Is it now possible to trust "The Washington Post" in delivering legitimate news sourced and presented by human beings?
In the 21st Century world of news platforms, the battle rages with a simple "who do you trust?" starting point. Legitimate news platforms are always asking the public to trust that they are delivering real news without fear or favor. Sadly, as we've seen far too often, the numbers of those actually delivering on the promise are dwindling. Rapidly.
Part of the problem is a general public too lazy to actually seek out the facts and do a little simple research to insure they are not being duped. The other part of that equation is the greed of conglomerate ownership that has nothing even close to journalistic integrity at the forefront of their thinking. To them, it's the bottom line and nothing more.
Let's begin this treatise with some guidelines. This isn't about Left vs. Right. This isn't about the usual screeching from one side about how "biased" the WaPo is, nor is it about another side bellowing how the other side is "delusional" and bogged down in propaganda quicksand. Leave your politics at the door. For the moment, at least.
"The Washington Post", like so many newspaper veterans, failed miserably to see the future before it smacked them in the puss. They misread the Internet from the very beginning, when they put all their content up for public consumption free of charge. When they saw the fiscal bleeding and how tough it was to sell advertising in the new medium, they panicked and ramped-up firewalls and subscriptions, believing people would certainly pay for the privilege of reading their paper.
They were wrong. The population was reading and interacting for free! Why should they now pay for the digital newspaper, even if they paid for the physical version over the years and never grumbled? They all misread the room, multiple times over, always failing to see what this technology could deliver. So now, they are all still scrambling to make a buck.
You see, this stopped being about journalism a very long time ago.
Claiming to have lost $77M in the last fiscal year, if such a number is even possible to dive into without seeing an actual accounting, WaPo management has announced "new and exciting" plans for turning the business around. As if culled from Central Casting, the script was all about how employees will be able to grow and profit under the new plans. The same promises and drivel people have heard for decades in the news industry. One day we'll talk about the time CBS walked in as new owners of a major market local television station promising everyone there would be "no layoffs and everyone's job is secure". Of course, that lasted less than a year as the axe fell everywhere and destroyed plenty of careers. That, however, is a related story for another day.
Nestled in the WaPo announcement was a mostly glossed over tidbit, and hint, about where savings will one day soon come from at the expense of human reporting.
Artificial intelligence would now be intertwined with the production and delivery of the news product. This is where we open that door on my initial question. Now, perhaps, those political leaning may be allowed to seep into the conversation.
Management has decreed that AI will be "everywhere in our newsroom", which should send a shudder down the spine of anyone and everyone who still seeks unbiased and legitimate news reporting from their preferred sources. That edict is so fraught with danger on the open-ended nature of what it could entail. It brings to mind a "no guardrails" type of approach to delivering the news. One where the human element, the single most important facet of news-gathering and reporting, will be reduced to a supporting role and could very likely be eliminated altogether.
Think that's a knee jerk? You haven't been paying attention to how media companies of every size and direction have been bouncing people onto the unemployment line in favor of "streamlining" and "being more fiscally responsible".
Funny how those top level management pay structures are never impacted in the least, and it's always the gut-busting, hard working professionals without whom the outlet couldn't exist are the ones sent packing.
However, now with this announcement, it's a sign outlets such as WaPo are convinced they can survive and profit without the human element.
Which brings us to the "who do you trust?" issue.
How can you as a reader know when you're being fed material that is fabricated by an AI system that is far from infallible, and when you're reading something that has been fact-checked and verified by the human element? Will WaPo and others have a footnote for certain stories admitting it was not written by a human being? And what of opinion pieces that could be mostly or entirely slapped together in seconds by AI?
The level of programmable bias could be staggering.
As AI learns, it takes from ever source imaginable. How do we know those sources have been fact-checked and verified? Is the AI being used by WaPo also delivering news and opinion for numerous other news outlets, meaning that in essence you're getting an aggregate story instead of something well researched?
Will you now be paying for and being swayed by a fabricated intelligence that can be programmed and bent to serve specific opinions and tactics that have little or nothing to do with the facts?
In the dismal end, this is all about money and greed. WaPo and others will use AI to cut their human employment stock, save money, pay their executives and shareholders more, all at the expense of having no real concern about what delivering the news from legitimate and factual sourcing is all about.
How can you now trust anything that emanates from "The Washington Post"? And let's be clear, they are not the only ones taking this tack. Right now, as you read this, innumerable legitimate and fake news platforms are rolling out stories and opinions where not a single human hand touched a keyboard other than to ask for 1200 words about a certain story or individual.
Today, I did all I can do in writing this commentary without any assistance from AI. I also canceled my digital subscription to "The Washington Post", and that marks a sad day for someone who has devoted his life and career to journalism.
The darkness that seeks to envelop truth and honesty in communicating the news is growing. Only those who take the time to dig for and demand the truth can stop it. THE TAKEAWAY: From a personal standpoint, artificial intelligence is a tool in the arsenal. It is not a replacement for genuine talent, fact-finding and leadership skills. Using AI to make you appear smarter or more informed than those you seek to lead will backfire and cost you your reputation. From a media standpoint, do your homework and demand those outlets providing you information do so honestly and without AI cheating.
Ed Berliner is a veteran journalist who uses AI for research but has never used it to produce a commentary, script, or even a snarky social media snap. After reading the story of The Washington Post and their use of AI in the newsroom, he immediately canceled his WaPo digital subscription.
Comments