AI isn’t killing journalism – it might just save it (if we stop misusing it) – Prolific North

This post was originally published on this site.

Criticising journalists for using AI has become something of a sport. Rarely a day goes by go by without some former editor lamenting the demise of ‘proper’ journalism.

But while the debate about AI’s role in journalism is fierce, it remains frustratingly narrow. We’ve barely begun to grasp the full impact AI could have on journalism (or any other industry, for that matter). 

Dismissing it is no different from the Luddites smashing textile machines in the Industrial Revolution. It didn’t stop it.

READ MORE: AI “will replace jobs” and it’s a truth “no one wants to talk about” urges Northern leader

The idea that journalists can simply ignore AI absurd. Whether journalists and audiences like it or not, AI will transform the way news is produced. The potential benefits are enormous both financially and, dare I say it, creatively.

Right now, the focus is overwhelmingly on AI’s role in content creation through large language models that we all love (and hate). But AI is already being used in far more innovative ways, from automating tedious tasks like tagging metadata to providing sharper audience insights, predicting future trends, and optimising content distribution in real-time.

And we are only scratching the surface of what’s possible.

And yet, despite AI’s immense potential to revolutionise journalism for the better, there’s a big caveat. Just because it can be a force for good doesn’t mean it will be.  While we scratch around on the surface of what’s possible, it’s also imperative to remain focused on what’s beneficial.

That responsibility lies entirely with us. Humans. Audiences and publishers.

It’s up to publishers – who undoubtedly face tough financial realities – to ensure AI is used to enhance journalism, not cheapen it while navigating the tricky financial waters they find themselves in.

But crucially, it’s up to audiences to be discerning in what they consume. If readers engage with the kind of ‘guff’ that former Independent editor Chris Blackhurst fears AI will flood the internet with, then publishers driven by clicks will keep producing more of it. (Maybe they shouldn’t, and that’s something they have to grapple with, but we the reading public don’t need to give them more reasons to do it).

Blackhurst voiced his concerns at a London Press Club debate, arguing that rather than freeing journalists for investigative work, AI will fuel a rise in low-quality content. He’s probably right. But who’s to blame for that? AI? Or the people using it?

Nuclear science wasn’t to blame for Hiroshima. People were. AI is another transformative scientific breakthrough and how it’s used depends entirely on human decision-making.

AI has the potential to make journalism sharper, more efficient, and more data-driven. But it also has the capacity to fill an already noisy world with even more noise. If we choose noise, we will get noise.

READ MORE: “If you’re not good at your job, you’re f****d” – Northern leader’s blunt warning on AI’s impact on creativity

So, I implore you to choose something else. Choose quality. Don’t settle for the ‘guff’ that Blackhurst and others rightly fear.

“The idea that people are going to be ‘freed up’ to generate original content – I don’t really buy,” Blackhurst said. “They might be freeing people up to work elsewhere, but they won’t be freeing them up to do quality journalism.”

As a former City Editor at both the Evening Standard and Sunday Express, Blackhurst knows the pressures media organisations face. He sees AI as a “very convenient, very quick tool” for cost-cutting, replacing expensive foreign correspondents and investigative teams with algorithmic content churn.

His scepticism was met with a more optimistic take from Daily Mirror digital editorial director Anne-Marie Tomchak, who argued that journalists should embrace AI as a tool rather than fear it.

READ MORE: The AI revolution is coming – will the North be left behind? Tech leaders react as growth zone bidding opens

“We as journalists need to become AI practitioners,” she said, citing Reach’s in-house AI tool, Guten, which speeds up content repurposing. She pointed to recent Mirror coverage from Ukraine and an undercover investigation into cosmetic surgery as examples of AI helping rather than harming quality journalism.

Their are both right. Tomchak is right that journalists have to embrace the tech but Blackhurst is right that some will abuse it. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

Emma Loffhagen, Guardian Saturday’s culture and lifestyle commissioning editor, raised another challenge. She raised AI’s effect on how audiences consume news. She warned that younger, tech-savvy readers increasingly bypass traditional media in favour of AI-powered search, further threatening journalism’s revenue model. This, sadly, could fuel more short-sighted decisions by publishers born out of desperate financial pressures.

The fact remains. What happens remains firmly in our hands. If we chose quality, we might just get it – and more of it thanks to AI’s ability to streamline.

Blackhurst, however, remains unconvinced, warning that AI-driven cost-cutting will flood the internet with low-quality content – akin to the free ad-funded newspapers often discarded unread.

“The truth is there are people producing that sort of stuff, that sort of guff… and they believe that’s journalism. It is not journalism, and we shouldn’t allow it to be so.”

AI is a huge leap into the unknown. But the real challenge isn’t AI itself. It’s whether journalists, publishers, and audiences use it wisely. If there’s a problem, AI ain’t it. We are.

*Karl Holbrook is Prolific North Consulting Editor. He’s the former Executive Editor of the Daily Express and Group Editor of The Northern Echo and The Bolton News.