Moa Jamir
We are gathered today on National Press Day to reflect on the single most vital asset we possess. It is not our printing presses, nor our digital platforms, nor the number of clicks we achieve. It is credibility.
In the last few years, we have seen how profoundly the information environment has changed. Today, on a single screen, the public encounters everything: news reports, political messaging, rumours, entertainment clips, and promotional content. And very often, all of this appears in similar formats. The lines have blurred. In such a world, our responsibility to remain credible, fair, transparent, and accurate, has become more urgent than ever.
Thus, “Safeguarding Press Credibility Amidst Rising Misinformation,” demands urgent honesty. This is not merely an academic exercise, but a matter of professional survival.
Credibility
Credibility is the anchor of our profession. It is what allows the public to trust us even when the truth is difficult, even when the facts are uncomfortable. A lapse affects not just the reporter or the outlet it affects institutions, communities, and the public’s sense of confidence.
However, before we talk about external threats, we must confront some internal issues.
1. A Crisis of Transparency: First, there is need for every newsroom to be clear about who it is and how it operates. This is central to credibility. Today, anyone can create a page that looks like a news outlet. The result is visibility without transparency: platforms with no editorial structure, no accountability or websites and not even an “About Us” section on social media platforms.
The public sees the content but not the institution behind it. And this gap isn’t limited to new players; even established media sometimes fall short. If we expect transparency from government, we must practice it ourselves.
Some outlets, like the Nagaland Tribune, clearly list their editorial leadership with a strong ‘About Us,’ Privacy polices etc. That is commendable but it should be the norm, not the exception.
2. The Sensitive ‘Money-For-Coverage’ issue: This brings me second issue that deserves careful but honest discussion: the blurring of editorial and commercial lines, especially the growing reported practice of money-for-coverage.
I am not referring to favourable coverage; I mean just coverage itself. A group, celebrating a silver jubilee, an organisation releasing a souvenir, a department hosting a function, want visibility, and some outlets ask for payment. In return, the organisation often obliges, and sometimes actively pursues the coverage. On the surface, it appears to be a win–win situation.
But there are deeper implications.
This is what can be termed structural misinformation, not because the report is false, but because the public is misled about why it was published.
When the public sees a news report about an event, they naturally assume it was selected because it was newsworthy. If payment is involved and undisclosed, this assumption becomes misleading and creates a subtle form of structural misinformation as audience misunderstands the basis of its selection.
Let me emphasise: this is not about pointing fingers. Financial pressures are real. Organisations pursue visibility actively while outlets need revenue. But when basic journalistic duty becomes, even unintentionally, a service-for-hire, it undermines public trust.
3. The expanding threat of AI: On top of this, there is the unprecedented challenge of misinformation accelerated by technology. AI-generated images, altered videos, voice clones, and fabricated texts can now be created within minutes. And our context, where issues such as identity, land are extremely sensitive, such content can spread quickly and cause real harm.
AI is not the enemy, but it magnifies weaknesses. If verification is weak, AI will amplify the damage. If editorial boundaries are blurred, AI exploits the confusion. If the public cannot distinguish journalism from content, AI will feed that uncertainty.
4. Other related issues:
The surge in unregulated digital platforms without oversight, often add to confusion, while the race for speed can compromise verification, especially in tightly knit communities. But in a tightly knit society, once something spreads, especially on WhatsApp, it cannot be ‘un-spread.’ We all know this from experience.
Sensational visuals and confrontational reporting amplify emotion over context, deepening tensions on sensitive issues. Ethical lapses such as unlabelled sponsored content, unwarranted reporting mixed with commentary and delayed corrections may seem minor but gradually erode public trust.
Way Forward:
If credibility is the media’s strongest asset, then safeguarding it requires deliberate and collective action. The challenges demand practical measures that strengthen institutional structures, clarify editorial boundaries, and rebuild public trust. Some of key ways forward include:
1. Strengthening Transparency: Transparency is the foundation on which trust is built. Every newsroom should clearly present who they are and how they operate, starting with a clear “About Us” section that outlining ownership and editorial leadership, among others. It also requires acknowledging and correcting mistakes openly rather than quietly moving on.
Disclosure protects both the profession and the public. Crucially, this allows journalists to maintain their professional dignity and keeps editorial decisions independent.
2. Adopt ethical guidelines for coverage: The ethical solution is simple and universal: Paid promotional content, sponsorships, partnerships, and revenue-linked content must be clearly labeled as “Advertisement,” “Sponsored Feature,” or “Advertorial” and slotted separately so that audiences can easily distinguish it from editorial work.
If organisations want visibility, encourage them to send press releases or use other formats, and ensure that any partnerships are clearly stated.
It is crucial is maintain a firm boundary between editorial judgment and commercial interests. Apply a “public interest test” when deciding what to cover. If newsworthy, cover for free.
3. Clarify editorial boundaries: There must be a clear distinction between news and opinion, analysis and advocacy, and editorial content and commercial content. Maintaining these boundaries is essential for preserving objectivity, ensuring that factual reporting is not influenced, directly or indirectly, by personal views or commercial pressures.
4. Reinforce Verification: Verification must remain at the heart of responsible journalism. This means slowing down when necessary and double-checking sensitive claims. It requires the consistent use of tools to authenticate images and videos, as well as documenting verification steps within the newsroom. Verification is the profession’s strongest competitive advantage in an age of speed and misinformation.
Journalists must also equip themselves and continually reskill, either through organisational support or personal initiative, to identify and combat emerging technological challenges.
5. Strengthen Internal Ethics: A strong ethical foundation begins within the newsroom. This includes developing clear codes of conduct that outline expectations and responsibilities for all staff. Regular ethics and digital literacy workshops can help teams stay updated on emerging challenges and reinforce professional standards. For high-impact stories, peer review processes add an additional layer of scrutiny and accountability.
6. Collaboration: Collective action can raise standards across the profession. Press bodies can explore a common Media Charter for Nagaland to guide shared ethical principles and practices. Ethics Committee and voluntary transparency audits would further strengthen public trust. By working together, the media community can build shared norms that strengthen journalism as a whole.
7. Engage the public: A media-literate public is the best ally against misinformation. The media and press clubs can invest collaborative initiatives such as fact-checking workshops, media-literacy and community outreach campaigns etc to empower audiences and create a more informed public sphere.
To conclude, credibility is not preserved through slogans. It is preserved through daily practice via the stories we verify; the lines we refuse to cross; the disclosures we make, and the corrections we issue. We operate in a difficult time, but also in a moment of opportunity to lead by example by raising standards together, and remind the public that journalism, at its best, stands for fairness, truth, and accountability.
On this National Press Day, let us commit to strengthening our profession, not by pointing at each other, but by looking honestly at our practices, and by building an ecosystem where credibility is non-negotiable.
The author is the Associate Editor, The Morung Express This article is the theme speech, “Safeguarding Press Credibility Amidst Rising Misinformation,” delivered by the author at the Dimapur Press Club’s National Press Day observance on November 16. The text has been lightly edited for clarity and readability.
