There is an immediate and present danger to the media this election cycle. It’s called ‘Deep Dive’. It’s a 10-minute chat on any topic you can think of, all brought to you by artificial intelligence. No script, no human voices, no producers, no microphones. Just a nerd hanging out with a bunch of “0’s” and “1’s” programming to his heart’s content. Okay, maybe this nerd can be considered a producer minus all the talent fighting, but that’s such a big part of the show process.
What’s even more disturbing is how real these AI voices sound. Ben Cohen of the Wall Street Journal even said, “I can’t stop listening to them.” (It also puts the outlets’ ‘listen to the article’ feature to shame.) It’s part of Google’s new ‘tool’ NotebookLM. The giggling, inflection, and interaction between the two voices is not just conversational, it’s human in the narrowest sense (because this too is AI).
Within Google’s ‘company news section’ you will find the ‘NotebookLM Audio Overview’. The AI voices, which can turn anything into a podcast, say in their 8-minute, 25-second analysis of the new technology: “Wouldn’t it be great if there was some kind of AI that could read it out to you and just would you tell the good things.
Aside from the fact that these two AI voices are literally talking about themselves, think of that sentence: “Read for you and tell you only the good things.” Who gets to decide what is right? We’ve already seen suppression of information, but this now adds a secondary layer for the press.
Yes, NotebookLM gives you citations as to where the information comes from, and you can provide the source material. This means that if you only provide source material from Newsmax or MSNBC, your answers will look like their political agenda (right and left respectively).
Even more stressful, the overview claims that someone in Florida (#floridaman) is trying to use the AI as a “one man newsroom.” The AI anchors claim it can process city ordinances, land use documents, and meeting minutes from City Hall press. They can also give you answers based on all this data. Sounds great right? I don’t think there is a need for reporters anymore.
This ideal of “citizen journalism,” powered by AI, must disappear. Citizen journalism is a nice idea, but not practically applicable to any self-respecting outlet. Just take a look at the app/website ‘Citizen.’
They have hubs in major cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC and New York. Although users (citizen journalists) can upload video (which news media use for free), none of the claims on it have been verified.
Literally everything from a Pickle attack (a false report that surfaced at the New York location earlier this year) to a car being completely engulfed on the FDR ride (a true report, but the app falsely claimed injuries were) is available and can be reported to anyone at any time. But how much is accurate? I have yet to see a study, but from my experience it is less than 30%.
Citizen journalism can be very useful, if it is factual. Using this AI-powered system, which only pulls data from what you provide (and then turns it into a conversation), is not journalism. It takes a person’s filter bubble and allows them to brainwash others on the left or right side of the aisle.
Fortunately, there is still a feeling within major technology companies that AI is not good for news. I asked both Gemini (Google) and CoPilot (Microsoft): “Is AI good for journalism?”
Gemini responded in part: “Overall, AI is a valuable tool for journalists, but it must be used ethically and responsibly. It is important for news organizations to develop guidelines and best practices for AI use to ensure it is used to enhance journalism, not replace it.”
CoPilot responded: “AI has definitely changed the game for journalism. It can process huge data sets, find patterns and even generate reports or summaries in seconds. But the downside is that AI cannot replace human intuition, critical thinking or ethical judgment. It’s good for the hard work, but the heart and soul of journalism still lies with people. The key is to use AI as a powerful tool, not as a replacement.”
What all this fails to recognize is that journalism is losing entry-level jobs in the process. The intern or production assistant who reviews the data, conducts research and is the ‘second brain’ for a journalist is being replaced by technology. The training we once received from working closely with our experienced journalists is now disappearing, all thanks to technology.
In this election cycle, both parties say our democracy is in danger. Both parties claim that the other is responsible for this. Yet they are wrong. Our technology has divided this country and endangered our democracy (far more than anyone could have foreseen). It has even changed our journalism. We have citizen journalists, activist journalists (jack-tavists as I like to call them), but it is rare to find young people who can be equally critical of the left and the right. Our young people haven’t learned from the newsmen (and women) who came before us – because the jobs aren’t there. Instead, they choose to create their own podcast, their own blog, and maintain the filter bubble that the algorithms have created for them.
If real journalists no longer have people following in our footsteps, the divisiveness, selective reporting of facts, and partisanship will divide this country even worse than what we are seeing now. So as we continue our technological advancements, let’s remember that we still need to make room in our budgets, in our careers, and in our minds to help shape real, fact-based journalists.
Krystina Alarcon Carroll is a news media columnist and writer for Barrett Media. She has experience in virtually every facet of the industry, including: digital and print news; live, streamed and syndicated TV; documentary and film productions. Her previous employers include NY1 and Fox News Digital and the Law & Crime Network. You can find Krystina at X (formerly twitter) @KrystinaAlaCarr.
