
Note: When writing this post, I made a deliberate decision to remain as politically neutral as possible. The theory I am about to outline for you looks at politics and mass media through a macro lens, and does not depend upon condemnation or support of any particular political view. That is part of what makes it so compelling. It applies regardless of political stances or policy. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the outrage cycle and escalation of outrageous beliefs and content we’ve seen over the last few years in America, and I have some thoughts I’d like to share on how we got here and where we’re going. I’ve dubbed this the Outrage Oscillation Theory. This theory is fundamentally grounded in the idea that mass media benefits more when a political party/president is in power who is idolized by a minority of the populace. Why?
Research indicates that rage-fueled news stories garner significantly more engagement than neutral or positive content. A 2024 study from Tulane University found that individuals on social media are more inclined to interact with content that challenges their views, a phenomenon termed the “confrontation effect.” This effect leads to higher engagement with politically charged material, especially among those who disagree with the content.
Further supporting this, a 2018 MIT study revealed that false news stories are 70% more likely to be retweeted than true ones. It takes true stories roughly six times as long to reach 1,500 people compared to false stories. This rapid spread is often driven by the emotionally charged nature of misinformation, which frequently evokes strong reactions like anger or outrage.
When a politician is supported and elected by a minority population, this leaves the larger remainder of the population unrepresented. That majority opposition finds themselves sucked into an exasperating hamster wheel, where in an attempt to keep tabs on the activities of the opposing elected party, they find themselves swimming in a seemingly unending stream of outrage-inducing content. This content shapes their collective worldview, incites arguments on social media, and informs subsequent decisions. It can radicalize an otherwise “normal” majority. While at first glance it may appear politicians benefit from this the most, they aren’t the primary beneficiary. In this system, politicians are more akin to pilot fish, and media outlet owners the whales.
You may consider that power-hungry politicians who critique mass media do so to pander to their base, or in rare cases, maybe they want to genuinely fight for fair reporting. However, because the media has almost complete control of the narrative, and ultimately, politicians only benefit while the media oscillator tips in their favor, I think they recognize mass media for what it is: the single most consequential variable determining whether they’ll be able to capture (and maintain) power. Politicians come and go, and the true beneficiaries of this oscillating cycle are the media outlet owners that profit from clicks, shares, and ad revenue, regardless of who is currently supported by the majority.
The Media’s Business Model: Outrage Over Information
America saw this outrage machine in action in the 2010s. Many media outlets experienced record-high engagement levels, as every speech, tweet, and policy approval became a source of widespread controversy. A new kind of politics emerged, where all publicity was good publicity, where PR mattered more than policy, and where the media apparatus could be controlled more directly with the ease of a tweet. Opponents of this person were constantly glued to the news, feeding a media ecosystem that thrived on reactionary content. In the subsequent years, a common sentiment among Americans was one of relief that they could finally tune out. An entire political campaign ran partially on the promise to “make politics boring again”. From a business perspective, this is bad news for media companies that rely on outrage for traffic. If people aren’t angry, they aren’t clicking.
Not much of this is revolutionary or a secret. Many of us recognize the media has a financial interest in maintaining conflict and fueling culture wars. What I don’t see people talking about is how this will evolve going forward. This is where the Outrage Oscillation Theory comes into play, primarily by raising a critical assertion: If the media have an incentive to maintain political division, and engagement spikes when the sheer number of people in opposition is larger, then it would be in the interest of media companies to subtly (or overtly) shape narratives that keep the minority in power, ensuring a larger pool of outraged consumers. This engine will increase the amplification intensity of large-scale political oscillations like the constant back and forth between Republican and Democrat presidential administrations over the last few decades in American politics.
The Role of Analytics and Social Media in Increasing Profits by Amplifying Outrage
News isn’t just about reporting facts—it’s about storytelling, framing, and emotional appeal. In a world where analytics increasingly inform newsroom decisions around what to publish, the stories being published are the ones that will drive the most engagement, and the stories that will drive the most engagement are the ones that provoke the strongest emotional reactions.
Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube use engagement-driven algorithms that prioritize emotionally charged content. The more people react—whether through likes, comments, or shares—the more visibility a post receives. This creates a feedback loop in which the most controversial content rises to the top, shaping public discourse in the process. Even if a media outlet wants to focus on balanced reporting, algorithmic tailwinds steer them toward sensationalism. After all, they must compete with less scrupulous competitors in this race to the bottom.
