For a long while, I have been thinking about jumping into the world of podcasting. Yet, despite tons of considerations and reflections, I am still torn about it. It is not just about being aware and conscious about the challenges of coming up with a strong product.
A podcast, after all, must be engaging and able to capture the listeners’ attention for a long period. You have to be able to find the right formula, the right contents and the right approach to discuss and deal with certain topics. Moreover, it is also very costly.
There is a financial dimension of creating a product of such type in this digital era that cannot be discounted. Linked to this, there is also a commercial side of the equation, especially if you want to monetize the product to, at least cover, the expenses that its launch and production would entail.
But I found myself undecided and torn. The reason is not really about the technical, financial and administrative aspects of launching a podcast that in no way can I downplay or ignore. There are other sides that I cannot avoid taking into account. These are directly associated with the role that podcasting or, by extension, any related social media-centered news contents have in our society.
The problem is that the vast majority of these contents are not really about journalism. They are just about sensationalism and clickbait.
I was pulled to write about this issue after reading an article on the Kathmandu Post written by Daya Dudraj about how many members of the parliament are literally tormented by pseudo journalists bombarding them with silly and inappropriate questions. A disclaimer here is needed.
I am not myself a journalist and I never seriously thought about formally becoming one even though, I must admit, a few times the idea of formally applying to get this accreditation crossed my mind. But I do love writing and sharing my opinions, reflections and propositions and I believe this is my small contribution to the society and place where I have been living for so many years.
My approach to social media is one casted in hesitation. I never embraced them and only a few years ago I pushed myself into the only professional social media site because, at the end of the day, I need to be pragmatic and enhance my network. Yet I am aware that I am like a salmon fishing against the stream and is at risk of finding itself out of water because the vast majority of people, especially youths, are so much entrenched (and dependent) on social media.
If you are good at them and if you are skillful enough, you can amass tons of viewers, your contents can spread and become known. You become trendy and possibly, there is a good chance you can also make some good money out of it. Yet social media can be seen as a sort of shortcut to fame and celebrity.
As such, getting recognition from these tools might not lead anyone far in the long term because ultimately you always have to put in hard work to succeed. And in this world where becoming viral is the most important thing, it is quite tough to understand and decipher not only the truth from falsehood. But it is not just about differentiating between white and black, lies from facts.
It is much more complex especially when there are so many people online aiming to offer a public service in the form of news sharing and news telling. But the problem is that for most of the cases, like the ones shared by Dudraj in his article, we are not at all talking about public service.
If done professionally and ethically, journalism can be described as the soul and essence of doing public service. This kind of journalism is really different in its aims and overarching purpose. It is about reporting facts and different perspectives and opinions, directly contributing to a serious conversation about things that matter to the society. And with social media-based products, it is also hard to distinguish professionalism from mediocrity or just utterly abysmal work.
Unfortunately, journalism is not only having a tough time but it is facing an existential crisis and artificial intelligence is going to make it worse. People, including youths, do not make any more of that investment in time, energy and yes, attention that good journalism would expect from its users.
It is granted that, at the base, there is a reading crisis because people are more and more hooked to their smartphones even though their real impact is making all of us dumber. In such a scenario, swarms of improvised content creators are vying for our attention by offering products that, though viral oftentimes, are mediocre at best. Certainly, there are also good productions out there but it is hard to differentiate them from the waves of low-quality ones.
It is clear that traditional media need to adapt and adjust to survive.
One of the most, if not the most authoritative media outlets in the world, the New York Times, has embedded videos in its work where journalists tend to summarize, also through self-made short videos, their articles. But replicating this model is not feasible for most of the news outlets in crisis-ridden countries.
Yet should quality-focused media in a country like Nepal only aim at survival? Isn’t their function and role in our society so important that a top national priority should be finding ways to let them thrive and enrich our social fabric through conversations?
I have no doubts that the answer to these questions should lead to a major reckoning, including on what the state can and should do, even when the national economy is not so healthy, to help turn around this situation.
Schools at all levels should have an equally important role in instilling the habits of reading news (and non-school textbooks) to their students. When teachers themselves have lost the habit of reading quality news and simply have no clue about what an opinion essay is about, then we really have a problem. The family should also play a very important role but it is getting harder and harder to find parents equipped and invested in helping their children understand how essential it is to spend time reading news.
We might not realize now the losses we will face if media outlets disappear. At least, out of this grim scenario, amid a sea of low-level contents, there is a silver lining: the fact that people are still interested to know what is happening. While there was a high degree of indifference on national politics before the Sept 2025 uprising, the scenario has changed now.
People want to know what the new federal government is doing and amid the various controversies and some positive developments brought by the Balen Shah Administration, it is paramount that citizens can be able to turn to credible, trustworthy media. New ways of reporting and making news must raise their bar and be able to meet the standards that good journalism requires but then we need to face some existential questions.
Can the new government do something about this situation? Can global philanthropy step in and be supported so that it will be easy for local newspapers and media outlets to benefit? Can schools and families realize that they are failing on one of their most important missions, educating the future generations on how to form personal opinions, an essential pillar of any functioning democracy, without which our society could literally crumble? Most importantly, are each of us, as members of the society, ready to step up and do something?
We might not realize but our future is really at stake. Supporting journalism in Nepal and elsewhere should become a top priority on a par with fighting climate change and ensuring that AI does not destroy our lives.
