With the great technological development, the question that arises is do we still need journalists? The answer is yes and now there is a need more than ever, precisely for issues related to the integrity of information. Today, when on online platforms and social networks anyone can publish, even generating with the so-called artificial intelligence, journalism with integrity makes the real difference between the information that circulates and the news that goes through a standard process of verification and fulfillment of professional ethical standards, and at the same time the standards of transparency and authorship that assure the public that the information they are receiving is accurate, verified and important to them.
At the beginning of the development of social media, there were discussions, even theoretical ones, about whether this would change the approach of journalists, change journalism and the forms of doing journalism. In fact, some of these have changed, but the essence of the function of journalism for society has not changed, which is to report the truth through the mechanisms of professional standards, news values and ethical standards. These are the filters that ensure that the public receives qualitative, verified information and information that is useful to them.
If we look at technological developments and the impact they have had on professional standards of journalism, we can see a few things. First, the time pressure has increased on journalists, cameramen and others, who are under pressure to publish materials more quickly. This pressure, in the case of some media outlets in Kosovo, has led to some procedures being bypassed, mainly those related to fact-checking. In a pilot study in 2015 with online media in Kosovo, most journalists surveyed stated that it takes them only five to ten minutes from the moment they see a piece of information on social media to publish it as news in their media. Verification as a process can take anywhere from 20 or 30 minutes to 20 or 30 days - and in cases of investigative journalism, perhaps even longer.
Now, if we look at the other impacts that technology has brought to Kosovo's media, we also notice a very big change. If we talk about traditional media, before Web2.0Before the internet and social media, these media had two limits that were difficult to overcome. The first limit, let's say the newspaper's, was a physical limit, because of which a selection had to be made from 200-300 events that could have happened per day, a selection had to be made, and in a 36-page newspaper you could publish 50 or 60 news items in all sections - daily, regional, world news, sports, etc. So, the physical limit obliged the selection from the large number of events, to present only those that the editorial staff considered most important.
In the case of television and radio, there is a time limit that is still active, which again allows journalists to make a selection. Of all the events that occur in the country and in the world, only about 15 are reported as news that are broadcast within the news edition. This method of selection itself, i.e. these limits - temporal and physical - constitutes a type of filtering of information based on standards and values of the profession, such as importance, proximity to the public, social usefulness and other values.
Now, these boundaries have been broken by Web2.0-and from social media and the so-called Artificial Intelligence: so, you can publish whenever you want, as much as you want. Consequently, today we see that many posts by public figures and politicians become news due to the fact that there is enough space, there is enough time. The breaking of these two boundaries, as a result of technology, has led to a decline in what is presented as news.
In this digital environment, where competition is fierce, the goals of the media must remain clear - increasing public trust, as a dominant value, by making the distinction between influencers clear, YouTube-years, TikTok-winds, etc. In a digital environment where the public does not even find the names of the authors of texts, videos and other content, and we are not sure whether there is an author or it is "self-generated" - nor the names of editors, owners and companies - credible media must make the distinction. There are several techniques for how this distinction can be made - it is no longer discussed about respecting professional and ethical standards, because they are implied, but the elements of transparency as a guide, annual reports, videos and other content that show how they judge the event to be newsworthy.
So, the next step is for the editorial offices to impose these values and standards on journalists and editors, because ultimately they have nothing to hide from the public. So, to display the names of the authors and the editorial staff, to publish documents on the code of ethics and professional standards of their editorial offices, to announce any omissions or errors made in publications and to explain them. Then, to publish annual expense reports, to show the verification process and the reporting method in order to increase the public's credibility. And, all of this is nothing new, except for what important world media outlets have already applied, such as Reuters, BBC, CNN, Radio Free Europe, AFP etc.
