• By Ram Prasad Khanal, President – Federation of International Journalists, America ( FIJA)  

Journalism is no longer confined to newspapers, radio stations, television studios or traditional newsrooms. A smartphone, an internet connection and a social-media account now allow almost anyone to report an event, interview a public figure, livestream a crisis or comment on national and international affairs within seconds. That transformation has expanded access to information and created new voices, but it has also made one distinction more important than ever: publishing content is not automatically the same thing as practicing journalism.

The issue involves everyone who produces, distributes or consumes public information—professional journalists, independent reporters, YouTubers, podcasters, TikTok creators, Facebook publishers, news organizations, social-media companies and audiences themselves. It is unfolding across the world, especially on Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, X and other digital platforms, and it has accelerated as smartphones, video platforms and creator-driven media have become central sources of information.

The Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2026, based on nearly 100,000 online news consumers across 48 markets, found that social-media and video networks have, for the first time, become the most widely used source of news globally, reaching 54 percent of respondents, slightly ahead of news organizations’ own websites and apps at 51 percent. Seventy-seven percent said they watch online news video each week.

The same research found that 27 percent of respondents encounter news from individuals or creators primarily focused on news, while 46 percent encounter some news from creators of various kinds. Audiences often regard creators as more entertaining, understandable and relatable than conventional media, but the broader public generally regards them as less trustworthy and less impartial. Importantly, only about 3 percent of respondents said creators alone met all their news needs.

That evidence supports concern about the changing information environment, but it also requires an important correction to a common assumption: an independent creator is not automatically an irresponsible journalist, and a person working for an established newsroom is not automatically a good one. Journalism should ultimately be judged by its methods—verification, fairness, context, independence, transparency and accountability—not simply by a press card, television logo, microphone, number of followers or size of an institution.

The problem begins when the discipline of verification is replaced by the race for attention. A claim appears on Facebook, a short video circulates without context, someone makes an accusation, or an edited clip begins trending. Within minutes, it can be republished as “Breaking News,” “Exclusive,” “Exposed” or “Shocking” before anyone establishes who created it, when and where it was recorded, what happened before and afterward, whether documents support the allegation, or whether the person being accused has been given an opportunity to respond.

That is not merely a philosophical concern. The Reuters Institute reported in 2026 that 62 percent of respondents across its surveyed markets were concerned about distinguishing genuine information from false or misleading material online. Trust in news overall fell to 37 percent—the lowest level recorded by the institute since it began measuring the indicator in 2015. Trust in news consumed through social media was even lower, at 22 percent.

The United States provides another illustration of the change. Pew Research Center reported that about one in five American adults regularly obtains news from social-media news influencers, with the proportion much higher among younger adults. Pew’s analysis of prominent news influencers also found that most had no current or previous affiliation with a traditional news organization. In 2025, Pew found that 38 percent of U.S. adults regularly obtained news through Facebook and 35 percent through YouTube, with Instagram and TikTok each reaching about 20 percent.

None of this means Facebook, YouTube, TikTok or independent digital journalism is inherently harmful. These platforms have allowed eyewitnesses to document events instantly, enabled reporters to reach audiences previously neglected by traditional media, created space for specialized journalism and given people living under restrictive media environments new ways to communicate. The Reuters Institute itself notes that some creators are credible and innovative and make valuable contributions to the news ecosystem.

The technology has changed. The fundamental obligations of journalism have not.

The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics says journalists should “seek truth and report it,” minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. Its guidance specifically calls on journalists to verify information before publication, use original sources whenever possible, provide context and remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy. In 2026, when SPJ proposed updating its ethics code to address artificial intelligence, misinformation and new technologies, its Ethics Committee retained those four foundational principles rather than replacing them.

UNESCO’s journalism and disinformation training framework likewise emphasizes verification and equips journalists to examine online material rather than simply repeat it.

