By Gabriel Palos
@redlineproject
AI disclosure: ChatGPT was used to outline and find sources for this piece. DALL-E 3 and NotebookLM were used to create the images. The summary was generated by SummarizeWise custom GPT and the podcast and video was generated by NotebookLM.
Summary: Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming common in newsrooms and helps journalists do tasks faster, like writing headlines or summarizing interviews. Some people worry AI will take journalism jobs, especially entry-level ones. However, experts say the biggest problem is declining news revenue, not AI itself. AI cannot replace important human work like interviewing sources or reporting events. Instead, it may help journalists save time and focus on deeper reporting.
More discussion about transparency in reporting has emerged within recent years, as news companies are beginning to turn to Artificial Intelligence (AI) to aid in writing news stories and are using less human thought to produce work.
“Nearly 70% of newsroom staffers from a variety of backgrounds and organizations surveyed in December say they’re using the technology for crafting social media posts, newsletters and headlines; translation and transcribing interviews; and story drafts, among other uses,” wrote Alex Mahadevan in a Poynter Institute article published on Apr. 10.
Newsrooms must incorporate and familiarize themselves with the AI in order to stay relevant, however, some concerns still remain amongst journalists on whether or not this powerful tool will cause job displacement.
Mahadevan wrote that journalists are already using AI and expediting the process of getting a news story published. Furthermore, journalism is experiencing “an already-ailing business model,” wrote Mark Caro in an article on the Medill Local News Initiative. This leads many to question the future for journalists who are skilled in a craft that technology is recreating and getting published.
As previously mentioned, journalists wonder what will become of their profession and job status in the future, as AI becomes a major tool in their field. While there are editors that believe that the tool can make everyday tasks easier and let reporters go more in depth into their reporting, layoffs and sparsity of job availability may become defensible, which endangers jobs and the human interference that the public relies on for factual excellence.
This article explores the use of AI in journalism, its impact on the opportunities for journalists, especially those new to the field, as well as providing journalist and media scholar Tom Rosenstiel’s expert opinion on the matter.
Introduction of AI Into the Newsroom
Artificial intelligence can no longer be shut out from journalism, as its use has slowly become integrated, leading to its role as a new staff member in the newsroom. Although some believe that AI in journalism is a new concept, that is not completely true. Mahadevan’s article stated that the Associated Press has been dabbling in AI for a decade. It’s been capable of performing simple tasks that make the life of a journalist easier, but now, with generative AI, it can perform more thorough work, like entire news articles with a structure that flows and reliable sources incorporated.
AI can read, analyze and simplify government documents, transcribe and give a summary of audio all within the snap of a finger, which can take away pressure in newsrooms and lead editors to support its time-saving features. While there is no denying its capabilities, there is also no denying its complex nature in the discipline. When Generative AI can do what a human can do, its journalistic use as an aid or potential replacement of journalists becomes more intriguing. This intrigue may only heighten as economic pressures may lead organizations to use it more.
This discussion does not only pertain to technology, but also raises ethical questions. Poynter has discussed issues of openness and responsibility. Should companies be open with whether or not their articles have benefited from AI? And who takes the responsibility when AI makes mistakes? As the use of AI becomes more widespread in journalism, these ethical arguments have been made in both public and newsroom discourse.
The Economic Rationale for AI and its Downsides
The reliance on AI in journalism has a clear connection to the financial demands in the industry right now. For many years now, publications, both in print and digital have earned less income for ads, diminishing staff, and all too commonly, they shut down. According to a Brookings Institute article by Courtney C. Radsch, “smaller, niche, minority, investigative, and local media are being left behind, in part because they don’t necessarily understand the value proposition of their journalism throughout the AI value chain, the resources and sway to seek out deals, or the power to negotiate effectively.”
In journalism’s struggling economic state, AI appears to be an attractive way to save money. A paid staff reporter costs a lot more money than simply using an automated approach to do specific tasks. When less money is coming in, executives will turn to what makes sense: less spending on workers and a quicker process.
Rosenstiel argues that many companies are using AI due to the fact that revenue is disappearing, and not because they are trying to unemploy journalists completely. With this perspective, the increase of AI usage in the newsroom is connected to financial challenges and not just innovation purposes.
Looking at the issue with this economic perspective, journalism becomes commodified. If the tool is used mostly because it is a way to save a buck, then more termination may take place and money may not be put back into the organization to aid in more reporting, which requires the human mind. For those worried about AI taking the job of new journalists who are tasked with writing simpler pieces, there is still hope. Radsch claims that “unlike journalists, AI can not go into the courtroom or interview a defendant behind bars, meet with the grieving parents of the latest school shooting victim, cultivate the trust of a whistleblower, or brave the frontlines of the latest war.”
