IN May 2025, a media panel in Bangkok delivered a stark observation: AI cannot be curious.
It has no heart. That chilling remark captures the growing unease within journalism circles. Today’s newsrooms—once animated by fieldwork and fact-checking—are becoming quiet and machine-assisted. Artificial Intelligence, particularly generative models, has started to influence how news is drafted, edited and shared. This slow transformation, which I term AIism, is quietly shifting the practice of journalism.
Across various newsrooms, journalists are relying more on digital tools to handle routine tasks. While these tools can assist with editing and information sorting, there is a concern that too much dependence could erode essential journalistic practices. Journalism’s core mission has always been to question, investigate, and verify—and those values must be upheld regardless of new technologies.
Editors now often expect quicker turnarounds, and journalists, facing time pressures, sometimes resort to shortcuts. The tradition of rigorous field reporting, following leads, and verifying facts remains essential. Journalists should continue to pursue firsthand accounts, build credible sources, and document events with clarity and integrity.
In many regions, particularly across the Global South, newsrooms face staffing and funding challenges. In such environments, digital tools are understandably attractive. But overuse or unquestioned use of such tools can lead to uniform and surface-level stories. Journalistic work should retain its distinct voice, regional context and critical analysis.
There’s also concern about how global news flows through centralized sources. In some cases, stories from different parts of the world are edited from afar, reducing the space for local nuance. It’s important that journalism reflect the diversity of the places and people it reports on. Stories need to be shaped not just by what’s convenient to publish, but by what’s essential to know.
Even in highly digitized environments, experienced reporters emphasize the value of field presence. The ability to read a room, interpret tone, and engage with communities cannot be replaced by screens or statistics. Journalism is, at its best, an act of bearing witness—something that requires presence, attention, and empathy.
Newsrooms and journalists must continue to value these skills. The power of a journalist lies in their ability to ask questions that matter and seek answers that serve the public interest. While tools can assist, they cannot replace the human insight and judgment required to understand complex realities.
There is nothing inherently wrong with using digital support in journalism. But those tools should serve journalists—not define their output. As the media landscape evolves, the responsibility to maintain standards, verify information, and uphold credibility remains with the journalist.
In the current environment, where content is produced quickly and circulated widely, the role of journalism becomes even more crucial. Authentic reporting, clarity of facts, and thoughtful storytelling are needed more than ever.
The rise of AIism in journalism is a reminder: while technologies may change, the mission of journalism does not. It remains grounded in truth, responsibility, and public trust.
—The writer is a senior media academic, former Dean of Mass Communication at Beaconhouse National University and University of Central Punjab, and currently a Professor at the University of Central Punjab.
([email protected])