A Reflection on Ethics, Impact, and Accountability in the Digital Age
Pir Azhar U Din
The smartphone has revolutionised media more than any technology in modern history. Today, almost anyone can record a video, upload content, and reach thousands of people within minutes. This transformation has given ordinary citizens a voice and created opportunities for stories from remote villages, border regions, and marginalised communities to reach the public domain.
In principle, this is a positive development. For decades, many communities living in far flung areas remained invisible to mainstream media. Their issues rarely reached policymakers or the wider public. Digital media promised to bridge this gap and democratise information.
However, the rapid growth of digital media has also created a crisis of ethics, accountability, and professionalism. In many cases, journalism is being replaced by content creation, while public interest is overshadowed by the pursuit of views, engagement, and revenue.
A smartphone may enable anyone to publish information, but it does not automatically make someone a journalist.
Journalism is built on research, verification, fairness, accountability, and public service. It requires understanding context, verifying facts, engaging multiple stakeholders, and following up until solutions emerge. Much of today’s digital reporting bypasses these principles.
Across social media platforms, countless self styled reporters and news pages have emerged. Many enter the field without training in journalism, media ethics, privacy rights, or legal responsibilities. Armed with smartphones, they record public grievances, accidents, funerals, emotional breakdowns, and private family matters, often without consent.
The most disturbing aspect is that such behaviour has become normalised.
Families mourning loved ones find cameras pointed at them during moments of grief. Children are filmed and displayed online without regard for their dignity or future privacy. Women in distress are often placed before cameras to create emotionally charged content. Human suffering is transformed into a tool for engagement.
There is a clear difference between informing the public and exploiting vulnerable people for views.
The issue becomes even more serious when unverified or exaggerated stories are used for fundraising. Genuine cases requiring public support certainly exist. Yet the absence of verification has also created opportunities for misuse.
During my reporting work, I encountered a man who repeatedly approached me to cover his family’s hardships. Years earlier, his circumstances had genuinely warranted public support. Over time, however, collecting money through emotional appeals appeared to become a habit. Every year, he would contact me with a new version of a partially true story in the hope of generating donations. On one occasion, he even offered me a share of the money that might be collected through the campaign. I refused.
For me, journalism cannot become a business of profiting from human suffering.
Unfortunately, such practices are no longer isolated incidents. Some individuals have begun treating hardship as a revenue model, using social media to generate sympathy and financial gain without transparency or accountability. The result is a growing erosion of public trust. When audiences repeatedly encounter misleading or exaggerated stories, they become sceptical even of genuine cases that deserve support.
Another troubling trend is the use of digital media platforms as tools of influence rather than public service. Complaints are increasingly heard about people demanding money for coverage, pressuring businesses for advertisements, intimidating officials with threats of negative publicity, or harassing ordinary citizens. Such conduct is not journalism. It is an abuse of media influence.
While social media has increased the volume of content, it has not necessarily improved the quality of public discourse.
Many content creators believe that recording a grievance and uploading it online will produce results. In reality, genuine solutions require documentation, verification, engagement with authorities, and persistent follow up.
This is where the difference between journalism and content creation becomes most visible.
A meaningful story takes time. A responsible reporter may spend days gathering facts, interviewing affected communities, consulting records, and seeking official responses. Information must then be verified and presented accurately. After publication, follow up continues until the issue is addressed.
Such stories may never go viral.
In fact, some of the most impactful stories receive only a few hundred views online.
Yet their impact can transform the lives of thousands.
One such example comes from my reporting work for Kashmir Unheard, a community media platform committed to amplifying the voices of marginalised communities.
While investigating education issues in border areas, I reported on Government Middle School Patroo in the Keran sector of Kupwara district along the Actual Line of Control. For nearly six years, the school functioned with only two teachers despite catering to students across eight classes. Initial inquiries revealed that although adequate staff had been sanctioned, several teachers recruited on a habitation basis had been deployed elsewhere.
Further investigation revealed that nearly ten teachers had been posted outside their designated areas, affecting multiple schools in remote villages.
After evidence was gathered and facts verified, the story was published and consistently followed up with education authorities.
The result was significant.
Teachers were deputed back to their designated areas, five schools directly benefited, and hundreds of children gained improved access to education.
The story did not attract massive online engagement. It did not generate sensational headlines. Yet its impact was measured in classrooms, not clicks.
This experience reinforced an important lesson: journalism should be judged by the change it creates, not by the views it accumulates.
India’s legal framework also recognises the importance of responsible reporting. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(2) places reasonable restrictions in the interest of responsibility and public order. The Supreme Court’s landmark Puttaswamy judgment recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, emphasising dignity and personal autonomy.
Recording and publishing videos of grieving families, accident victims, children, or private individuals without consent raises serious concerns regarding privacy and dignity. Similarly, false allegations, unverified accusations, or attempts to use media influence for personal gain can attract legal consequences.
The solution is not to oppose digital media. It remains one of the most powerful tools for democratic participation and social accountability. The challenge is ensuring that it serves the public interest rather than personal interests.
Society needs ethical content creators, trained community reporters, and professional journalists who understand that media is a public trust. It needs storytellers who verify facts, respect privacy, protect vulnerable individuals, and remain committed to solutions rather than sensationalism.
The future of journalism should not be determined by algorithms alone.
A society that values only views risks losing the very essence of journalism.
The true purpose of reporting is not to entertain algorithms, exploit emotions, or chase virality. Its purpose is to inform citizens, amplify unheard voices, hold institutions accountable, and improve lives.
A smartphone may make anyone a publisher, but it does not automatically make them a journalist.
Journalism begins where ethics, responsibility, accountability, and public service meet.
