Debate Over AI in Journalism: ‘Can Machines Replace Human Reporters?’

Human: The argument that AI could enhance journalism by automating routine tasks and freeing up reporters to focus on more complex reporting is, of course, an attractive one. At least to a media baron trying to find ways to make money in an age when words are cheap.  But it is an approach deeply troubling in terms of its unintended consequences: sacrificing short-term gain with long-term journalistic credibility. The use of AI in journalism, for instance, risks leading to a homogenisation of news stories, with AI-generated reports being uniform and lacking in nuance, replicating each other ad nauseum until the essence of a story – or its development over time – is lost in the swirl of repetition. 

The German Jewish philosopher Walter Benjamin’s theory of mechanical reproduction predicted the dangers of AI on journalism. According to Benjamin, the technological advances in media reproduction led to the loss of the ‘aura’ of artworks. That is to say, the unique presence felt in experiencing a singular work of art was not present in art produced in an age of mechanical reproduction. In journalism, the use of AI would result in the same loss of this aura: news reports losing their unique quality and, at that moment, their unique claim to truth. 

When news reports are generated by an algorithm, they lack the individual perspective and creativity that human journalists bring to their work. AI-generated news stories would be stripped of their ‘sui generis’, reduced to mere repetition rather than compelling storytelling. As news reports become more formulaic, readers would lose interest, leading to a decline in trust and credibility. 

In the end, if journalism is reduced to a set of predictable templates, it risks irrelevance.

Human: As the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre noted, empathy lies at the essence of human relationships. Journalism has to be centred deep within this empathic connection in order to bring stories to life and to create a deeper understanding of the human experience. AI systems lack this essential component of humanity. They cannot replicate the empathy needed to understand human emotions, context, and subtleties. AI reports are doomed to shallowness and genericism.  

Furthermore, the use of AI in journalism could result in errors going unnoticed, as algorithms cannot match the experience and expertise of a human journalist in spotting mistakes. This lack of quality control could lead to a decline in the credibility of journalism, and a loss of trust among readers.

Human: Not so. As the great philosopher Michel de Montaigne argued, the value of any profession lies not in the tools it employs, but in the virtues it embodies. And AI is contrary to the fundamental notion of humanism that lies at the heart of journalism. So, whilst AI systems may have their uses, they cannot replicate the humanity, empathy, and deep engagement that are journalistic lodestars. The use of AI in journalism is not a desirable development, nor is it inevitable. Rather than relying on AI to replace journalists, journalists should be fighting back – to expand knowledge beyond what is captured by machines and expose the true iniquities suffered by those increasingly made redundant by the rise of robotic intervention. 

This return to the human would lead to more nuanced, empathetic, and impactful journalism. 

Preventing mindless digital new reproduction is, in the end, the only way to stop the invariable diminishment of human rights that lies at the heart of the soulless digital impulse.