accessible than ever, you might assume that people would seek out content that broadens their perspectives and deepens their understanding of important issues. Yet, the reality is quite the opposite. Most people don’t read what they should; they read what they want.

From serious journalism to investigative research, countless important stories go unnoticed while viral gossip, sensationalised headlines, and comfort content dominate social media feeds. But why? Why do people gravitate toward what’s easy or entertaining rather than what’s necessary or enlightening?

One of the biggest reasons people avoid challenging content is confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out information that supports what we already believe while ignoring anything that contradicts it. It’s easier to read articles that reinforce our worldview than to confront something that forces us to rethink our stance.

Psychologists have found that when people encounter information that challenges their beliefs, their brains react as if they’re experiencing physical pain. It’s not just a matter of preference, it’s a defense mechanism. In an age where polarising opinions are everywhere, many readers would rather double down on what they already think than risk the discomfort of being proven wrong.

Social media platforms and news websites operate on an attention economy, meaning their survival depends on engagement, clicks, shares, and likes. This has led to an overabundance of clickbait headlines, sensationalism, and emotionally charged content, all designed to keep people scrolling rather than thinking.

Reading something serious requires effort. A well-researched article demands focus and critical thinking, whereas a quick viral post provides instant entertainment with no mental strain. Many people, already overwhelmed with daily life, opt for the easy dopamine hit rather than deep analysis.

Many believe that simply seeing a headline or a short post means they understand an issue. Social media has created a culture of surface-level awareness, where people assume they are informed without actually reading beyond a few sentences. If a topic doesn’t fit neatly into a tweet or a 30-second video, it’s often dismissed as too complicated or not worth the effort.

This is why misinformation spreads so quickly. People don’t read the full story; they read what aligns with their emotions and assumptions. As a result, nuanced, well-researched work often gets ignored in favour of bite-sized, emotionally charged content.

A perfect example of people engaging only with what they want, rather than what they should, is the existence of social media trolls. Trolls thrive on provoking emotional reactions, often spreading misinformation or oversimplifying complex issues to fit their narratives. They rarely engage in genuine debate or seek out new perspectives; instead, they latch onto content that fuels their existing biases.

Many trolls don’t even read the articles they comment on. They react to headlines, out-of-context quotes, or viral posts designed to trigger outrage. This behavior is a symptom of a larger issue: people aren’t looking for truth; they’re looking for validation. And as long as trolling gets engagement, platforms will continue to amplify their voices over those who provide well-researched, meaningful content.

The world is overwhelming. War, economic struggles, climate change, political conflicts, serious topics dominate the news cycle, and many people simply can’t handle more bad news. Instead, they turn to entertainment, nostalgia, and lighthearted content as an escape.

This isn’t inherently bad, everyone needs a break, but when escapism becomes the primary way people engage with media, it leads to avoidance of reality. The less people engage with real issues, the easier it becomes for those in power to manipulate narratives without pushback.

Can this be changed? The short answer: probably not on a large scale. Human nature gravitates toward comfort, and the digital age has only amplified this tendency. However, individuals can make a difference by actively choosing to challenge their own biases, seek out well-researched content, and engage critically with what they read.

Writers, journalists, and researchers can also adapt by making serious topics more engaging, using storytelling, relatable language, and dynamic narratives to draw people in. If people won’t seek out important content, perhaps the solution is to make that content more compelling.

In the end, we can’t force people to read what they should, but we can encourage them to want to. And that might be the key to making a difference.