Social media doesn’t only amplify outrage—it monetizes it. Every click, share, and interaction turns into data that platforms use to further optimize their feeds. This means that, over time, users are funneled into increasingly extreme content, reinforcing their biases and deepening political divisions. In this landscape, nuance is a liability, and viral, polarizing content is king.
Generative AI and the Future of Manufactured Conflict
Now, let’s add generative AI to the equation. AI-generated content is becoming more sophisticated, capable of crafting news articles, social media posts, and even deepfake videos that mimic real people. When combined with automated analytics that pinpoint exactly what narratives are driving the most engagement, AI can and will increasingly be used to generate an endless stream of content designed to sustain outrage and division.
The result? A self-perpetuating cycle of conflict. Outrage generates clicks, clicks drive revenue, revenue funds more content creation, and the cycle repeats. And because AI can operate in real-time and at an internet-wide scale, penetrating all social networks and targeting specific demographics with specific content, the volume and effectiveness of divisive content can far exceed anything a human-driven newsroom could produce. This raises the disturbing possibility that, in the near future, much of our political discourse could be shaped not by journalists or politicians, but by AI models optimized for engagement at any cost. Those aspiring for political power will want journalists as weakened as possible, and the population as isolated from one another as possible, allowing as much space as possible for the proliferation of AI-generated polarizing news.
Furthermore, AI can be trained to detect subtle shifts in public opinion and adjust narratives accordingly. If a certain outrage topic starts losing traction, new ones can be fabricated to maintain engagement. This means that public anger is no longer purely organic—it can be cultivated, manipulated, and sustained indefinitely by algorithms designed to maximize profit. This sustained stream of manipulative content is the fuel that runs the engine that is the Outrage Oscillation Theory, and it’s a fuel that is always growing increasingly efficient.
Is This a Self-Limiting Problem? Sort of.
This all sounds very dark and foreboding, but it’s also worth pondering: Does the media lose it’s primary source of outrage-driven engagement when a once-minority political party becomes the majority? Or does the cycle simply reset, with roles reversing in a two party system, the oscillator continuing to tick and to tock indefinitely? More importantly, with analytics and AI shaping narratives in real-time, do mass media and political interests now have an unprecedented ability to keep conflict alive indefinitely?
Historically, political cycles have seen shifts in public sentiment. We’ve called this the “pendulum swing”. However, never before has real-time data analysis allowed for such precise control of narratives. In the past, media outlets responded to public sentiment. Now, they can shape it, nudging people toward outrage with precision-engineered content. If this cycle does reset, it’s possible that media companies will ensure the opposition is never large enough to disengage, keeping the public perpetually divided.
The Outrage Oscillation Theory posits some good news, in that a single politician cannot forever benefit from this technique, however the bad news is that it doesn’t free us from the ticking and tocking of this cycle. We all just end up swept up in or subject to the next political movement to garner a critical mass of minority support.
What Can We Do About It?
As the ultimate victims of this dynamo, we need to be aware of the effects. We must recognize that outrage is profitable and question whether the stories dominating our feeds are there because they matter—or because they make someone money. If we want a more balanced media landscape, we must be intentional about the way we consume news, seek diverse perspectives, and resist the urge to let algorithms dictate what we believe.
There are steps we can take:
- Divert your attention locally: When is the last time you’ve derived personal value from consuming mass media or social media posts? Talk to your neighbors, engage in local civil discourse. Get to know them yourself so that they cannot be defined for you by those who stand to profit from needless culture wars. When topics shift toward culture war distractions, be the person to gently direct attention back to local issues.
- Support independent, local journalism: Smaller, less corporate-driven outlets often have fewer incentives to stoke outrage and a smaller budget for AI-generated content.
- Be mindful of engagement: Avoid clicking, liking, or commenting on rage-bait articles or sharing inflammatory content. Consider that even if you “win” a culture war argument on the Internet, you’ve still done a disservice to yourself, because you’ve fed the Outrage Oscillation algorithm.
- Educate others: Discuss these dynamics with friends and family to raise awareness about how media shapes public discourse.
If we don’t take steps now, we may find ourselves trapped in a never-ending loop of manufactured conflict, designed not to inform us, but to keep us engaged and enraged for the benefit of politicians and media owners.
Leave a Reply