By: Alyssa N. Salcedo

Artificial Intelligence (AI), while scary to some, can come in handy in many ways. From making grocery shopping lists to checking our grammar, we’ve learned how to automate several daily practices. AI use is now creeping into newsrooms, leaving many fearful for the future of the industry.

Newsrooms like the Associated Press, Bloomberg and The New York Times have incorporated some form of AI use into their practices. From a management perspective, AI can help to automate tasks that in some cases took several people to complete.

Felix M. Simon, a communication researcher and doctoral candidate at the University of Oxford conducted a study on the use of AI in newsrooms. He interviewed news workers at 35 news organizations around the world on how AI has affected their work.

“AI is now applied across an ever greater range of tasks in the production and distribution of news. Contrary to some assertions, many of the most beneficial applications of AI in news are relatively mundane, and AI has often not proved to be a silver bullet in many cases,” Simon wrote in his study.

AI is being used to increase efficiency by writing headlines, transcribing audio, managing paywalls and completing many other mundane and time consuming tasks. However, Simon argues that while AI has and will play a transformative role in newsrooms, there are still several constraints on AI use, stemming from many factors, including resistance from news workers and audiences.

“Currently, AI aids news workers rather than replaces them, but there are no guarantees this will remain the case. AI is sufficiently mature to enable the replacement of at least some journalism jobs, either directly or because fewer workers are needed,” Simon wrote.

However, while AI use can be beneficial, it may not be the best practice to rely on it completely.

According to an investigative report published by Futurism, Sports Illustrated made the mistake of publishing AI generated articles written by fake authors. Each of the fake authors came with AI generated headshots and biographies linked under the articles they were said to have written.

This scandal seriously damaged the publication’s credibility. According to The Guardian, The Arena Group, publisher of Sports Illustrated, has since fired its CEO. They claim that this decision was unrelated to the AI scandal, and that the articles in question were sourced from the advertising company AdVon Commerce. However, the timeline left readers feeling suspicious.

If we are to incorporate AI use in the newsroom, we need to ensure that there are ethical guidelines in place to avoid cases like these.

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) released a statement following another investigation published by Futurism on CNET’s failure to disclose the use of AI to write articles that contained errors.

“While there is no need for a ban on artificial intelligence in journalism, its use is best limited and considered on a case-by-case basis,” said Claire Regan, SPJ National President. “AI, for example, can be an efficient, cost-effective way to convert huge volumes of numbers-based corporate data into short, routine stories on business reports. But so much of journalism is more personal…Humans are best at connecting intimately with humans to tell their stories.”

In the statement, SPJ encouraged news workers to keep their code of ethics in mind when using AI, to take responsibility for their work and to explain their choices to their audiences to “encourage a civil dialogue” about journalistic practices.

Whether we like it or not, AI use will become an essential tool in news production. We as reporters are responsible for ensuring that we’re using this powerful tool ethically and transparently.

Just for fun, let’s see how AI would perform as a student in the Advanced Reporting class at the Center for Journalism Integrity and Excellence.
Each student in Advanced Reporting is asked to dig up 12 truly unique facts about our guest speakers. I asked OpenAI’s ChatGBT program to generate 12 facts about our professors Carol Marin and Lisa Parker Weisman. The facts the program gave me were relatively well known, and some were even completely incorrect!

“A significant portion of her reporting has been dedicated to consumer protection, helping viewers solve problems related to fraudulent practices and poor service from businesses,” the program generated for Parker Weisman.

While factually correct, this fact is not unique. Anyone can learn this information by simply googling Parker Weisman and reading the first few links that pop-up. Therefore, this fact wouldn’t do too well in the Advanced Reporting class.

Another fact generated by AI would have gotten it into some trouble in class.

“Marin has served as a visiting faculty member at the University of Chicago, where she contributed to the development of future journalists and shared her expertise in investigative reporting,” generated the program, for Marin.

While Marin is a professor and contributes to the development of future journalists such as myself, she never taught at University of Chicago! Incorrect facts never fly at the center, so the program wouldn’t have performed very well in this activity.

