Think like a Journalist

A media literacy tool and revision for journalists, ‘para-journalists’, citizen journalists, and the general public 

You are welcome to adapt this material for your own communities. 

We request anyone using any of it to kindly credit Global Southasia (formerly Sapan News). Please email editorial@sapannews.com to let us know.

Download a PDF of the free template here 

Thank you.

Why ‘think like a journalist’?

In a world torn apart by extremist views, fragmented by social media, where partisan media outlets add fuel to the fire, holding on to the core principles of journalism, regardless of the platform being used, may provide a way to build bridges and create spaces for empathy, understanding and compassion.

 If journalists do their job well – taking an open-minded, exploratory approach, verifying and adding context to the information that they share, their work becomes what is labelled as ‘solutions journalism’ or ‘peace journalism’.

In my book, that’s just good journalism, driven not by ideology and agenda but a curiosity to uncover the story – remembering that ‘There is ‘more than one truth’ (Video Journalists Movement). 

These ten points are a synthesis from a series of talks and workshops I have given over the past few years, at Dishari Public Library in Milpitas CA, Sri Lanka Press Institute, Colombo, The Second Floor, and SZABIST Karachi. It also draws upon my peacebuilding work over the decades, and the journalism courses I have taught including Global Journalism at Emerson College (thanks Azeta Hatef) and“Para-journalism in a digital, AI-infested world” at IBA, Karachi — thinking of a ‘para journalist’ being like a paramedic, paralegal, or para military person, but without the training and oversight.

Our Social and Digital Media Ethics and Responsibility Pledge (sapannews.com/social)  is a training tool for para-journalists, and revision for professional journalists – that I now include in my email signature: “I have taken the Social Media Pledge – have you?” Since there is no way to police or enforce this concept, it is up to each individual to “be the change“.

These 10 points take the concept further.

– Beena Sarwar, Cambridge MA, 10 July 2026

Ten principles of journalism

With context and examples from Pakistan

By Asadullah Khan 

Readers are welcome to adapt this material for their own communities, with credit to Global Southasia (formerly Sapan News).
Please email editorial@sapannews.com to let us know.       

Download a PDF of the free template here

1. Observe Without Judgment
Context: First look at what actually happened – who said what, and in what order before deciding what it means. If you judge too early, you stop noticing things that don’t fit your initial idea.	Examples: During the March 2022 standoff before the no-confidence vote against Pakistani PM Imran Khan, reporters at Sindh House in Islamabad first documented which lawmakers were gathered there and for how long, before any outlet decided whether to frame it as “horse-trading” or “protective custody.” When the Pakistan parliament passed the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2016, amendments, reporters recorded the exact clauses and parliamentary vote count before framing it as either “press freedom under threat” or “action against fake news.”
2. Don’t Assume
Context: Don’t fill in the blanks with what seems likely. If you don’t know something for sure, find out before you share about it.	Examples: When Imran Khan alleged that a foreign “conspiracy” letter (the cypher) was behind his removal in 2022, credible news outlets didn’t assume it was true or false; they sought the actual document and official responses before reporting a conclusion. When the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) restricts a social media app during unrest, a reporter doesn’t assume it’s political censorship — they ask PTA directly for the stated reason.
3. Verify Information
Context: Never repeat a claim just because someone said it, even a source you trust. Check it against another source before you treat it as true.	Examples: First check a claim circulating on YouTube channels about a new Karachi governance ordinance, against the actual Sindh Assembly text, before repeating it on-air. Verify a widely shared claim that the Telecom Bill lets companies install towers on “any property without consent”, against the bill’s actual clause and the ministry’s official statement, rather than repeating as-is. When there’s a tip about a NAB reference being filed against a politician, check it against NAB’s official statement or court filing. Do not quote a tweet from an opposition party account without due verification.
4. Provide Context
Context: A fact on its own can still mislead people if they don’t know the background. Explain the history and the ‘why’ behind a story, not just what happened today.	Examples: Reporting on 18th Amendment disputes, a journalist explains its 2010 origins in devolving power to the provinces, so viewers understand why Karachi governance keeps resurfacing as a flashpoint. Reporting a court verdict in the Tosha Khana case, the story includes the underlying allegation (about undeclared gifts) and prior legal proceedings, not just the day’s ruling.
5. State Facts, Not Opinions
Context: Report what is actually true and provable. Keep your own opinion separate, even when someone asks you to explain or analyze something.	Examples: Instead of saying “the government is mishandling the economy,” a report states that inflation reached a specific percentage that month, per Pakistan Bureau of Statistics data. Reporting the 2022 no-confidence vote outcome, responsible coverage provides information about the 174-vote tally and constitutional process, rather than declaring whether the outcome was “justified.” Covering fuel price changes, a bulletin states the new per-litre price and the amount of change, rather than saying prices have “skyrocketed.”
6. Avoid Labelling, Name-Calling, and Finger-Pointing
Context: Words like “corrupt,” “traitor,” or “puppet” judge a person before you’ve explained why. Instead, describe exactly what they did and how you know it’s more accurate and harder to argue with.	Examples: Rather than label a politician as “corrupt,” a responsible report states they face a specific NAB reference alleging misuse of public funds of a stated amount, with the case’s current status. Rather than branding a commentator “anti-state” or “a government stooge,” a media narrative tracker social media account describes their specific pattern of coverage with dated examples.
7. Respond With Reason, Not Emotion
Context: It’s normal to feel angry, scared, or upset about a story but don’t let that feeling decide what you report or how you word it. A calm, reasoned response holds up better than an emotional one.	Examples: When social media users react furiously to claims that “telecom companies can now take your home,” a journalist resists running with the outrage and instead checks the bill’s actual wording before scripting the segment. When social media users personally attack journalists for their coverage of a sensitive story, they respond with clarified reporting rather than a defensive or emotional reply.
8. Choose Words Carefully. Use Neutral Language
Context: The words you pick can quietly take a side, even when you don’t mean to. “Clash” sounds different from “crackdown.” Choose plain, fair words so people trust what you’re telling them.	Examples: Responsible coverage of security operations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Balochistan describes “security forces exchanged fire with militants,” rather than loaded phrases that favour either side. A responsible report about a political rally uses words like “gathering” or “rally” rather than loaded terms like “invasion” or “siege.
9. Stay Open-Minded
Context: Be ready to admit your first idea about a story might be wrong, and follow the facts wherever they actually lead even if that goes against what you expected.	Examples: A journalist who initially assumed the Telecom Bill was purely a corporate giveaway stays open to the fact that the government revised it after genuine committee review and public pressure. A reporter investigating claims of vote irregularities in a by-election remains willing to conclude they were clerical errors, if that’s what the polling station records show.
10. Listen More Than Speak
Context: To really understand a story, especially in an interview, you need to listen more than you talk. Interrupting or performing for the camera makes you miss what the person is actually telling you.	Examples: In a Senate committee hearing on the bill, a journalist listens to the full exchange between senators and the IT Minister before drafting a headline.

