Simply put, journalism is "the gathering, assembling, and presentation of news." It's a trade that leans to the traditional 5Ws and H framework being what, why, when, where, who and how. Basically, a thorough news story must answer the 5Ws&H. This is followed by the inverted pyramid which details that the story structure flows from the lead (most important), the body (other important details) and the tail (extra information). The above has over the years, defined journalistic work. Such a basic understanding was compounded by the need for understanding of media ethics. Ethics guide journalistic conduct pertaining balance, objectivity, fairness, accuracy and truthfulness. However, the advent of Artificial intelligence (AI) has necessitated a shift in ethics. Whilst AI is considered a plus in communications, did it render journalistic duties obsolete? Whilst research and common sense for now argue to the contrary, it’s a resounding NO. It goes without saying that AI aids journalism, similarly it's downside can't be ignored.
How did we arrive here? When did journalists let AI do the "thinking " for them which on its own could be problematic? The fake news of Lesedi Moalosi's alleged execution which made rounds this week is an indictment on journalism. It casts a very dim picture on our credibility. How can it be that AI has replaced routine fact checking as a basic rule of thumb in journalism? Such alarming publications have ability to cause harm, especially to the family, as sensitive as the news is. It's alarming and insensitive to run such stories without due care. What happened to our moral duty of care as well? Did it go down with AI as well? As the media landscape evolves, making access to news at the click of a button, online media must equally embrace the credibility challenge. A journalist duty is that of truth to the public, always. Truth is what a journalist determines as opposed to what a source alleges. Without due care to the ethical tenants of truthfulness, fairness, balance, accuracy, objectivity, it cannot be regarded as journalism. There is no short cut to news verification as it's the difference between credibility and clout chasing. Consequently, let's draw lessons from these shortfalls and better package future news content. Undoubtedly, the world embraces digital/online media but to an extent, it must be taken with a pinch of salt. Let's do away with laziness and verify news stories, betsho! Where to? There is an urgent need for capacity building geared for some of the online media outlets. With all due respect, there are some who know what they are doing.
However, it would appear a majority are in it for clout. It has since emerged that the proliferation of online media is a result of mainstream media layoffs. With more and more mainstream media houses collapsing due to financial constraints, most journalists have been left with no choice but to go online. Despite it being an alternative news and revenue platform when done well, the risk lies with the many in the habit of abusing it. It should be clear that the same codes of ethics that are being to news media should be applied digitally, to anything that is called journalism or at least relates to it. It has evidently become clear that online appears to be a breeding ground for every jack and jill in the habit of distorting what journalism is. Even so, public education and an appreciation of evolving media trends will come in handy. Likewise, audiences would be required to attain a certain level of paradigm shift in assessing the veracity of news content. In the era of information disorders, distortions are the order of the day and only a few would do justice to a news story.
To this end, fake news is rampant and most of what passes as news articles is in fact falsehoods when thoroughly fact checked. The Molapisi death penalty story serves as a learning curve for what AI can do. Before cutting and pasting what AI says, journalists must make time to question whether the news were officially confirmed, if family members were aware or could speak to that or whether there has been a Court of Appeal verdict condemning her to death. Failure to answer these questions should raise a red flag. Has the Ministry of International Relations or Botswana High Commission had an official say? But like I said, I am not an authority. I wrote this to spark discourse on this unfortunate incident. Like they say, the media is not infallible and should be condemned when it errs. *Kabo Ramasia is a MISA- Botswana board member. He writes in his personal capacity.