The conflict within this debate is apparent in other industries as well, however, journalism is particularly distinct from other fields facing this dilemma. Journalism does not plainly make content, but rather is an occupation that requires transparency and faith from the people. When saving money by using technology impacts the employment status of journalists, consequential effects may emerge, like the loss of formal skills, guidance and aid in nurturing new journalists.
If organizations use AI to put out work quicker than others, those that don’t adapt will struggle to remain relevant and succeed in a digital world where there is already an abundance of content. This puts journalists in a difficult situation of accepting an instrument that their work could benefit from, while also dreading the possibility of it occupying their position.
What Does This Mean for Entry-Level Jobs?
Although AI sounds like a promising newsroom assistant, it also could be the source of fear for journalists that use entry-level jobs to develop fundamental skills. Entry-level jobs, like copy editor, reporter or editorial assistant have long provided new journalists with the skills they need to be a successful journalist. Jobs like these might vanish with the rapid growth in use of AI in journalism and crushing economic demands.
According to Caro, the industry has already experienced massive layoffs and loss of publications due to ad revenues disappearing and digital publications weakening the traditional way of gaining revenue. In the United States, newspaper jobs decreased by more than 75% from 2005 and 2024. This decrease in jobs includes entry-level ones that used to be available in abundance. With shutdowns and layoffs, there are fewer entry-level journalists and interns who can get hands-on training.
Tools may make the work more efficient, and newsrooms experiencing financial distress may refer to automation instead of new reporters. Unfortunately, this change may take away the opportunities for new journalists to grow through producing portfolio-worthy work and obtaining valuable skills.
Rosenstiel has also stated that while AI can do the repetitive tasks effectively, there is still a need for reporting done by humans; therefore, AI can only change certain positions and not take over the human tasks that make journalism what it is.
Ultimately, making journalism more effective should not interfere with the development of professional skills that human journalists need. Entry-level jobs shouldn’t be viewed as an expense, but rather an investment to keep journalism a thriving field.
Research on AI in Journalism
Academic research reveals a perplexing image of AI and how it is reinventing the production process of news. While generative AI can produce logical, comprehensible work, the value and sincerity of that work and its influence on staffing continue to be unresolved.
According to Marzena Karpinska and colleagues in their research paper, AI use in American newspapers is widespread, uneven, and rarely disclosed, “Using Pangram, a state-of-the-art AI detector, we discover that approximately 9% of newly-published articles are either partially or fully AI-generated.” The study also notes that AI usage appears “more frequently in smaller, local outlets, in specific topics such as weather and technology, and within certain ownership groups.” Additionally, AI usage in reporting was discovered to be hidden, prompting conversations about clarity in newsroom operations and guidelines for editorial processes.
According to Delvin Ce Zhang and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University in their research paper, Echoes of Automation: The Increasing Use of LLMs in Newsmaking, “Linguistic analysis shows GenAI boosts word richness and readability but lowers formality, leading to more uniform writing styles, particularly in local media.”
Of course, this style of writing may lead to fewer possibilities for more distinct or creative writing styles and complicate the distinction between attribution and responsibility. Additionally, Zhang and colleagues state that “Unchecked integration of AI tools and unintended errors in them (e.g., hallucinations) can jeopardize the integrity of those fields and could have serious consequences,” which further promotes the need for human supervision.
These two research papers indicate that although AI can write for newspapers or websites, human journalists are still needed for careful oversight, knowledge of context, and a moral stance. With this specific use of technology, particular roles are not the only element threatened, but so are the industry standards that make journalism reliable.
“We do not see AI as a replacement of journalists in any way,” states the Associated Press on its website. Rather than functioning as a replacement, generative AI is more of a tool for employees, however, “they do not use it to create publishable content.”
“Any output from a generative AI tool should be treated as unvetted source material,” stressing the company’s importance on the need for human supervision of works utilizing such tools, linking to AP’s “80/20 rule.” This rule ensures that journalism remains human driven, according to Aimee Rinehart, program manager for the AP’s Local News AI initiative in an ONA Student Newsroom article. “I like the 80/20 rule where AI can take you 80% of the way and 20% is (humans) reviewing and making sure to publish,” states Rinehart.
An Expert Perspective
To further comprehend the use of AI in the future of journalism more deeply, Tom Rosenstiel, journalist and Eleanor Merrill Scholar on the Future of Journalism at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism offered more information on how the technology may affect the newsroom.
