As a nation, we are becoming less trusting of the journalists we once relied on. Once revered as the vanguards of truth and integrity, journalists were perceived as the public’s voice, the guardians of our right to know. They held our officials accountable and shed light on issues that would have gone unheard of. Fast forward to now, and the public envisions them as callous, caffeine-fuelled robots, seemingly preying upon the misfortune of others and desperate for words and actions they can twist into clickbait.
This caricature might not be too unrooted from the fact that most journalists I’ve had the fortune – or misfortune – to meet possess an unorthodox superpower, an eerie ability to remain unphased while facing inhumane and heartbreaking stories. Shrugging off a murder case like it were just another Monday, many journalists effortlessly integrate tragedy into their routine, treating it as nothing more than another item on their to-do list. So, if we’ve essentially got pseudo-robots disguised as journalists running the newsrooms, casually dissecting the devastating effects of poverty as they wait for their artisan coffee to brew, why not take the next logical step and let the real robots have a go?
AI has already infiltrated newsrooms worldwide. Whether it’s through automated content generation, data analysis, or a personalized new feed, its digital fingerprints have left their mark on the field. The development of AI has opened up a Pandora’s box, leaving journalists to pray that all hope is not lost.
“It’s quite scary,” Jane Barrie, previous editor at the Sunday Mail, tells me. “There are so few staff as it is, even the best journalists are worrying about it.” Having worked in the field for over 25 years, emails were yet to be widespread and eyed with suspicion when Barrie started her career. It’s fair to say she’s not welcoming AI with open arms. “If you have an experienced journalist, who can secure interviews, make connections, or even just have some intuition, it makes no sense to me to get AI to produce an article.”
Following in journalists’ footsteps, these algorithms – instead fuelled by lines of code – can churn out article after article in what would take the most seasoned journalist hours or days. Good articles come to those who wait, but publishers are not in a patient phase. Major publishers such as The Mirror have already integrated AI tools to carry out editorial research, while Newsquest gets AI to produce entire articles. This leaves aspiring reporters with a dilemma: adapt to the new reality or risk obsolescence.
To see if AI’s news writing can hold a torch to the writing of real journalists, I got an AI tool and a journalism student to produce an article based on an identical fictional prompt, complete with the same set of facts and quotes. The final, unedited versions of both these articles were then handed to Barrie for her judgment. In her editorial depth, she highlighted the good and – more often – the bad of each article, and, when asked to declare a preference, chose the article produced by AI, believing it was made by the student. Her decision ultimately came down to a stronger narrative and fewer ‘human’ errors. This should raise concerns among journalists as it underscores AI’s ability to imitate and improve upon human writing.
Beth Kerr, the writer behind the student article, expressed her disappointment upon hearing Barrie’s verdict: “It’s a bit disheartening. Writing has always been my passion, but now it feels like that door is closing.”
At 22, Kerr is in the fourth year of her journalism degree yet finds herself contemplating alternative career paths after graduation. AI is not the sole reason for this; the cutthroat and competitive nature of the field makes it increasingly harder for aspiring journalists to break through without the competition of generative technology. “If your work isn’t flawless and done in a short timeframe, it feels pointless to apply [to writing jobs],” she said. “Knowing that a machine can better my work in half the time only adds to the challenge.” What was once her lifelong dream now feels like an unattainable pipedream, leaving Kerr grappling with uncertainty and disillusionment. Aspiring journalists may be witnessing the story of the century – their own downfall.
Her sentiments are understood by Chris Rayner, a PhD student whose research focuses on the ethics of AI. “There’s a fine line between helping people and replacing them,” he told me. “When these tools are developed, it’s not done with the intention of making people redundant; they are made to be an assist tool. We wouldn’t ever make tools to replace people. It’s unethical.”
Rayner, now 26, had always dreamed of following in his father’s footsteps and pursuing a career in finance. However, growing up alongside the rapid advancements in AI, he began to feel that his lifelong aspiration was gradually slipping out of reach. With a heavy heart, he decided to abandon his dreams and jump ship into AI development, joking: “It’s the one job they can’t replace [for now]. At the end of the day, when AI inevitably malfunctions, a human has to fix it.”
