Night or Morning when to charge your phone?

By Ali Ijaz In today’s digital world, news is no longer something we wait for in the morning newspaper or watch at a fixed time on television. It reaches us while we are having breakfast, scrolling through social media, checking messages, or simply browsing our phones. One click can take a piece of information from a small post to a global story within minutes. But behind this incredible speed lies an important question: Are we becoming faster at sharing information than we are at checking the truth? This is where the ethics of journalism in digital spaces becomes more important than ever. I attended a workshop under the project titled “Digital Trust and Free Expression in the AI Era” at the Department of Media and Development Communication, University of the Punjab, supported by the U.S. Mission to Pakistan in partnership with the Pakistan-U.S. Alumni Network (PUAN) where we discussed ethical issues in digital journalism in detail. The digital revolution has completely transformed journalism. Traditional journalists once worked mainly for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. Today, journalists also work through websites, social media platforms, podcasts, YouTube channels, newsletters, and mobile applications. The platforms have changed, but the fundamental responsibility of journalism remains the same: to inform people accurately, fairly, responsibly, and honestly. Digital journalism gives journalists an opportunity to reach millions of people instantly. At the same time, it creates new ethical challenges. A journalist is no longer competing only with another newspaper or television channel. They are competing with thousands of posts, influencers, bloggers, anonymous accounts, and algorithms—all fighting for people’s attention. And in this race for attention, truth can sometimes become the casualty. One of the biggest challenges in digital journalism is the pressure to be first. When breaking news happens, every newsroom wants to publish it immediately. Social media makes this pressure even stronger. A journalist may feel that if they wait five minutes to verify information, another platform will publish the story first. But journalism is not a competition to see who can press “publish” fastest. Being first is valuable. Being correct is essential. An unverified headline can spread thousands of times before the journalist even gets a chance to correct it. By then, the damage may already be done.This is why ethical digital journalism requires journalists to pause, verify sources, check facts, and distinguish between confirmed information and speculation—even when everyone else is rushing to post. Perhaps the most visible ethical problem in digital spaces is misinformation. A dramatic headline, edited video, misleading photograph, or false claim can easily go viral. Sometimes people share such content because they believe it is true. Sometimes they share it simply because it supports what they already believe. For journalists, however, “everyone is sharing it” is never enough evidence. Ethical journalism requires verification.  Digital media has introduced another major ethical challenge: clickbait. Websites and social media platforms often depend on clicks, views, shares, and engagement. This creates pressure to write shocking headlines. There is nothing wrong with making a headline interesting. Journalism should be engaging. The ethical problem begins when a headline exaggerates, hides important context, or deliberately misleads the audience simply to generate clicks. A journalist’s goal should not be to trick people into opening a story. The goal should be to make people want to read the truth. Digital journalism also raises difficult questions about privacy. Because information can be shared instantly, journalists may have access to photographs, private messages, personal social-media posts, and other sensitive information. But the fact that something is available online does not automatically mean that it is ethical to publish it. Imagine a person experiencing a tragedy. Their photograph may already be circulating online. Does that mean a news organization should publish it? Not necessarily. Ethical journalism requires journalists to consider human dignity, consent, public interest, and potential harm. There is an important difference between what the public wants to know and what the public needs to know. Responsible journalism understands that difference. The rise of artificial intelligence has added another layer to digital journalism. AI can help journalists research topics, analyze large amounts of information, translate material, summarize documents, and produce content more efficiently. But it also creates risks. AI-generated images, manipulated videos, synthetic voices, and automatically generated text can make false information appear extremely convincing. This means journalists must become even more careful about verification. At the same time, news organizations should be transparent about how AI is used. If AI plays a significant role in producing or altering journalistic content, audiences deserve appropriate disclosure. Technology can assist journalism, but technology cannot replace journalistic responsibility. Ethical journalism is not only the responsibility of journalists. Audiences also play an important role in the digital information ecosystem. Every time we share a post, forward a message, repost a video, or comment on a breaking story, we participate in the distribution of information. Before sharing something, we should ask ourselves: “Do I know this is true, or do I simply want it to be true?”That small question can make a huge difference. Digital literacy is therefore becoming an essential part of responsible citizenship. We must learn to recognize unreliable sources, misleading headlines, manipulated media, and information taken out of context.Technology will continue to change journalism. Tomorrow’s journalists may use tools that we cannot even imagine today. News may become faster, more personalized, and increasingly influenced by artificial intelligence and algorithms. But one thing should remain unchanged: the value of truth. A journalist’s greatest asset is not many followers, viral posts, or millions of views. It is credibility. People should be able to look at a news organization or journalist and believe that the information has been gathered responsibly, verified carefully, and presented honestly. In a world where everyone can publish something, journalism must prove why it deserves to be trusted. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Mission to Pakistan or USEFP/PUAN.