These standards matter because an inaccurate report can cause real harm. A false accusation may damage a person’s reputation before a correction ever reaches the same audience. An incorrectly identified photograph can expose an innocent person to harassment. An unverified medical claim can influence health decisions. A misleading financial story can affect investors. A decontextualized video involving religion, ethnicity or conflict can intensify social tension. Speed increases journalism’s reach, but it also increases the speed at which mistakes spread.

The traditional 5W1H formula—Who, What, When, Where, Why and How—therefore remains remarkably relevant in the digital age. Before publishing, a journalist should know who is making the claim and who is affected by it; what actually happened rather than what a headline suggests; when the event occurred; where it happened; why the information matters and what relevant context surrounds it; and how the reporter knows the information is true.

There should also be another question: What is the evidence?

A social-media post is evidence that someone posted something; it is not necessarily evidence that the claim inside the post is true. A viral video proves that certain images exist; without verification, it may not prove when or where they were recorded. An accusation proves that an accusation has been made; it does not establish guilt. A prediction is not a fact. An opinion is not a news finding. “Could happen” should never quietly become “has happened” in a headline.

The distinction between news and opinion is equally important. Journalism can include commentary, analysis, editorials and advocacy-oriented work, but audiences deserve to know what they are receiving. Personal interpretation should not be disguised as independently established fact. Analysis should identify the evidence on which it rests, and accusations should be attributed to the people or institutions making them.

Another weakness in contemporary media culture is the expectation that one person should speak authoritatively about everything—politics today, medicine tomorrow, war in the afternoon, constitutional law in the evening and financial markets before bedtime. Credible journalism does not require journalists to be experts in every field. It requires them to recognize the limits of their knowledge, locate people with appropriate expertise, examine competing evidence and ask informed questions.

Saying “I do not know yet” can be more professional than confidently broadcasting something that has not been established.

Audiences also have power in this ecosystem. Platforms and publishers pay attention to what people watch, share, comment on and return to. When exaggerated claims, angry confrontations and sensational headlines consistently receive greater attention than careful reporting, producers have an economic incentive to create more attention-grabbing material. But audiences are not simply passive victims of that system. They can pause before sharing, check the original source, examine publication dates, distinguish reporting from commentary and support organizations and journalists that correct mistakes openly.

Professional journalism should criticize those in power, but criticism is not the same as personal abuse. Journalism should investigate wrongdoing, but investigation is not the same as declaring someone guilty before evidence is established. Journalism requires freedom, but freedom does not eliminate responsibility. Journalism should serve the public interest rather than personal revenge, political loyalty, commercial pressure or the desire to become famous.

Before publishing a consequential story, every journalist or serious news creator should be able to answer at least these questions: Is it true? How do I know? What is the original evidence? Have I verified the source? Have I provided necessary context? Have I contacted the person or institution facing a serious allegation? Am I reporting fact, analysis, allegation or opinion—and have I made that distinction clear to the audience? What foreseeable harm could an error cause?

The goal of journalism should not be merely to be first. It should be to be accurate enough to deserve public confidence.

A million views cannot correct a falsehood. A viral video cannot substitute for evidence. A microphone cannot create credibility. Followers can measure popularity, but they cannot measure truth.

The strongest journalist is therefore not necessarily the person who speaks the loudest or posts the fastest. It is the person whose audience has learned, over years, that when that journalist says something happened, the claim has been checked; when uncertainty remains, it is acknowledged; when another side matters, it is sought; and when a mistake occurs, it is corrected.

Technology will continue to change journalism. Artificial intelligence, livestreaming, smartphones, creators and new platforms will produce opportunities that previous generations of reporters could barely imagine. But the central test will remain remarkably simple: Can the audience trust the information?

Views may disappear tomorrow. Algorithms may change next month. Platforms may rise and fall. Viral fame may last only hours.

Credibility takes years to build and minutes to destroy.

That is why journalism should never become merely a fashion, performance or competition for attention. It is a public responsibility built on evidence, verification, fairness, context and accountability. Used responsibly, a journalist’s words can expose injustice, protect the vulnerable and help societies understand complicated events. Used carelessly, those same words can mislead millions and damage reputations that no correction can fully restore.