Rayner is sceptical regarding the public’s anxiety surrounding AI’s integration: “We’ve been seeing an increase in automation for years, which has been completely normalised. We have automated factory lines, self-checkouts, and AI assistants just to name a few. It’s only when people who are in more ‘sophisticated’ fields are under threat that this fearmongering has come about, and we have to now think about the ethics.”
Despite the looming threat of job replacement, Barrie’s main concern lies within the validity of the content produced by AI. “As a journalist, you have to nail your facts to the ground – you cannot, under any circumstances, publish information you are not one hundred per cent certain on.” Barrie, now a practising solicitor and member of the Law Society of Scotland, knows the risk of publishing unverified information. “Even if the least wee things are wrong, they can cause huge issues, with defamation or misinformation.”
AI models rely on data sourced online, but let’s face it: the internet can be a cesspool of bias, misinformation, and downright toxicity. Without proper filters, AI regurgitates this digital garbage to the masses. “By incorporating AI, there’s a real risk of running fake news and stakes creeping in,” Barrie tells me.
Rayner, who has a special interest in developing AI, explained that as companies churn more content online, it unintentionally becomes the foundation of knowledge for future AI models. However, experts have found that in these situations, large language models get confused, collapsing on themselves and malfunctioning. Perhaps this is an opportunity for baseless optimism to creep through – the proliferation of AI-generated content could lead to its own demise.
Even with feigning promises of human editorial oversight, these articles often make room for some truly awful and dull reading, riddled with errors and failed attempts at wit. AI cannot attend the scene of a crime, look somebody in the eye and tell that they are lying, or garner a reputation that allures big names for interviews. It can only produce the bread and butter of articles and fails to infuse them with the depth, emotion, and critical analysis that comes like breathing to a seasoned writer.
So, if a plethora of issues arise with the use of these new technologies, why are companies set on circulating them within the newsroom? The easiest and simplest answer would simply boil down to corporate greed: fat cat editors filling the newsrooms with robots as human as they are. As technology ‘develops’, companies that don’t incorporate it risk appearing antiqued, making it a classic case of if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
Despite her obvious apprehension towards the integration of AI into journalism, Barrie understands why those at the top make a case for its use. “Newsrooms are so streamlined nowadays,” she explained. “If you have so few reporters and are trying to get so many hits because that is how your success is measured, it could be argued that AI is needed.”
While dwindling profits in traditional media are a concern for publishers, the answer is not to replace staff but to aid them. AI in the media doesn’t have to be bad news; we still have plenty of time to adjust and regulate its use. By utilising emerging technologies, news organisations can adapt to changing reader preferences and consumption habits. “Now we have access to these tools, like them or not, we can’t as a society just get rid of them. As much as many people would like to, we cannot undo their creation, so we need to learn how to utilise it to assist us rather than replace us,” asserts Rayner.
AI tools can act as crutches for reporters, who are already stretched thin, overworked, and underpaid. Stories, to journalists, are ripe fruit waiting to be plucked – leave them unreported for too long, however, and they’ll rot. To stop the birds and worms coming for them, AI can act as a preserver, covering stories that already stressed reporters cannot, stories where the facts cannot be misinterpreted or twisted. Time is then freed up for journalists to secure big interviews, pursue creative projects, and source new, verified information.
If AI is utilised to enhance reporters’ efficiency and effectiveness, it could indeed lead to an improvement in the quality of articles. However, the decision to employ the technology for this purpose must be deliberate; it won’t occur automatically. It all comes down to how higher-ups in the field choose to navigate this new frontier, and whether they’ll steer towards profit-driven algorithms rather than principled reporting. The only certainty is that further integration is inevitable.
I feel that it is important to make explicit that this article has been written by a human, without the help of AI. While almost all articles today are the work of experienced journalists and this will remain true for years to come, there is a silent infiltration of AI working in the background. To the naked eye, the differences in journalism are minuscule; the media are publishing biased, nuanced trash now as they have been doing for decades, just at a slightly upgraded clock speed. That being said, the very tools designed to enhance reporting are rewriting the story of the profession itself. Instead of succumbing to alarmism, journalists and industry professionals must approach this transformation with a critical eye and a sense of responsibility.
We have failed in the past by allowing people to be replaced by machines, but we must not cave to the allure of automation in the future. Journalists deserve a shield from the encroachment of AI and we, as their readers, deserve strong, sustainable media that can hold those in power accountable and speak for the voiceless.
Editor of the best section, features!!
Leave a Reply