I searched on google for any other “Carol Marin’s” on the University of Chicago’s staff, and I found there is one woman named Carol Marin-Sanabria who is a systems administrator for the university’s Joseph Regenstein Library–hence the program’s confusion.

This proves that while AI can help to do quick research, we must always fact check that research ourselves for accuracy. As reporters, we must also disclose when we use AI in our reporting process in order to ensure transparency with our readers and viewers.

# # #

 By Noah Tomko-Jones

“SAG-AFTRA union ratifies strike-ending contract with Hollywood studios,” said The Guardian.

“UAW members ratify record contracts with Big 3 automakers,” reported Reuters.

“’It’s degrading’: Starbucks workers launch strike on Red Cup Day in largest work stoppage in company history,” said ABC News.

There is something that these headlines all have in common.

 It’s not just that they were all printed in 2023, amidst a year of record-breaking and history-making labor strikes across the country, although that is notable.

 It’s that they were written by a group of tireless workers who too often don’t receive the same kind of representation that the workers they report on so rightfully deserve.

Although journalist unions do exist, to be sure, they are rarely brought into the conversation in the same way. For one, journalists hold something of a position of power by virtue of how we can control and disperse information. They are also expected to remain neutral on socio-political issues.

Some derision of journalist unions comes from the fact that they don’t resemble traditional manual labor unions, a misguided opinion reflected by Charles C. W. Cooke in his editorial in the National Review. I hesitate to even quote this article, but do so only to provide evidence for these smug attitudes.

“Usually, the drive to unionize cushy jobs is driven by a combination of a preference for radical chic and a broad-based resentment at having been born too late to have been a part of the moments in history that the organizers most admire,” wrote Cooke.

However, these supposedly cushy “laptop jobs” that Cooke and others love to criticize are not immune from the issues that so many other occupations have been facing.

“Two major forces have propelled the unionization wave: the industry’s financial crisis and the wave of acquisitions, wiping out thousands of jobs and clamping down on salaries,” reported Steven Greenhouse in a 2022 article for Nieman Reports. “Corporate owners like Gannett, GateHouse Media, and Alden Global Capital have sharply cut newsroom staffing and consolidated copyediting, layout, and graphics departments.”

The good news is that there are journalist unions that exist today, such as NewsGuild, the Writers Guild of America, and the IWW Freelance Journalist Union, who all work hard to make sure that media workers’ needs are represented. More importantly, these workers are becoming aware of how unions can help them.

“Overall, 16% of U.S. journalists who are employed at least part time at a news outlet say they are currently a member of a union at their organization,” according to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey. “Another 41% would join one if it were available to them.”

 And if we, as journalists, want to be able to fairly and accurately report the news and have a social impact against those who have power in society—as I believe is a journalist’s duty—then having job security is a must. The truth is that journalists do not exist in a vacuum. American workers are learning every day how collective bargaining can help them keep their jobs, and I believe that journalists, whose labor is crucial to a functional democracy, should join their side.

-30-

By: Erin Gessert

I always struggled in my math classes throughout the years I’ve been in school. From high school to college, my attempts to understand the complex topics of algebra and geometry were faced with countless nights at the kitchen table, feeling defeated.

As I look forward to a career in journalism, a field that subtracts fiction from fact, I’ve learned the differences that this career path has in contrast to countless others, in that the learning experience is never-ending, even after graduation.

Take an accountant, for example. In college, one would learn accounting principles and procedures, why certain people fall into various tax brackets and how to read a balance sheet. Unless you decide to earn a master’s degree or become a Certified Public Accountant, the foundational skills needed to succeed in those job duties are complete. The ins and outs of a particular job and technological advancements would require additional learning, yet for the most part, the work is carried out based on the knowledge previously acquired.

I got my bachelor’s degree in journalism, where I learned how to write accurately, concisely and comprehensively, and was taught the inverted pyramid, where you provide your reader with the most important information at the beginning. As I am taking classes now to get my master’s degree, I’ve zeroed in on writing under deadline, synthesizing information and brainstorming unique ideas to engage the public on topics they may have never known about before.

