Journalistic Correctness: A Debate Outdated by the Internet
By La Rédaction · Port-au-Prince
· 8 min read · Updated 24 April 2026
Translated from French — AI-assisted and reviewed by the editorial team. The French version is authoritative. Read the original · About our translation policy
Journalistic Correctness, a Debate Outdated by the Internet
This year, 2025, World Press Freedom Day is commemorated around the theme: “Informing in a Complex World: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on Press Freedom and the Media.” Commemorative events aim to understand the advantages and risks associated with the development of AI as challenges for freedom of expression. In Haiti, we are still in the phase of redefining the profession and questioning the professional training of journalists.
In this article, we attempt to demonstrate that reflections on journalistic practices in the context of the emergence of new media can lead to a participatory approach to information production and a more responsible use of these platforms without confusing journalists and Internet users.
Without wishing to stir up any controversy regarding the perceptions of various individuals, it is nevertheless appropriate, in the name of the principles, norms, rules, and institutions of democratic societies, to take a stance on these thorny questions relating to the prerequisites for journalism and the title of journalist.
Indeed, there is an abundant literature on these basic questions. Journalism manuals, codes of ethics and conduct, scientific articles, among others, have defined and reflected on journalism and the quality of the journalist. It is therefore not necessary to revisit who is a journalist and what journalism is. Bringing these fundamentals back to the table proves, once again, that journalism in Haiti is very far from being a regularly functioning profession. Where the shoe pinches, in our opinion, is the confusion fueled between the practice of journalism and freedom of expression. Regarding freedom of expression, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is unequivocal in its Article 19:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”
In its articles 28 and following, the 1987 Haitian Constitution also enshrines, without restriction, freedom of expression, which encompasses the work of professional journalists. However, on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day, May 3, 2025, some voices were raised against this freedom, which they say is too “free.” But how is it too “free”? And others go so far as to ask who can claim the title of journalist? To begin with, it should be noted that the advent of social digital media has influenced the practice of journalism worldwide without, however, questioning journalists themselves. In “Information et médias sociaux, les défis de la qualité” (Information and Social Media, the Challenges of Quality), Lise Millette recalls that the Professional Federation of Journalists of Quebec added a section on social networks to its Code of Ethics, in which it specifies that:
“Journalists exercise the same discernment in the use of social media as in their overall practice. The social nature of these networks implies that every statement exchanged there can become public, despite the possibility of configuring privacy settings. Consequently, journalists must not make statements on social media that they would not make on air or in their publication.” This fundamental point inserted into this Guide does not redefine, in the context of using social networks, who is a journalist and who is not. On the contrary, it calls for a more responsible use of these new media. Some authors, including Tessier and his colleagues, argue that the digital environment has transformed, in twenty-five years, the modalities of journalistic practice in several respects. With these new platforms, traditional media no longer have a monopoly on information. This new reality gnaws at the purists of the profession. Today, ordinary people produce and disseminate information without necessarily taking journalists as a reference. However, it must be admitted that despite the many recognized benefits of the advent of social digital networks, including the democratization of media and the availability of an information flow, this does not fully guarantee the quality or veracity of informational content nor the professionalization of journalists.
Cyberspace offers the same opportunities to everyone, at least in theory. Everyone has the ability to share information, as Villepreux so aptly put it. “All it takes is a smartphone to be able to directly distribute news on any digital platform.” Online information has become more than ever a “social experience,” thanks to the coupling between social digital networks and mobile sharing possibilities with smartphones, as Rosenstiel and colleagues remind us. On this basis, it seems important to indicate that the line is very thin between the work of media professionals and that of amateurs or network users. Other works have scrutinized the change in the journalistic paradigm in the context of the emergence of the Internet. Thus, the very notion of professionalism has been debated in light of the evolutions of the journalistic profession, more precisely with the rise of social media, but not the quality of a journalist. Unhealthy Amalgamation…
In Haiti, to our knowledge, there is no guide or code that governs the operation of influencers or amateurs who use social digital network platforms as a space to inform, educate, or entertain their “subscribers.” Furthermore, there is no specialized center for training influencers or program hosts on these networks. Thus, it seems ambiguous, even tendentious, to expect them to adhere to any professional ethics or conduct. One should come to terms with the idea that these unregulated new media would inevitably lead to uncontrollable excesses. It’s unavoidable!