By Ali Abbas Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission (HEC) new weighted research policy has surely raised an eyebrow among a few academics nationwide. Before further dissecting the policy and its implications, it is pertinent to understand the role of HEC as a regulatory authority, which can help clear the air to a greater extent. As stated, “Regulatory”, it is important to accept that the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan is there to implement quality checks irrespective of the decision being popular or unpopular. So, with this lens, it is easy to understand why HEC is weighing this bold step of assigning weights to authorship and what must have been the shortcomings in the previous policy, despite the earlier policy’s apparent benefits. The new policy values first authors and corresponding authors more, acknowledging a reward for the initiators and potential stakeholders in the event that there are more than 3 authors. While HEC is not stopping co-authorship, it aims to credit researchers who have genuine contributions and are adding value as a lead or major contributor. It is entirely up to contributors to choose the number of other co-authors and their desired contribution and commitment in the research article. In fact, this should rather be seen as a measure of transparency that researchers who are expecting to get fewer marks for co-authorship will be doing less work in contrast to the first author. That can actually act as a yardstick for them to allocate their time to multiple projects to get their respective share/ count. However, not to undermine the researchers whose genuine intent surrounds a higher number of publications in less time with real contribution, it is a welcoming sign for authors who stay away from relationship-based and aided research. So, HEC, being a quality custodian of education and research practices for HEIs, has come up with a stance to curb research mills, fraudulent research, and fake authorship, where publications in friends’ journals and contributions following quid pro quo are compensated. And one never knows when these researchers who have worked as co-authors or fall last in the author list make it to the classes; their share of knowledge and impact may be a concern at times as well. The problem is even bigger, as not only papers with 20+ authors can be found, but researchers are co-authoring in different fields that may be beyond cross-domain collaboration. This is where HEC might have to respond and find this weighted policy as damage control.  Well, this research’s credibility is not Pakistan’s dilemma only, but something that is a world issue in a higher education setting. And when HEC addresses these concerns, it might act as a benchmark for other nations’ education systems, especially for the education and accreditation councils of similar demographics. Whether one favors or opposes it, HEC has devised something that raises major concerns, and that is to curb the need to distinguish between real and fake contributors. Now comes the point of demotivating international contributions from this weighted system, as raised by the affected prospective contributors. Well, though not every policy can avoid its collateral, the overall gain may be exploited as well. It is to be remembered that international collaborators are not to be linked with those weights; they can continue to collaborate at any number in the author list as they used to be, i.e., first or second or third, etc. In this case, the logic for local authors will remain the same as stated above about their respective contributions and rewards. The time and effort can then help in identifying multiple avenues as well. Again, there are always two sides to a coin, and in the current dynamics, where co-authorship has appeared to be a business deal, the side with the assigned weights policy bears more weight. Also, on the other hand, the offset can be made by allocating funds and instructing HEIs to devote funding to Gold open access, thus accelerating the pace of the first-author research. All in all, the new policy hints at increasing competitiveness and research credibility while leaving it to the test of time to see if it turns out to be a value addition for researchers by choice or by chance. About the author: Ali Abbas, PhD, works at Beaconhouse National University. He can be reached at aabbas724@gmail.com