A reminder that many publications are very much against AI copy
It appears that more and more freelancers are using AI to craft their copy – and many have been caught out.
In March freelance journalist Alex Preston was found to have used AI to help write a book review which “echoed elements of a review of the same book in the Guardian”. A New York Times reader flagged up similarities between the paper’s January review of Watching Over Her by Jean-Baptiste Andrea, written by author and journalist Alex Preston, and an August review of the same book written by Christobel Kent in the Guardian, reported the Guardian. In an investigation by The New York Times, Preston admitted that he had used AI to help write the review and did not realise that sections of it stemmed from the Guardian. In a statement to the Guardian on Tuesday, Preston said that he was “hugely embarrassed” and had “made a serious mistake”. Not only has it harmed his reputation but a spokesperson for The New York Times told the Guardian that Preston would no longer write for the publication.
Not long after that The New York Times found itself at the centre of yet another AI debacle when an article it published in April about Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, included a made-up quote attributed to Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader, which was from an AI-generated summary of his views which AI served up as a quotation. “The reporter should have checked the accuracy of what the AI tool returned,” said The New York Times, probably now through gritted teeth.
These instances are just two public examples of what's made the final pages, never mind what is being pitched and filed, and what we never find out about. This is causing more of a headache for already stressed-out teams.
Since then, the publisher emailed a “periodic reminder” to freelancers reminding them of the paper’s AI policy, reports Futurism.“To be clear on AI: All writing and visuals that freelancers submit to The Times must be the product of human creativity and craft, and all submissions must consist solely of their original reporting, writing and other work. Freelance contributors must not submit any material for publication that contains content generated, modified or enhanced by [generative AI] tools, or that has been input into these tools.”
I have noticed more and more than titles are asking for AI-free copy. For example, reading Monocle’s pitching guidelines recently, the title said:
“We do not, under any circumstance, allow copy generated or edited by AI. However, we do allow the use of AI in research.”
So what can we take from this? I think it makes it even more pertinent for PRs and business owners not to send over comments that are AI-generated. That people steer away from creating pitches using AI which might lead to the inclusion of facts and information that might be incorrect. Of course, it is up to the freelancers and editors to check everything but if you’re sending us information that you haven’t factchecked and sourced and you’ve ran through a machine, it’s making our lives even harder and ain’t great for relationship building. And again, yes, we need to check, and 99% of the times journalists will, but imagine if we sent off a pitch based on some information you sent us that part of it wasn’t correct and it hinged on that. Or the quote you sent through that you said another organisation said on the matter (that was public knowledge) was actually wrong. Please don’t make our lives unnecessarily more harder.
As for me, I don’t use ChatGPT or Claude. As an environmentalist, I’m steering clear for now.
Also, I don’t want to read copy regurgitated by a machine. Or reads books that haven't involved the heart and soul of a human. The same with film makers, voice-recording actors, songwriters and so on. I want to live in a world of human connection and creativity, as hard as that is starting to feel right now.
If you want to keep abreast of all the AI journalism scandals, Press Gazette has done the Lord's work and created a list.