Factless reporting in the game of views weakens public trust
In today’s digital age, the flow of information has become faster and more widespread than ever before. Smartphones and cheap internet have given everyone a platform for expression. While this is a positive sign for democracy, it also poses serious challenges. Especially when some people, armed with a microphone and camera costing just 100-200 rupees, declare themselves “journalists” and begin disseminating information without any responsibility. This problem isn’t just about individuals, but about the mindset that transforms journalism into a game of views and likes rather than a responsible social obligation.
Digital media has democratized journalism. Large media houses are no longer the sole purveyors of information; ordinary citizens can also record events and bring them to public attention. Often, this citizen journalism highlights issues that mainstream media ignores. This shift is also a source of strength for democracy, as it increases the diversity of voices and strengthens the demand for accountability at all levels of power. However, when this openness is used recklessly, this very strength turns into a weakness.
Today, going “viral” on social media has become the yardstick for success. In this race, some people try to gain popularity through controversy, sensationalism, and incomplete information. They know that harsh language, accusations, and provocation attract attention, so they focus more on inciting emotions than on facts. The biggest downside is that confusion spreads in society and the line between truth and falsehood becomes blurred. People accept any information as true without verifying it, causing rumors to spread rapidly and their impact to deepen.
This also directly impacts government institutions. Government institutions are the administrative backbone of any nation, and their purpose is public service. If false or misleading information spreads about them, public trust is undermined. This trust is eroded not by a single news item, but by the continuous spread of incomplete or misleading information. As a result, people begin to doubt the system, which can lead to unnecessary conflict and discontent. It is equally true that government institutions are not infallible, but the approach to exposing their shortcomings must be factual and responsible, not merely sensational.
Calling every person with a small microphone a “fake journalist” is as wrong as assuming every viral news is true. The value of journalism is determined not by equipment, but by perspective, honesty, and responsibility. Often, it’s small and independent journalists who uncover the ground truth, while even large organizations sometimes err under pressure. Therefore, it’s more appropriate to understand the problem as “responsible versus irresponsible” rather than “small versus big.” The real crisis is the decline in journalistic values, where haste and popularity have replaced ethics and fact-checking.
The solution doesn’t lie in a single step; it’s only possible through collective effort. First, society must become media literate, so that people don’t accept every piece of information without verifying it. They must understand that the credibility of a news story is determined by its source, evidence, and context, not by its virality. Furthermore, strict and impartial action is essential against those spreading fake news, so that a clear message is sent that freedom of expression does not mean anarchy. Digital platforms must also understand their responsibility and develop effective mechanisms to control misleading content.
The need for training and ethical standards in journalism is felt more than ever. While a formal degree may not be mandatory to become a journalist, a basic understanding, a grasp of fact-checking procedures, and a sense of responsibility to society are essential. It is equally important to encourage those who work with integrity and balance to set positive examples.
The greatest need today is balance. It’s not right to dismiss every small journalist, nor to blindly believe every news story. We must recognize that this new age of information brings both opportunities and dangers. It cannot be stopped, but it can certainly be channelled—and this direction is possible only when society, media, and government understand their respective responsibilities.
Ultimately, journalism isn’t just about the microphone or the camera, but rather a commitment to truth. If this commitment weakens, the entire system is affected. Criticism of government institutions is necessary, but it must be based on facts and balance. At the same time, society must understand that not every voice can be viewed with the same perspective. The real struggle is not “fake versus real,” but “truth versus sensation”—and in this struggle, only those who base their efforts on responsibility, honesty, and discretion will thrive.
