USA Today reporter Daryl Austin recently published a 676-word article titled, “Yes, salmon is good for you. But here’s why you want to avoid having too much.” In it he raves about the extraordinary health benefits of salmon but shoehorns in a few barbs at the end suggesting it’s actually, “best to eat salmon in moderation.”  

Why do that, you ask? It’s simple. So USA Today could manufacture a click worthy title that suggests the article is really about why you should “avoid having too much,” when that’s not the article’s true focus.  

The post hoc editorial gymnastics designed to support a more catchy and negative title, that doesn’t match the content, is not only cheap journalism, it’s also inaccurate. After 518 effusive words of praise for salmon, Austin musters a small and pathetic list of pseudo concerns, including one based on the breaking news that “salmon contains mercury.” He writes, “despite so many advantages, it might be best to eat salmon in moderation.” Perhaps we need a definition of “moderation” because the FDA’s Net Effects Report notes that you’d have to eat 853 ounces of salmon a week before you’d see “adverse” effects from mercury. How many USA Today readers are eating 213 servings of salmon a week? For those who are, Austin’s crusading warning about moderation will come as important information. For the rest of us it will just be another piece of clickbait garbage that ruins an otherwise accurate story.