China’s Cyberspace Administration (CAC) has recently rolled out regulations aimed at curbing the spread of misinformation. Under these rules, social media influencers who discuss regulated or sensitive subjects—such as medicine, law, finance, and education—are required to possess verifiable credentials, including relevant degrees or professional licenses. Platforms like Douyin, Weibo, and Bilibili are expected to verify these credentials before allowing such content to go live, with penalties, including fines, for violations.
While this approach has sparked debate globally, it also raises an uncomfortable but necessary question:
Should everyone be allowed to speak authoritatively on everything?
I believe this is a step in the right direction.
The recent incident involving yesteryear Bollywood actress Jaya Bachchan, where she publicly reprimanded paparazzi, became a major talking point. Many dismissed it as an overreaction. But to truly understand her response, one must understand where she comes from. She is the daughter of an old-school journalist—a generation that treated the written word with reverence and responsibility.
In that era, journalism had credibility because it had process. Reporters were trained. Stories passed through layers of editors. Facts were verified. Language was scrutinized. And above all, journalists were taught a core principle: do not take sides. Report what you see. Present the truth as it is. Let the reader decide.
When I was a young reporter, neutrality and fearlessness were non-negotiable. Allegiance—to power, ideology, or popularity—had no place in the newsroom. Journalism was not performance; it was public service.
What Jaya Bachchan witnessed—paparazzi chasing people, twisting angles, manufacturing outrage, indulging in clickbait journalism—is a sharp fall from that gold standard. It represents not just a generational clash, but the erosion of professional ethics.
Today, many who call themselves journalists wear their allegiances openly. A significant section of the media ecosystem has morphed into a PR machinery, operating under the guise of journalism. Information that should be sacrosanct is routinely compromised for reach, virality, and monetization.
More worrying is the overcrowding of this space by individuals who have undergone no formal training, yet wield enormous influence. The pen—or today, the keyboard—is a powerful tool. It shapes opinions, alters perceptions, and can influence millions, for better or worse. In most professions, one must study before practicing. Doctors, lawyers, teachers—none are allowed to operate without training, ethical grounding, and accountability.
Yet today, anyone can dispense advice on health, education, law, and deeply sensitive social issues, often without facts, context, or understanding. Documenting one’s personal life is one thing. But presenting half-truths or speculative opinions as information—without verifiable sources or expertise—is dangerous. https://mon-voyage.ca/exploring-the-unique-perspective-of-an-author/?swcfpc=1
The recent incident in Kolkata, where a so-called actor used his digital platform to spew venom bordering on incitement, is a stark reminder of this danger. Such situations are not merely about individual responsibility; they are about unchecked power. Often, these individuals do not even understand the consequences of what they say. They have never been trained in ethics, boundaries, or accountability. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timbajarin/2025/11/13/chinas-credentialing-crackdown-a-reset-for-the-influencer-economy/
It may not entirely be their fault. But that is precisely why regulation matters.
Not everyone should talk about everything. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from responsibility. Formal training, ethical grounding, and regulatory oversight are no longer optional—they are essential to protect the public from misinformation, manipulation, and harm.
In an age where information travels faster than truth, restoring credibility must take precedence over virality. Regulation, when done thoughtfully, is not censorship—it is protection.
