Perhaps worth noting that the word "clickbait" has unfortunately been heavily diluted -- you're using the word in what I believe to be more or less the original sense, but these days I see all the time people calling something "clickbait" because they found the title misleading or the content disappointing or idk it's thrown around so much I don't really know what people mean by it anymore.
But aside from my generic grumbling about other people I do have an objection -- I still wouldn't call all these "clickbait". I think I'd reserve that term for the ones where the missing information would easily fit in the title, like it's being *gratuitously* left out; information that *belongs* in the title has been omitted. "What happens if you throw sand in a jet engine?" isn't clickbait because the answer isn't something short you can fit in a title; that information is in the body not the title, but it belongs in the body, so it's fine.
I mean, by the standard you're applying, everything with a title could be called clickbait, right? Of course the title omits information; if it covered everything, it wouldn't be a title, it would be the body. The point of a title is that it is shorter than the body! That isn't a sufficient criterion to delinate clickbait.
I didn't interpret the NYT as doing the same thing as clickbait, as there's no attempt to withhold information. The title seems like a clear reference to a clickbait trope which tells you that clickbait is the subject of the article. I'd feel the same way if the title was something like "Newspapers hate this one weird trick social media uses to get new readers!" Even if the subject wasn't clear from the headline referencing clickbait obliquely, any "curiosity gap" is immediately closed by the subtitle about uplifting headlines.
Do you have an example of the NYT using this clickbait psychology that couldn't be excused as tongue in cheek?
I think I've only seen it in the editorial section, which today has a headline of "What Donald Trump Is Best At, Hands Down".
Here are some examples of NYT headlines engage in the practice of "giving you a question you didn't know you wanted the answer to":
* The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It
* Why Is a Secretive Billionaire Buying Up the Cayman Islands?
* To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This
* The App With the Unprintable Name That Wants to Give Power to Creators
* The Secretive Office Approving Trump’s Boat Strikes
* A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul
* The Secretive Shop That Keeps the Rare McLaren F1 on the Road
The NYT could have just given you the name of "the secretive shop" in question, but to find out the name, you have to click. And I think this is actually fine, because I really don't actually care about the *name* of the secret car shop; it's not as if I'm going to hire them. What I care about is the *story* behind this high end car shop, and the NYT delivers on that.
I'm not making a negative value judgment about the NYT; I just think it's descriptively true that these are 'information gap' headlines that are designed to give you a question (which the NYT will then answer for you if you give them a click). But, again, I'm not just there for the noun; I'm there for the story: when I see an article with the title "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul," I'm not going to stop reading as soon as I see the name "Neville Roy Singham."
I would contrast this with a lower-class type of clickbait, where the 'articles' *aren't* delivering any value apart from the noun, and so the title is engaging in the ethically dubious information of trying to get you to click just so you can learn the noun, real-world examples of this being:
* New pirate soulslike blends Hades with Hollow Knight, and it's free to try first
* HBO's 9-Part Fantasy Miniseries is Already a Classic
* Steam Game with Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews Finally Leaving Early Access After 4 Years
(If you're wondering, the subjects of these 'articles' are "Mark of the Deep," "Watchmen," and "Timberborn.")
I have a blog, and I carefully craft my titles to help maximize my viewership; I suppose you could call that an example of "clickbait."
Perhaps worth noting that the word "clickbait" has unfortunately been heavily diluted -- you're using the word in what I believe to be more or less the original sense, but these days I see all the time people calling something "clickbait" because they found the title misleading or the content disappointing or idk it's thrown around so much I don't really know what people mean by it anymore.
But aside from my generic grumbling about other people I do have an objection -- I still wouldn't call all these "clickbait". I think I'd reserve that term for the ones where the missing information would easily fit in the title, like it's being *gratuitously* left out; information that *belongs* in the title has been omitted. "What happens if you throw sand in a jet engine?" isn't clickbait because the answer isn't something short you can fit in a title; that information is in the body not the title, but it belongs in the body, so it's fine.
I mean, by the standard you're applying, everything with a title could be called clickbait, right? Of course the title omits information; if it covered everything, it wouldn't be a title, it would be the body. The point of a title is that it is shorter than the body! That isn't a sufficient criterion to delinate clickbait.
I didn't interpret the NYT as doing the same thing as clickbait, as there's no attempt to withhold information. The title seems like a clear reference to a clickbait trope which tells you that clickbait is the subject of the article. I'd feel the same way if the title was something like "Newspapers hate this one weird trick social media uses to get new readers!" Even if the subject wasn't clear from the headline referencing clickbait obliquely, any "curiosity gap" is immediately closed by the subtitle about uplifting headlines.
Do you have an example of the NYT using this clickbait psychology that couldn't be excused as tongue in cheek?
I think I've only seen it in the editorial section, which today has a headline of "What Donald Trump Is Best At, Hands Down".
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/opinion/trump-crypto-corruption.html
Here are some examples of NYT headlines engage in the practice of "giving you a question you didn't know you wanted the answer to":
* The Secretive Company That Might End Privacy as We Know It
* Why Is a Secretive Billionaire Buying Up the Cayman Islands?
* To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This
* The App With the Unprintable Name That Wants to Give Power to Creators
* The Secretive Office Approving Trump’s Boat Strikes
* A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul
* The Secretive Shop That Keeps the Rare McLaren F1 on the Road
The NYT could have just given you the name of "the secretive shop" in question, but to find out the name, you have to click. And I think this is actually fine, because I really don't actually care about the *name* of the secret car shop; it's not as if I'm going to hire them. What I care about is the *story* behind this high end car shop, and the NYT delivers on that.
I'm not making a negative value judgment about the NYT; I just think it's descriptively true that these are 'information gap' headlines that are designed to give you a question (which the NYT will then answer for you if you give them a click). But, again, I'm not just there for the noun; I'm there for the story: when I see an article with the title "A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul," I'm not going to stop reading as soon as I see the name "Neville Roy Singham."
I would contrast this with a lower-class type of clickbait, where the 'articles' *aren't* delivering any value apart from the noun, and so the title is engaging in the ethically dubious information of trying to get you to click just so you can learn the noun, real-world examples of this being:
* New pirate soulslike blends Hades with Hollow Knight, and it's free to try first
* HBO's 9-Part Fantasy Miniseries is Already a Classic
* Steam Game with Overwhelmingly Positive Reviews Finally Leaving Early Access After 4 Years
(If you're wondering, the subjects of these 'articles' are "Mark of the Deep," "Watchmen," and "Timberborn.")