A. Waseem Khattak
As I stand close to saying goodbye to my role as a journalism teacher, I look back at this journey with a strange sense of contradiction. After spending five years in mainstream media, I entered academia with the belief that it would offer stability, dignity, intellectual freedom, and relief from the pressures of newsroom life.
I thought academia would be different. There would be no constant fear of deadlines, no insecurity about losing a job overnight, and no professional uncertainty that often defines the life of a journalist.
But that assumption was wrong.
Academia, especially in private universities, introduced me to another kind of uncertainty—quieter, but in many ways more painful. Job security remained fragile, merit was often pushed aside, and speaking the truth could carry professional consequences. In some places, universities appeared less like centres of knowledge and more like spaces shaped by personal interests, favouritism, and internal politics.
Yet despite these realities, I tried to play my part with sincerity. I designed journalism courses, contributed to the establishment of academic programmes, and helped lay the foundation for journalism education in institutions where the field later found formal space. Still, repeated experiences in selection processes made one thing clear: the problem was not always competence; often, it was the system itself.
This crisis is not limited to one university. Across Pakistan, and particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, higher education is facing a serious decline. Political interference, weak governance, irrelevant appointments, and a lack of research culture have damaged the academic environment. Universities that should have been centres of inquiry, creativity, and critical thought are increasingly becoming degree-producing factories.
The situation becomes even more troubling when we look at journalism education. In many universities, journalism departments are not growing; they are merely surviving. A few institutions may still be performing reasonably, but many others are struggling to remain relevant. The world of journalism has changed, yet our departments have not changed with it.
The old formula of “five Ws and one H” is no longer enough. Artificial intelligence is now writing news reports, features, analyses, and even books. In this new environment, creativity, critical thinking, originality, and digital skills are no longer optional. Without them, journalism becomes mechanical repetition rather than meaningful communication.
At the same time, the economic reality of media has also changed. A single social media influencer with a strong digital following can earn far more than a traditionally employed journalist. When young people see low salaries, delayed payments, and poor working conditions in mainstream media, why would they willingly enter such a profession without being equipped with modern skills?
The real question, therefore, is not whether journalism is dying. Journalism is not dying; it is transforming. The real failure lies in the inability of our institutions to understand this transformation.
Universities must accept that their responsibility is no longer limited to producing reporters, anchors, professors, or public relations officers. Journalism is part of the wider field of mass communication, and its curriculum must reflect the needs of society, technology, research, and the modern media market.
Students must be trained not only to write news but also to understand society, interpret data, produce digital content, verify information, use artificial intelligence responsibly, and build independent professional identities.
For this purpose, journalism curricula must be redesigned. Digital journalism, data journalism, mobile journalism, social media management, fact-checking, climate journalism, economic reporting, health communication, media entrepreneurship, podcasting, documentary production, and artificial intelligence should become essential parts of journalism education.
Equally important is the retraining of teachers. A teacher who is unfamiliar with digital media cannot prepare students for a digital world. Faculty members must be exposed to industry practices, new technologies, research methods, and modern storytelling tools. Without updated teachers, updated curricula will remain only paperwork.
Media organizations must also rethink their survival models. Dependence on government advertisements, poor salaries, delayed wages, and weak professional structures have damaged the credibility of the profession. Media houses must explore digital subscriptions, community journalism, research-based reporting, branded content, documentaries, podcasts, and other sustainable revenue models.
Journalists themselves must also move beyond general reporting. The future belongs to those who develop expertise in specific areas such as economy, climate change, health, technology, education, governance, courts, sports, or local government. The journalist of the future will not merely report events; he or she will explain context, provide analysis, use data, and offer meaningful insight.
The truth is simple but bitter. If universities, media organizations, teachers, and journalists do not change their direction, journalism departments may continue to exist in name, but the spirit of journalism will disappear from them.
Buildings will remain. Degrees will continue to be awarded. Titles will still be used. But journalism as a living, meaningful, and socially powerful profession will weaken further.
If journalism education is to be saved, then outdated thinking must be abandoned. Universities must modernize curricula, retrain faculty, build serious links with the media industry, promote research, and give students skills rather than only degrees.
Otherwise, history will not say that journalism died suddenly. It will say that journalism changed before our eyes, but our institutions lacked the courage to change with it.
Get in Touch with @awaseemKhattak, Head of Journalism at Women University Swabi.