However, something that I have not had formal education for in the two journalism programs I’ve been in are the many specialized areas we, as future journalists, report on, like business and financial regulation, politics and law, and environmental and climate change. While these topics are not included in the course list needed to graduate with a journalism degree, you will need an expert understanding, given your beat as a reporter.

I recently began taking a Business Writing and Reporting course, and in our first weeks of class, we had to look at a balance sheet and understand what it meant. As I said previously, math has always been my biggest weakness academically. It was a challenge to even comprehend what these numbers meant, and an even bigger one to take this information and write about how this has impacted a company, let alone has an impact on the ordinary person.

As the weeks went on, we started looking at 10-Q reports, which describe a company’s financial performance for a quarter of the year, and 10-K reports, which paint a financial picture of a company, including revenue, assets and liabilities for a full fiscal year. Viewing these reports confirms the belief that I was never meant to work in any math-related industry. However, it is rewarding to decipher this information and show readers that a corporation’s third-quarter report reflected that its advertising revenue exceeded expectations.

Navigating my role as a future journalist, I am reminded that being challenged to understand a topic does not limit you — it ignites growth and curiosity, and by maintaining that curiosity and asking the right questions, you will find the answers you need.

 By: Michaela Wilson

There I am, a 15-year-old girl, sitting in front of 20 people I met not even a month ago, about to star in my first newscast as an anchor for my high school’s morning news show. God, I hated being in front of the camera, however, lucky for me that was the day my film teacher thought it would be a good idea to get me out of my comfort zone.

The teleprompter started to roll, and I realized there was no way out of this but through. Before I knew it, the dread I had for being on camera turned into love. This was when I knew I wanted to do this for the rest of my life.

Sitting here now, five years later as a junior in college, my dream of entering the broadcast field has now been joined by worry. With social media making the world more connected than ever, citizen journalism is on the rise, slowly pushing out broadcast journalism as the go-to platform for news consumption.

Political opinions, current events and breaking news saturate social media feeds, changing the way information is being spread. It seems like everyone has something to report and the reliability of those posts are never questioned. In a study done by Pew Research Center, the role of social media is growing rapidly in news consumption, with about one in every four 15 to 29-year-olds relying upon it for their daily news.

With those numbers, from 2016 to 2022, one million viewers turned away from the traditional nightly newscasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox. At this rate of decline, by 2034 the number of broadcast viewers could dip under 2 million, which is less than the entire population of Chicago.

The newer generations seem to want to scroll through X for five minutes to see what is happening rather than tune in to nightly newscasts. This is most likely because social media allows them to find out breaking news in real time rather than having to tune in at 5 p.m. to see what happened hours prior. If convenience and timeliness is a driving factor for the upcoming generations, how can broadcast make sure it does not become obsolete?

To try to keep up with the new ways of information spreading, news outlets need to shift to a more everywhere-free and ad-supported format. Large media live streaming and feeds on social media are needed to engage with the millions of viewers they lost in the last six years. Content is no longer sought out by people, they just expect news and stories to follow them.

Brands like NBC, ABC and even Fox are slowly pushing their way into the TikTok market and seeing positive results. Almost every video reaches just under a million views, driving more traffic to their pages. If broadcast is struggling to keep those viewers and TikTok accumulates them on a good day, it is time for the industry to switch their ways from a slowly declining industry.

What does this make the future look like for broadcast media? Expansion to streaming services such as Apple TV and Roku TV stations are now in discussion, but will these platforms reach audiences in new ways? What is the difference in convenience between streaming services and cable?

If viewers are demanding a switch, the industry will and should follow. With that switch means do what we know works. Expanding to other platforms will allow viewers to listen and consume topics they are interested in. The realm of journalism is turning into a personalized experience and it is pushing out a generalized one. Social media is shaking up the game, gathering viewers ten times easier than broadcast news has been able to in years.

