• Thrashy@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because a significant chunk of what gets passed off as journalism on such sites is just writing copy – for example, regurgitating press releases, or repackaging the work of another outlet that actually did do the legwork of investigative journalism. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with using AI tools to speed up the task of summarizing some other text for republishing, but I do question the value of such work in the first place.

    It’s going to be a long, long time until artificial intelligence can do the work of a true investigative journalist.

      • Thrashy@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t know if there’s many major outlets that are primarily investigative in the era of the 24/7 news cycle and the accompanying need to always have something fresh on the front page, but at least in the English-speaking world the various newspapers of record (think places like the New York Times or the The Guardian) still have a decent newsroom and publish original investigative pieces. In audio formats, NPR and the various constellations of associated organizations like the Center for Investigative Reporting do excellent work as well. There’s also organizations like Bellingcat that specialize in deep-dive investigations using open-source intelligence, presented in a “just-the-facts” format without editorialization.