He stresses that fears about AI taking over journalism jobs are usually misguided. “I don’t think it’s quite accurate that AI is going to reduce employment,” he said. According to him, the biggest problem within the industry currently is an economic one. “It is declining revenue,” which is a concern of his referenced earlier in the paper. While advertising and subscription money decreases, “Most news organizations will try to use AI to compensate for those declining revenue,” instead of simply replacing journalists.
Rosenstiel does see how AI can have actual advantages. “Some AI is great,” directing attention to audio readings of human reporters’ written stories. This use of the technology “creates the opportunity for people to consume news while doing other things, like cooking or walking,” making it more accessible without jeopardizing the journalist’s part in developing the original work.
With that being said, he acknowledges that generative AI “will result in fewer people for some things.” He took note of experiments like The Washington Post’s AI-generated podcasts, stating that “they are not very good and the staff hates them.” Nonetheless, he still contends that rampant replacement of journalists is not probable. “The pure replacement of reporters to have AI write stories I expect will be more limited than people imagine,” he said. “Someone still has to report.”
Rosenstiel sugarcoats nothing when it comes to AI generated news stories. “AI written stories are pretty lousy,” he said, stating further that they usually only work well “for stock reports or straight up game stories in sports,” and even still, “that work has very limited readership anyway.”
What Rosenstiel said he believes AI is great for is efficiency.
“What AI can do, and smart companies are figuring out how to use it this way, is reduce repetitive tasks that take people a lot of time,” he said, or “examine transcripts of meetings you cannot otherwise attend.”
When used as support, he argues, AI switches from being a perceived hazard to becoming a functional tool.
“Used this way, AI is an opportunity, not a threat,” he said.
Conclusion
AI’s increased use in newsrooms does not only represent a technological change in direction, but also an economic one. As Rosenstiel said, the main concern in journalism is not automation, but declining revenue.
In this regard, AI becomes less of a disruptive tool and more of a tool of adaptation or a tool that companies resort to survive financial hardships. The real issue is not if AI will replace journalists on a large scale, but how it will be incorporated into a field that is already struggling.
Rosenstiel said concerns about complete job loss could be dramatized. Some everyday assignments and uniform content may now not be needed as much due to Generative AI. But still, this tool is unable to substitute the main processes of journalism: doing original reporting, building sources, showing up to witness events, and making smart editorial calls.
“Someone still has to report,” he said.
There is more of an issue with a decrease in entry-level job opportunities, reduced staff size, and less opportunities for upcoming journalists to develop in the workplace over the issue concerning replacement of human journalists.
For journalists entering the job market, this time can be both confusing to navigate and symbolize adaptation. If the “new” AI tool is mainly used for financial purposes, entry-level jobs could keep disappearing, reducing opportunities for professional development. But if it is used wisely, to cut down on routine tasks, review records, or improve access, then it could free up journalists to dedicate more of their time to investigative work and audience interaction. This strategic usage will make the field stronger instead of weaker.
In the end, it is not only AI that will have a say in how journalism functions in the future. Financial choices, professional ethics, and editorial management will have power over the field’s future. Its future relies on how AI is perceived. If it is perceived as a way to make written works low-cost or as a foundation that maintains what AI can not duplicate: critical thinking, professional responsibility, and public trust.
FAQ: AI and Journalistic Job Loss
- Is the use of AI in journalism a brand-new phenomenon?No. While generative AI has recently brought the topic to the forefront, some news organizations have been using the technology for a long time. For instance, the Associated Press has been utilizing AI for simple tasks for a decade.
- Why are newsrooms increasingly turning to AI?The primary driver is economic pressure rather than just a desire for innovation. Journalism is currently facing an “already-ailing business model” characterized by declining ad revenue and disappearing subscription money. AI is seen as an attractive, low-cost way to automate repetitive tasks and save money when newsrooms cannot afford a full human staff.
- Which positions are most at risk?
Entry-level jobs — such as copy editors, reporters, and editorial assistants — are the most endangered. These roles often involve the “repetitive tasks” that AI handles effectively. The loss of these positions is concerning because they have traditionally been the training grounds where new journalists develop fundamental professional skills. - What are the limitations of AI compared to human journalists?
AI lacks the ability to perform core journalistic functions that require human presence and trust. Specifically, AI cannot:- Physically enter a courtroom or interview a defendant behind bars- Cultivate trust with a whistleblower- Brave the front lines of a war zone- Provide the critical thinking, original reporting, and smart editorial judgment that humans do - What is the “80/20 rule”?
Referenced by the Associated Press, the 80/20 rule suggests that AI can take a project 80% of the way, but the final 20% must be handled by humans to review, vet, and ensure the work is fit for publication.