‹ Back

Upholding Integrity Amidst AI Usage: A Newsroom’s Struggle During A.I. Epidemic

 

By Noah Kubacki

 

Short deadlines, boring headlines, and last minute updates, I thought would be my greatest challenges as a beginner editor-in-chief. While I focused on editorial hygiene, the epidemic of A.I. content spread in my newsroom. 

 

 

My vision for the publication was deeply rooted in integrity and everything I had learned in my journalism program. I aimed to highlight student life, cover local news stories, and showcase meaningful art. I never anticipated that I would argue with my staff over the use of artificial intelligence for content creation. It was even more surprising when my opinion was disregarded, leading to the phasing out of hand-drawn comics in favor of AI-generated art dominating the comic section. An illness had begun infecting my staff; laziness.

 

When my first issue was printed, I felt disappointed by the “art” featured. My opinion-editorial editor created a comic strip with ChatGPT without my approval. When I first read the comic my first impression was that the “artwork” was bloated, disproportionate, and everything was some hue of yellow. The punchlines, I assume, were also generated by AI. While the writing structure was intended to be humorous, the entire strip lacked nuance. It was dry and unfunny. As the new Editor-in-Chief, I felt conflicted about my personal vision for the newspaper. I wondered, “Am I resisting change and leaning into my prejudice, solely based on my feelings?”

 

 

I needed more context regarding why my staff opposed my decision. I spoke privately with my professor about the choice to greenlight the use of artificial intelligence (A.I.). My professor claimed that A.I. images were part of the future for the industry. The Chief Executive Officer of OpenAI, shares that view, ”Generative AI has the potential to revolutionize nearly every industry” states Sam Altman. My professor continued, saying this new tool needed to be mastered and would eventually become the industry standard. I disagreed then, and I continue to disagree now. 

 

During my tenure as Editor-in-Chief, burnout was the primary issue cited when working with traditional artists. Our publication assigned a single person to the comic section. The in-house artist was given a week to develop a joke, design it, pitch it, and then revise it. This process required significant time and effort from a single human being. What made ChatGPT attractive to my editors was the illusion of better time management. Why use a traditional artist to create a joke in a week when this new technology can produce a cartoon in a matter of minutes? But what makes a real person’s work superior to that of modern technology?

 

I’ll tell you why: computers aren’t funny, and they don’t have hands to draw.

 

The use of AI-generated photos in media will always be unattractive; not only because of how ugly it looks. The issue is based on integrity. A media company that values its reader’s intelligence, will never use sloppy work to shorten deadlines. Quality journalism is based on sharing valuable information. Whether that is through extensively researched news stories, curated artwork featured, or even the future weather report. Good reporting relies on good sourcing. Sourcing images from an generative algorithm is an example of poor sourcing. 

Many people assume that because we live in the Internet era, quality can be sacrificed. Unfortunately, many bad actors rely on artificial content generation. From graphic design to music videos, every visual sector has been polluted with low-quality generated work. Perhaps these creators believe that the standard has been lowered.

 

 

I believe that because we are so connected through the Internet, the standard has actually increased. People care about quality—quality journalism that does not ignore nuance, quality writing that offers unique perspectives, and quality comic strips that are funny and transform complex issues into digestible, visual humor. Legacy publications such as The New Yorker continue to share unique comics because of the love they receive from subscribers. Readers vote with their wallets, thereby vetoing poor quality.  The human brain operates on approximately 20 watts of electricity, whereas a computer emulating the same process uses an estimated 2.7 billion watts. More power, only to produce worse results. A program will never match the creativity and absurdity of an average person. The cure for the A.I. epidemic is time; the indomitable human spirit will prevail.