Asadullah Khan is a senior television producer in Islamabad. He was on the founding team of Geo TV in Karachi, 2002, and currently heads a new TV channel about to be launched. He wrote the above on 12 July 2026, after reading the ‘Think Like a Journalist’ principles, and also created an Urdu version for his newsroom. A PDF of the Urdu version is posted online here.

__________________                                          

Further comments and food for thought

The power of silence

“There is too much commentary out there. It is  good practice to say something only if you can improve a situation”

— Mohan Tissanayagam, businessman, Colombo, 12 July 2026

Five more points

11. Avoid sensationalism
12. Be objective, not subjective in judging people and situations 
13. Credibility is the only badge for a journalist worth carrying; you lose credibility, you lose readers’/viewers’faith 
14. Cultivate scepticism; don’t believe everything you hear till you cross check 
15. Confidence to exercise independent moral judgment on events and situations, without external influence

– Tarun Basu, founder-editor in chief and director of IANS (India Abroad News Service), head of the thinktank Society for Policy Studies and South Asia Monitor, Delhi, 16 July 2026

About ‘neutral’ language and fraught words

I largely agree with everything, this is the kind of journalism I stand for. Still, I don’t want to make it too easy for myself. We are dealing here with the key issues of truth seeking, and I think some of the terms in the manual raise important questions (to which I don’t have an answer per se). I am especially referring to terms like ‘neutral language’, ‘without judgment’ and ‘labelling’.

The Israel/Palestine issue for example is full of situations and alleged facts where you can ask yourself what these terms mean. The word ‘genocide’, to take the most pregnant example, is highly contested. Even legal experts have different opinions about the use, and the ICJ is still working on a case, the outcome of which is difficult to predict. So since it is contested, almost by definition that means that use of the word is not ‘neutral’, so it can’t be used. On the other hand, many people would say it is the most correct description of reality. So?

Same for the word ‘apartheid’. I have no problem using the word apartheid for what is happening in the Westbank. But I would not call Israel an ‘apartheid state’, since the social status of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship is not so bad as to justify use of the term. (By the way, Human Rights Watch makes the same distinction.)

Still, some people (from both sides of the spectrum) might disagree with this, so how ‘neutral’ or factual is my approach?

Then ‘keep your own opinion separate when analyzing something’.

In principle, I completely agree. But let’s not kid ourselves. What the author thinks always plays a role, namely the way the author BELIEVES the matter should be described, interpreted, and analyzed. That, too, could be considered an OPINION (the opinion of the author of how to best analyze the situation) and the dividing line between permissible and impermissible opinion is blurred.

Most copy in our newspaper a while ago regarding Hungary, for example, was full of negative descriptions of Viktor Orban and his regime. Were those all facts? Or did they concern descriptions that, according to the authors, did justice to reality and describe it as accurately as possible? I think the latter.

Am I allowed to write in an analysis that Erdogan is trying to sideline the Turkish opposition using legal means, or is that an opinion I must always attribute to ‘critics’ of the AKP government? Are we allowed to write in an analysis that Netanyahu used the Gaza War partly to stay in power and obstruct legal proceedings against him, or is that our opinion? After all, there are no concrete data to support the presumption. And all the critical observations we read in most analytical pieces about Donald Trump, are they facts? Or just an opinion? Can we write as a matter of fact that Russia flagrantly violated international law by invading Ukraine (we can, I think, but not everybody might agree). 

One suggestion: skip ‘neutral language’. ‘Choose your words carefully’ should be enough.

– Rob Vreeken, Istanbul correspondent and former foreign desk editor De Volkskrant, The Netherlands, 18 July 2026.

Acknowledgments 

Learnings from Beena Sarwar’s journalism students at Institute of Business Administration, Karachi, Spring semester 2026

Asadullah Khan, Islamabad; Mohan Tissanayagam, Colombo; Richard Murphy, Connecticut; Rob Vreeken, Istanbul; Sachin Gupta, Boston; Vidya Kakra, New Delhi; Zacahary Zavide, BrownPundits.com

(ends)