Editor,
Patricia Mukhim, in her article “Rewriting the Rules of Journalism” (ST, September 12, 2025), raises a question that is very important for our times. She asks: What will happen to journalism if it turns into entertainment only? She shows how today’s news is often shaped by catchy headlines, very short videos, and the constant chase for likes and shares. If this continues, who will do the serious job of informing people and checking those in power?
Mukhim is worried that young people, especially Gen Z, want only quick and flashy news. It is true that short videos are very popular, but it is not fair to think that young people cannot handle serious news. Many of them listen to long podcasts, read newsletters, and follow videos that explain issues in detail. They are not careless; they are simply more careful in choosing what they watch or read. They avoid boring or dull reporting, but they welcome news that feels sharp, clear, and honest. If traditional newspapers do not change with the times, they may lose the young generation.
Mukhim also talks about two dangers: sensationalism (making news too dramatic) and cancel culture (where people quickly reject or boycott someone). Sensational news often happens because companies earn money from clicks and views. So, it is not just the fault of reporters — the whole system of online advertising pushes them this way. Cancel culture may look harsh, but sometimes it is the only way people feel they can fight for justice when official systems do nothing.
The most powerful point in her article is the reminder that journalism is a public trust. Journalists must be brave enough to expose corruption, question government claims, and give space to unheard voices. But this will not happen unless we also act. Media literacy — the skill of checking facts and questioning sources — should be taught in schools and colleges. And investigative journalism will survive only if we find new ways of funding it, otherwise, rich media owners will always control the loudest voices.
At some places, the article sounds nostalgic for the old days of newspapers with long articles and slow reading. But the truth is times have changed. Digital media though flawed, has also given new power to ordinary people. Local podcasts, YouTube channels run by common citizens, and even Twitter threads often explain things more clearly than big newspapers. These should not be rejected but improved in quality and honesty.
In the end, Patricia Mukhim’s article is a timely reminder that journalism must not be controlled by algorithms alone. It must meet young readers where they are — with news that is quick but not shallow, sharp but not dishonest, digital but still meaningful.
Good journalism is both an anchor and a mirror. It anchors society when rumours and lies threaten to shake it. And it mirrors society by showing the truth, even when it is uncomfortable. If we lose this, we do not only lose journalism — we lose a part of democracy itself.
Yours etc.,
Jairaj Chhetry,
Tura
Political parties shun succession plans
Editor,
The editorial ‘Young’ at 75’ (ST Sep 12, 2025) raised a very interesting point. Ideally, the old order must give way to the new; ageing men must groom their second line of successors and step aside. Ah, the perennial succession puzzle where India’s political dynasties and cadre machines both struggle with, albeit in very different ways. Succession in the Indian National Congress (INC) is less about grooming and more about inheritance. Rahul Gandhi, despite electoral setbacks, remains the de facto heir. If replaced, the fallback is often his sister Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. The party’s constitution and internal culture make it difficult to replace the Gandhis. Loyalty is personal, not institutional, and there is no formal mechanism to elevate non-family leaders. Promising leaders like Sachin Pilot or Shashi Tharoor often face resistance or marginalization. The absence of a meritocratic pipeline weakens the second line. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) translates to Indian People’s Party (IPP) despite the fact that its organizational strength has not institutionalised succession and has no clear roadmap for leadership transition. It has an informal “retirement at 75” rule, but it is inconsistently applied. The BJP’s strength lies in its cadre-based structure and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) pipeline. Yet, the centralisation around individuals has stifled visible grooming of successors. The strategic implications are INC’s dynastic inertia risks alienating younger voters and regional leaders and BJP’s centralised charisma may create a vacuum post-Modi unless it activates its deep bench.
Yours etc;
VK Lyngdoh,
Via email
Does Donald Trump merit the Nobel Peace prize?
Editor,
When we take a closer look at today’s world leaders, it’s hard to find anyone with true diplomatic maturity or the wisdom of real statesmanship. Most seem caught in a race to prove their point, no matter how irrational or morally bankrupt they may be. Shockingly, some are even supporting regimes that are heartlessly bombing civilians for years on end. There’s little trace of humanity in their decisions. The hunger for power seems to have made them less compassionate, more arrogant and domineering.
Take Donald Trump. His loud call to “make America great again” has only added more confusion to an already unstable global scene. Obsessed with his country’s gains, he rarely looked beyond “profit.” As long as nations were buying arms from him, he didn’t mind them tearing each other apart. He was almost poised to break the sovereignty of Canada. Anyone who threatened America’s economy became his enemy number one. And yet, despite being knee-deep in chaos and controversy, he still dreams of winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The irony is hard to miss.
It’s no secret that Pakistan has long been involved in nurturing terrorism against India. But General Asim Munir, who himself was accused of mindlessly inciting extremism, was warmly embraced by Trump. Donald Trump was overjoyed when Munir endorsed him for the Peace Prize. It’s baffling. Honestly, I don’t think Barack Obama deserved it either. And, if Trump ever manages to bag the Nobel Peace Prize, it would reek of a backroom deal rather than a genuine honour. Yes, unlike fifty years ago, the dignity and sanctity of the Nobel Peace Prize in certain categories have greatly eroded.
Yours etc.,
Salil Gewali,
Shillong