At a recent dinner briefing at a European ambassador’s residence in Manila, two journalists were invited, alongside about six others who would typically be called "content creators" (the term "influencer" seems to be fading from fashion).

In an earlier era, all of us around the table would have identified as journalists.

That was of course before the internet turned the multitudes into personal brands with their own distribution channels. 

Whether journalists admit it or not, our conceit of being “gate keepers” of information — deciding what the public should know about what’s currently happening in the world — now rings hollow. We can no longer expect to be the only voices around that table. 

University professors are telling me fewer of their brightest students want to become journalists. There are many reasons: For one, the murders of journalists often make headlines (far more than those of other professionals), frightening parents who pay the tuition. Journalists are demonized by political leaders, trolled, and threatened by their followers. Budget cuts have slashed newsroom staffs worldwide.

But I suspect the most significant reason is that young people now have many alternatives if they want to reach a wide audience, make an impact, and earn a decent living. Some even attend press conferences and secure credentials without calling themselves journalists.

So, is journalism heading for extinction? No. 

What we’re witnessing is the decline of influence of those who identify as journalists. But the need for journalism remains, regardless of who practices it. When a storm is approaching, we need credible sources to tell us when and where. After a bomb drops, we need to understand its real-world effects. We need people who will call out lies by those in power.

There is a growing need now for content creators to step up and fill humanity’s need for facts and credible information. 

Meanwhile, those who still identify as journalists are a besieged bunch. Increasingly, we’re struggling to engage wider audiences, adapt to new technologies, deal with hostile governments, and remain relevant. 

Over a hundred of us from around the world gathered in Bangkok this past week to talk about the existential challenges confronting our profession. 

Organized by the Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA), the conference wasn’t just a chance to commiserate, but a forum to explore real solutions.

We found strength in the resolve of Associated Press executive editor Julie Pace, who shared her organization’s successful stand against President Donald Trump’s ban on their reporters from the White House. She said resisting his demand to rename the Gulf of Mexico was “an easy decision.” With a global audience to serve, she stressed, the AP cannot bend to the arbitrary whims of any leader, no matter how influential, when it came to altering long-established standards.

No one was under any illusion that skirmish signaled better days ahead. 

There was a shared consensus that the world had shifted to the right, moving away from the foundational values of journalism — free speech and the primacy of facts. America’s new isolationism has not only cut financial lifelines to media groups in Myanmar, Afghanistan, Cambodia and other countries struggling to establish journalism traditions. President Trump’s policies have given fresh opportunities for China to assert its own authoritarian values. A Chinese journalist at the conference told me it’s impossible to cover domestic politics in China, so she’s now focusing on cross-border issues, like the dynamics between Chinese diaspora communities and other local populations. She was in the right place to build connections, as journalists from over a dozen countries affected by China’s geopolitical reach had gathered in Bangkok. One promising outcome of these challenges is growing collaboration among journalists from different countries, who are sharing resources and knowledge. They also have new tools to make this happen. 

Artificial intelligence is often seen as a threat to replace journalists. But experts discussed its potential to empower journalists to tackle more ambitious investigations, organize large data sets, better moderate online discussions, and even test headlines for search optimization. 

There was a mix of analog natives (myself included) who regaled younger colleagues with nostalgic stories about the “golden age of journalism” in the 1980s and 90s, when journalists commanded attention simply because there were few other public voices aside from politicians. In those days, journalists' reporting played a key role in fueling democracy movements around the world.

That was then, this is now: We’ve entered the golden age of content creators. But they’re often unaccountable, and many don’t even use their real names. Journalists can lose their jobs for intentionally spreading lies or violating ethical rules. Content creators, on the other hand, can’t fire themselves. 

One slide at the conference neatly illustrated our reality: a pyramid labeled “social media content creators” with “under-defined responsibilities and norms but growing influence” beside an inverted pyramid representing journalists with “well-defined roles and responsibilities but declining influence.” 

It’s a troubling trend. We can wish to bring back the old days of influence when journalists could still compel all presidential candidates to debate. 

Meanwhile, some seasoned journalists are diving into online spaces to engage with younger audiences. One of the livelier sessions at the conference featured millennial journalists Artie Sabpaitoon from Thailand, a former editor at the Bangkok Post, and Filipina multimedia journalist Jacque Manabat.

Both have built strong, charismatic social media presences, using a lighthearted approach to discuss the news. They’re setting an example not only for aspiring young journalists but also for those pursuing careers as content creators who might not want to be called journalists.

Who says content creators, influencers, vloggers, and all the other trendy roles can’t uphold journalistic standards?

The principles of accountability and responsibility to the public, along with the practice of verification, shouldn’t be exclusive to those who identify as journalists. 

These core standards must apply to anyone producing public information in the digital age.

In the end, the labels don’t really matter. What does is the truth we seek, and the trust we build.