However, wanting to measure these amateurs against the standards of media professionals is unhealthy manipulation. Numerous recent academic works focus on journalists' appropriation of social digital networks as channels to inform or be informed. In “Twittering the news: the emergence of ambient journalism,” Hermida develops the concept of “ambient journalism” by considering the development of social digital networks, primarily Twitter (currently X). From his point of view, this platform facilitates the immediate dissemination of digital fragments of information emanating from both official and unofficial sources. Thus, citizens, just like professional journalists, participate in the co-production of content. Thus, Twitter is perceived as both a networking instrument and an ambient informational environment. These considerations are equally valid for Facebook and YouTube, to name just two very popular digital platforms in Haiti. Like Twitter (currently X), they offer the “live” option, which allows Internet users to be absolutely live to host a “talk show.” These new media are not subject to any regulations. This applies to “influencers,” “opinion leaders,” or “engaged citizens” – the most commonly used terms to designate them – who occupy cyberspace. They cannot be asked to comply with constitutional requirements or any other text regulating journalism. They are not journalists. Why are we trying to confuse them with professional journalists? History catches up with those who, during the 1980s, fought against the application of the decree of July 31, 1986, on the press by the National Council of Government led by General Henri Namphy. Although the context justified this refusal, we would not be here today asking who is a journalist and who is not. Also, the text had laid the groundwork for a press with trained journalists, at least having the minimum knowledge and competence required to practice the profession as professionals.
Today, there is no longer a reference to the training of journalists for the functioning of a press with elements more capable of exercising the profession. Instead, an individual opportunity is offered to some to put themselves forward and make a decontextualized comparison. The exercise of the profession is no longer what it was 20 years ago. The migration of the public to social digital networks pushes media to inform differently. The public is no longer looking for information; it is information that is looking for the public, according to Charaudeau. This explains why there is an enthusiasm for “free speech” favored by social media. By “free speech,” we mean discourse that is not censored, controlled, or specialized. In a text he published in “Le Monde diplomatique,” Ignacio Ramonet noted that information is becoming even more mobile and nomadic, meaning one can know, at any moment, what is happening in the world. However, he took a critical look at the advent of “blogs” which, according to his analysis, succeeded because they sometimes mix, without hesitation, information and opinion, verified facts and rumors, documented analyses and fanciful impressions. Readers' enthusiasm for these practices is a mark of appreciation for the assumed subjectivity and partiality of bloggers. If these considerations are transposed to social digital networks, their success is easily understood, and, at the same time, the decline in audience for certain traditional media that have remained professional. If corrections are to be made to the work of “bloggers,” “influencers,” “Internet users,” and “engaged citizens” who host programs on social digital networks, one must first consider delimiting – if possible – their fields of competence, then recognize the work of amateurs on networks despite their weaknesses, and finally define a legal framework to manage all of this. One can always argue under the guise of personal disappointment, but a journalist must be called a journalist, and the same applies to others.
Jacky MARC
Bibliography
Cardon, D. (2025). Les Gilets jaunes, entre ronds-points et pages Facebook. Réseaux, 251(3), 219-222.
Hermida, A. (2013). # Journalism: Reconfiguring journalism research about Twitter, one tweet at a time. Digital journalism, 1(3), 295-313.
Millette, L. (2013). Information et médias sociaux, les défis de la qualité. Éthique publique. Revue internationale d’éthique sociétale et gouvernementale, 15(1).
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Mitchell, A., Rosenstiel, T., & Olmstead, K. (2010). Understanding the participatory news consumer. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 1, 19-21.