As an aspiring journalist entering this field in the coming years, my worries remain. What will my broadcasting dream look like? Is my future Tik Tok reporting? And will the conventional form of broadcast journalism that we have known for years ever be the same again?

-30-

By Samantha Freeman

During my freshman year of high school, my phone dinged, notifying me of yet another school shooting, this time, at Parkland High School. Florida students, like me, went to school thinking it was just another day of back-to-back classes filled with lectures and notetaking. Instead, they were confronted with the most traumatic day of their lives.

I grew up knowing that my school could be next, and, as a result, I have a very strong opinion about gun laws. Now, as a journalism student, I am confronted with the question, can journalists be activists, too?

Efforts to maintain objectivity

Since the beginning of news media, the expectation has been that journalists remain neutral, both in the office and outside the newsroom. Many news organizations continue to uphold this value. In 2021, a young reporter, Emily Wilder, was fired from the Associated Press for her Pro-Palestinian views on social media during her college career. After joining the AP, Wilder retweeted posts that appeared sympathetic to Palestinians in the Gaza conflict. The AP viewed this as a violation of their ethics code and fired her.

In Gaza, thousands of Palestinians are dying. Several U.S. states are restricting reproductive rights after the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022. Children too often go to school never to return home. Several of the issues facing our world today are not political issues as much as they are human rights violations. As journalists, it is our job to cover these topics fairly, but as humans, it is our right to fight for freedom and equality.

Can journalists do both?

 Some news organizations are beginning to make a distinction between political and human rights issues. NPR updated their ethics policy in 2021 to allow journalists to participate in activities that advocate for “the freedom and dignity of human beings.” Participation can include marches, rallies, and public events demanding equal and fair treatment of people. However, rallies in support of specific legislation or political candidates are off-limits. This allows journalists to advocate for human rights while remaining distanced from political engagement.

The editor-in-chief at BuzzFeed, Ben Smith, had a similar perspective, saying “We firmly believe that for a number of issues, including civil rights, women’s rights, anti-racism, and LGBT equality, there are not two sides.” Smith’s statement and NPR’s updated policy draw a distinction between human rights and politics. While human rights issues are often treated as political conflicts, some media outlets are trying to remove civil liberties from the ‘right’ and ‘left.'”

Ben Smith added that BuzzFeed reporters should continue to prioritize reporting that puts “facts and news first.” Whether you know it or not, all reporters have their own opinions, and a good journalist should be able to report fairly regardless of his or her bias. By being self-aware, journalists are better equipped to report fairly and responsibly.

The bottom line

The issues in our country and across the world affect all of us and our livelihood. While journalists have an important responsibility, we are people too, and we are equally deserving of our human rights and the ability to fight for them.

-30-

By Elizabeth Gregerson

Shannon Sharpe has followed the career path of many former professional athletes. After retiring from the NFL, Sharpe’s experience as a football player made him an effective commentator and sports analyst on both television and radio. Sharpe is now the host of his own podcast, Club Shay Shay, where he interviews notable figures in the sports and entertainment industries.

His interviewing skills recently came under fire after an episode with actress and activist Amanda Seales. Sharpe spent the episode questioning Seales’ experience of racism as a child and her Autism diagnosis. At one point Seales was even forced to correct Sharpe when he stated that her mother, a Black Grenadian native, was white.

After the interview was released, Seales responded saying she felt “interrogated” by Sharpe and that he was “committed to undermining” her. Clips from the episode immediately started going viral on social media, with audiences split in their opinions over Sharpe’s questions and Seales’ responses.

Sharpe is one of the many celebrities turned podcast hosts whose interviewing skills have come under scrutiny. Being a pop-culture figure often leads to success in the podcast industry, but being successful does not automatically mean someone is a credible source of information.

Kristin Cavallari, most well-known for the early 2000s MTV reality tv series Laguna Beach and The Hills, has her own podcast called Let’s Be Honest. She recently had Eastern medicine practitioner and acupuncturist Ryan Monahan on her show to discuss the health benefits of the sun. In the episode, Cavallari explicitly says, “I don’t wear sunscreen. And anytime I do an interview I get a lot of s*** when I admit that I don’t.” She then proceeds to ask her guest to discuss, “maybe why we don’t need sunscreen.”