Ramonet, I. (2005). De la qualité de l’information dépend celle du débat citoyen. Media en crise. P. 1,26 et 27.
Repéré à http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2005/01/RAMONET/11796
Villepreux, O. (2021). Journalisme. Le mot est fiable, Anamosa, p 1-110.
Wagemans, A., Witschge, T., & Deuze, M. (2016). Ideology as resource in entrepreneurial journalism: The French online news startup Mediapart. Journalism practice, 10(2), 160-177.
Indeed, there is an abundant literature on these basic questions. Journalism manuals, codes of ethics and conduct, scientific articles, among others, have defined and reflected on journalism and the quality of the journalist. It is therefore not necessary to revisit who is a journalist and what journalism is. Bringing these fundamentals back to the table proves, once again, that journalism in Haiti is very far from being a regularly functioning profession. Where the shoe pinches, in our opinion, is the confusion fueled between the practice of journalism and freedom of expression. Regarding freedom of expression, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is unequivocal in its Article 19:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”
In its articles 28 and following, the 1987 Haitian Constitution also enshrines, without restriction, freedom of expression, which encompasses the work of professional journalists. However, on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day, May 3, 2025, some voices were raised against this freedom, which they say is too “free.” But how is it too “free”? And others go so far as to ask who can claim the title of journalist? To begin with, it should be noted that the advent of social digital media has influenced the practice of journalism worldwide without, however, questioning journalists themselves. In “Information et médias sociaux, les défis de la qualité” (Information and Social Media, the Challenges of Quality), Lise Millette recalls that the Professional Federation of Journalists of Quebec added a section on social networks to its Code of Ethics, in which it specifies that:
“Journalists exercise the same discernment in the use of social media as in their overall practice. The social nature of these networks implies that every statement exchanged there can become public, despite the possibility of configuring privacy settings. Consequently, journalists must not make statements on social media that they would not make on air or in their publication.” This fundamental point inserted into this Guide does not redefine, in the context of using social networks, who is a journalist and who is not. On the contrary, it calls for a more responsible use of these new media. Some authors, including Tessier and his colleagues, argue that the digital environment has transformed, in twenty-five years, the modalities of journalistic practice in several respects. With these new platforms, traditional media no longer have a monopoly on information. This new reality gnaws at the purists of the profession. Today, ordinary people produce and disseminate information without necessarily taking journalists as a reference. However, it must be admitted that despite the many recognized benefits of the advent of social digital networks, including the democratization of media and the availability of an information flow, this does not fully guarantee the quality or veracity of informational content nor the professionalization of journalists.
Cyberspace offers the same opportunities to everyone, at least in theory. Everyone has the ability to share information, as Villepreux so aptly put it. “All it takes is a smartphone to be able to directly distribute news on any digital platform.” Online information has become more than ever a “social experience,” thanks to the coupling between social digital networks and mobile sharing possibilities with smartphones, as Rosenstiel and colleagues remind us. On this basis, it seems important to indicate that the line is very thin between the work of media professionals and that of amateurs or network users. Other works have scrutinized the change in the journalistic paradigm in the context of the emergence of the Internet. Thus, the very notion of professionalism has been debated in light of the evolutions of the journalistic profession, more precisely with the rise of social media, but not the quality of a journalist. Unhealthy Amalgamation…
In Haiti, to our knowledge, there is no guide or code that governs the operation of influencers or amateurs who use social digital network platforms as a space to inform, educate, or entertain their “subscribers.” Furthermore, there is no specialized center for training influencers or program hosts on these networks. Thus, it seems ambiguous, even tendentious, to expect them to adhere to any professional ethics or conduct. One should come to terms with the idea that these unregulated new media would inevitably lead to uncontrollable excesses. It’s unavoidable!