Why does it matter if celebrities spread misinformation or exhibit interviewing tactics that are not up to journalistic standards? Because the content celebrities produce is immensely more popular than podcasts produced by credible media outlets.

Cavallari’s podcast ranks number six on the Apple Podcast Charts in the relationship category. Sharpe’s Club Shay Shay ranks number five on the Apple Podcast Charts for sports and is the number one most popular podcast on YouTube. These rankings reflect the reality that millions of people, tuning into “Sports” or “Relationships” podcasts, are instead hearing advice about sunscreen, discussions of racism and controversy over autism diagnoses.

As a journalism student and member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), I have been taught the importance of following ethical standards in my reporting. Reflecting on the aforementioned examples, I can see clear violations of these standards in Sharpe and Cavallari’s interviews. The very first principle in the SPJ Code of Ethics, “Seek Truth and Report It,” encourages journalists to, “take responsibility for the accuracy of their work,” and, “verify information before releasing it.”

A journalist adhering to this principle would never publish work that contained inaccurate and unverified information about their guests or medical advice.

While the SPJ Code of Ethics is not meant to serve as strict rules for journalists, they were compiled as guidance for us to rely on when ethical issues arise in our careers. Celebrity podcast hosts are not held to any similar standard, as their personality is what empowers their media ventures – not their commitment to ethical

By Violet Smale

The internet acts as a sort of formaldehyde preserving who we used to be. We swipe, we post, and we repost, mindlessly accumulating a digital footprint that cannot be erased.

Surely, this is an issue at the forefront of many Gen-Z minds as we enter a cut-throat job market. As we send in our job applications, we ask ourselves: what’s out there that will resurface when my name is Googled?

For present and future journalists, our looming “digital footprint” is a daunting thought.

I am haunted by stories such as Emily Wilder’s 2021 termination by The Associated Press. For anyone unfamiliar with Wilder’s story, let me summarize: the 22 year-old reporter was fired after just two weeks of reporting for the outlet on the grounds of “violating the news outlet’s social media policy,” the Poynter Institute for Media Studies reported. While the details remain somewhat fuzzy, Wilder suspected the surfacing of her past tweets supporting Palestine led to her termination. The AP refutes that claim, instead stating Wilder violated social media guidelines while she was employed by the company.

Whatever instance led to Wilder’s controversial termination by the AP, the case raises an important point for all journalists to consider: we cannot use social media in the same way as everyone else. When one becomes a member of the press, they forsake certain privileges of everyday life. Posting is one of them.

Frankly, I believe it’s unfair that our past follows us around (assuming said “past” isn’t anything discriminatory or harmful). We can’t look into the future to see how one 250-character post will impact our future career. But this is our reality. We have to stop and think: in an age in which the internet has become a mindless pastime, how do we as journalists proceed more thoughtfully?

To clarify what is expected of a journalist’s social media conduct nowadays, I turned to the The Washington Post, a publication that has also had its fair share of social media controversy.

Among The Post’s thorough guidelines, one sentence stood out to me: “Our newsroom’s diversity strengthens our journalism, and Post journalists can bring their backgrounds, identity and experiences to their social accounts. It is not appropriate to use your social media account to advocate for causes, issues, governmental policies or political or judicial outcomes. Also, avoid curating your feeds in ways that suggest you have a partisan point of view on an issue The Post covers.”

When you are hired by an outlet as renowned as The Washington Post, of course you expect to forsake some of the autonomy you have over your social media presence. However, I don’t think we should wait to be hired by a national news outlet to become more conscious and professional in our social media habits. I believe in order to become more consistent journalists, this precedent must be set now, regardless of where one stands in their career.

We cannot erase the past, but going forwarrd we can set—or must set—a new precedent.