However, wanting to measure these amateurs against the standards of media professionals is unhealthy manipulation. Numerous recent academic works focus on journalists' appropriation of social digital networks as channels to inform or be informed. In “Twittering the news: the emergence of ambient journalism,” Hermida develops the concept of “ambient journalism” by considering the development of social digital networks, primarily Twitter (currently X). From his point of view, this platform facilitates the immediate dissemination of digital fragments of information emanating from both official and unofficial sources. Thus, citizens, just like professional journalists, participate in the co-production of content. Thus, Twitter is perceived as both a networking instrument and an ambient informational environment. These considerations are equally valid for Facebook and YouTube, to name just two very popular digital platforms in Haiti. Like Twitter (currently X), they offer the “live” option, which allows Internet users to be absolutely live to host a “talk show.” These new media are not subject to any regulations. This applies to “influencers,” “opinion leaders,” or “engaged citizens” – the most commonly used terms to designate them – who occupy cyberspace. They cannot be asked to comply with constitutional requirements or any other text regulating journalism. They are not journalists. Why are we trying to confuse them with professional journalists? History catches up with those who, during the 1980s, fought against the application of the decree of July 31, 1986, on the press by the National Council of Government led by General Henri Namphy. Although the context justified this refusal, we would not be here today asking who is a journalist and who is not. Also, the text had laid the groundwork for a press with trained journalists, at least having the minimum knowledge and competence required to practice the profession as professionals.
Today, there is no longer a reference to the training of journalists for the functioning of a press with elements more capable of exercising the profession. Instead, an individual opportunity is offered to some to put themselves forward and make a decontextualized comparison. The exercise of the profession is no longer what it was 20 years ago. The migration of the public to social digital networks pushes media to inform differently. The public is no longer looking for information; it is information that is looking for the public, according to Charaudeau. This explains why there is an enthusiasm for “free speech” favored by social media. By “free speech,” we mean discourse that is not censored, controlled, or specialized. In a text he published in “Le Monde diplomatique,” Ignacio Ramonet noted that information is becoming even more mobile and nomadic, meaning one can know, at any moment, what is happening in the world. However, he took a critical look at the advent of “blogs” which, according to his analysis, succeeded because they sometimes mix, without hesitation, information and opinion, verified facts and rumors, documented analyses and fanciful impressions. Readers' enthusiasm for these practices is a mark of appreciation for the assumed subjectivity and partiality of bloggers. If these considerations are transposed to social digital networks, their success is easily understood, and, at the same time, the decline in audience for certain traditional media that have remained professional. If corrections are to be made to the work of “bloggers,” “influencers,” “Internet users,” and “engaged citizens” who host programs on social digital networks, one must first consider delimiting – if possible – their fields of competence, then recognize the work of amateurs on networks despite their weaknesses, and finally define a legal framework to manage all of this. One can always argue under the guise of personal disappointment, but a journalist must be called a journalist, and the same applies to others.
Jacky MARC
Bibliography
Cardon, D. (2025). Les Gilets jaunes, entre ronds-points et pages Facebook. Réseaux, 251(3), 219-222.
Hermida, A. (2013). # Journalism: Reconfiguring journalism research about Twitter, one tweet at a time. Digital journalism, 1(3), 295-313.
Millette, L. (2013). Information et médias sociaux, les défis de la qualité. Éthique publique. Revue internationale d’éthique sociétale et gouvernementale, 15(1).
Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Mitchell, A., Rosenstiel, T., & Olmstead, K. (2010). Understanding the participatory news consumer. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 1, 19-21.
Ramonet, I. (2005). De la qualité de l’information dépend celle du débat citoyen. Media en crise. P. 1,26 et 27.
Repéré à http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2005/01/RAMONET/11796
Villepreux, O. (2021). Journalisme. Le mot est fiable, Anamosa, p 1-110.
Wagemans, A., Witschge, T., & Deuze, M. (2016). Ideology as resource in entrepreneurial journalism: The French online news startup Mediapart. Journalism practice, 10(2), 160-177.