-30-

By: Anna Retzlaff

In the 1990s, the early days of the internet, most sites were free to visit. For news outlets, print subscriptions and advertisements brought in all the cash. Very few asked their online audience to pay.

The Wall Street Journal was the first major publication to implement a paywall for its online newspaper. In 1996, the yearly fee was $49, or $29 for print subscribers. The WSJ remained an outlier for charging their audience — until about 20 years later.

In the 2010s, print subscriptions continued to decline, and online advertisement revenue was not cutting it. More and more people were turning to screens for their daily news. Then, readers started to see paywalls instead of articles.

For years, people had access to the information they wanted from the outlet of their choice for free. Now, some of the largest publications like The New York Times operate on a subscription model. Full access to their website now costs $25 per month. Today, the WSJ charges $39 per month. Subscribing to just these two publications could put a reader back $768 a year.

The problem here is paywalls prevent people from accessing information.

The news is for the public, and journalists work to serve them. For the newspaper to function, they need to cover what it costs for journalists to get that news to the public. This is a big issue, but the answer is not paywalls.

We are in a whirlwind of misinformation, lack of trust towards news outlets and poor media literacy. So much quality, trustworthy news is locked away from those who cannot pay. Publications with a reputation of integrity and truthfulness are the ones many people want to look to for information.

It is a tragedy that only people who can pay are able to access the news outlets they want to go to. News that people feel they can trust is less accessible. That fact undermines the entire basis of what journalism means. Journalists work hard to report what people have a right to know.

The news was never meant to be hard to get, and the public should not be limited in the information they can access from newspapers. Who are the newspapers for, if not for everyone?

By Max Rayman

In 2018, I graduated with a degree in Criminal Justice, but decided to pursue a different career path. With an open elective, I took an advanced sports writing class which put my life on a completely different course. That summer I started writing for a sports blog and by January of 2020, I had become a site-editor for FanSided’s Washington Nationals site.

Fast forward to now, and I am five months away from graduating with a master’s in journalism. Despite not having any prior journalism experience, I took a leap of faith and have yet to regret my decision.

Unfortunately, I have started to notice an unsettling trend. More and more journalism publications have begun downsizing. Just this past weekend, the Wall Street Journal made cuts to its Washington bureau. In January, Sports Illustrated announced they were going to lay off most of their staff. The LA Times also reduced its personnel last month, cutting almost 20% of its newsroom. In 2023, both the Washington Post and The Athletic made cuts to their organization, and sadly this is just the beginning. According to Kierra Frazier of Politico, over 500 journalists were laid off in January alone.

“The job cuts come after an already bleak year. The news industry shed 3,087 digital, broadcast, and print news jobs in 2023 — the highest annual total since 2020, when 16,060 cuts were recorded,” Frazier wrote.

Selfishly, when I read that statistic, I became fearful. But not fearful for the journalism industry, but for myself. As a 28-year-old who will be starting the job search soon, how do I get my foot in the door, when I am competing against plenty of talented reporters and journalists who have more experience but were unexpectedly let go? I dedicated the majority of my early to mid-20s to chasing a dream and I don’t want the last six years to go to waste.

Pushing my personal fears aside, what’s next for the industry? How can these publications continue to work at a high level with a reduced workforce? I am not the only one with these worries.

“What concerns me is with all of these losses and this loss of coverage is that it’s only going to fuel more misinformation and disinformation into communities,” Tim Franklin, senior associate dean at Northwestern’s Medill journalism told Politico. “How do you then combat that challenge?”

In addition to mounting layoffs, multiple publications held walkouts over the past 12 months due to pay issues and the pending layoffs. The LA Times had a 24-hour walkout after it was announced they were going to downsize – the first time since they started printing in 1881. Unfortunately, the higher-ups still went through with the layoffs despite their employee’s vocal disagreement.

There will always be a need for journalists, and I am excited about what the future holds for me, yet this is an unforgiving industry. The ongoing layoffs shouldn’t be seen as a deterrent, but instead as a brutal reminder that this career path can be at times remorseless. But if everything in life was easy, then where would the fulfillment come from?