Does AI spell the end of journalism?

It’s no secret that journalists have had a rough ride for a long time: hello stagnating rates, falling print circulation rates, publishers dropping out of the sector. Shall I go on? Well, yes, because we have another huge challenge hurtling at us. Come on at us, artificial intelligence (AI).

ChatGPT has prompted huge debate and column inches since its launch at the start of year. Standing for Generative Pre-trained Transformer, the machine-learning platform is a very nifty tool enabling users to type in queries and the AI responding in just seconds. If you haven’t tried it already (it’s quite easy to sign up and give it a whirl), you can see the gist of it with the picture below.

I started by asking ChatGBT to first write an article on the impact of Airbnb on communities across the globe. I followed this up by requesting a closer look at the impact of Airbnbs in Margate in the UK. You can see the response below:

Ok, so after testing the technology, I've decided I won't start rereading What Colour Is My Parachute? just yet.

As you can see, the very basic response did cover some of the key concerns of the platform, but I couldn’t see a national newspaper replacing its human crafted articles with this pared down content just yet. It’s lacking depth, critical thinking, and facts - and then it would need to be fact checked. But arguably, it forms the start of an article (or a GCSE essay). However, one of many other concerns is that the AI isn't providing you with unique copy; instead it's regurgitating the same content to people who have asked similar questions.

Still, some titles have jumped in and are already experimenting with the automated technology. CNET for one has been trialling the tech and using it to help write news articles or gather information for stories.

Editor-in-chief Connie Guglielmo said their plan was to find out whether the tech could “efficiently assist” their journalists “in using publicly available facts to create the most helpful content so our audience can make better decisions”. She said the articles were always “reviewed, fact-checked and edited by an editor with topical expertise” before going live.

For now journalists with insider knowledge and a book of strong contacts can’t be replaced – I’m not sure the robots have learnt how to door knock just yet, and I feel we’ll still be yearning to read opinion pieces from actual real-life journalists. But this is just the beginning, and of course, it doesn’t just impact journalists. There’s thousands of other jobs this will have a huge impact on.

Writing in The Spectator, author Sean Thomas believes the end is nigh for writers. “That's it. It's time to pack away your quill, your biro, and your shiny iPad: the computers will soon be here to do it better. ... The machines will come for much academic work first - essays, PhDs, boring scholarly texts (unsurprisingly it can churn these out right now). Fanfic is instantly doomed, as are self-published novels. Next will be low-level journalism ... then high-level journalism will go, along with genre fiction, history, biography, screenplays. ... 5,000 years of the written human word, and 500 years of people making a life, a career, and even fame out of those same human words, are quite abruptly coming to an end.”

Sober reading but hopefully it will spawn a huge creation of jobs we'd never heard of (hopefully beyond just servicing the robots and machines), like many of the past industrial changes have.

Thanks for reading.

Susie

Here’s Where More Journalists Are Hanging Out

In the last 48 hours I’ve had at least four alerts of journalists doing the same thing. Ping. Another has joined. And another one has joined. What is it, you might ask? The answer is Substack, the newsletter publishing platform.

Writing newsletters ain’t anything new but there appears to be a new breed of journalists choosing to go down this route. Many writers are jumping into this field because the traditional publishing model isn’t working for them anymore. Maybe there’s fewer opportunities to cover what they’d like to be writing about. Perhaps they view publishing a newsletter as an additional revenue stream, with some asking subscribers for a reasonable £5 a month to read their words. It may well be early days for some of them but they might turn into a strong side hustle or equate to a decent salary.

It’s another place you can get a glimpse into a journalist’s life (if you want to). You might gain more of an affinity or glimpse into their lifestyle which might make them easier to pitch to. Maybe they might cover what they’re working on at the moment (like moi, sometimes), or there could be an opportunity for you or your client’s brand to be featured in the newsletter as some may be landing in the inbox of your exact target audience. It might be impossible to subscribe to all of them (time-wise or money-wise), but perhaps there’s certain writers in your sector, or some you feel more naturally associated with, that you may wish to follow.

Also, it’s always another great way to build relationships with journalists. “Oh, I read your newsletter on and xxxx” etc might catch their attention and make them feel slightly more inclined to respond.

Here’s a few journalists on Substack that have caught my eye recently:

• Kate Spicer

• Tiffanie Darke

• Caroline Criado Perez (starts from £5 a month)

• Flic Bowden-Smith

• Farrah Storr (from £6 a month)

A shocking PR experience

I was recently reminded of what a grind it could be working as a trade journalist. Back then, whether it was in-house at say New Media Age (RIP) or Drapers, or freelancing at Retail Week or Marketing Week, I’d frequently have to contact the press offices of huge brands, asking for an interview or comment for a feature or news article (this was if we didn’t have a contact between us on the news or features desk where we could circumvent this and go straight to the CEO or financial director, etc.).

It was pretty much always headache-inducing. Firstly, many emails would go unanswered. There was so much chasing (which yes, I know many of us do as part of our jobs). After a brief exchange about the feature, the Spanish Inquisition would start: who had I contacted, which other brands were featuring, which expert was I chatting to, what would the feature look like, could I send through all the potential questions, and so on. Maybe some of these are questions asked by a client but honestly, even my editor wouldn’t know the answer to these so I’m unsure why I’d be asked to pretty much send out the feature in full to a press officer before they can even tell me if they can comment.

It’s rare that I have to go through all this now. The waiting. The coming back with one thousand additional questions. But I was reminded of this laborious rigmarole last week when I contacted a big brand for a national piece. My god, did it make me glad this was no longer my world. That I didn’t have to deal with folk who made it seem they were protecting the Royal Family. Anyhow, at this stage I now have comment on background. I didn’t even ask for background, which makes it more farcical. I was then asked to send over questions which they could answer on the record. After sending them through the press team responded saying “as mentioned we we’re not answering questions”. After asking me to send questions through. Utterly terrible behaviour and I’ve made my thoughts known.

It did remind me of how much I enjoy speaking to smaller companies, or bigger brands that don’t have a PR team with burly security, and those that can set up interviews quickly. All hail to them.

Why Journalists Are Leaving The Industry

Image by Etienne Boulanger

With living costs rising, I wanted to talk this week about journalism rates. Some people (not PRs, of course) are surprised to find out that no, we're not paid by clicks, or how well received our pieces are (we don't need more click-bait journalism, although perhaps I wouldn't be saying that if I received a pound for every view of a recent BBC article).

But while bills are increasing, there's one thing that's not going up and that's journalism rates. In fact, some freelance journalism rates are the SAME or LOWER than circa 2010. And even before. Imagine. If I think back to the freelance rates set at a trade title I first started at, the figure seems like a decent amount compared to some places now. Some more well-established tabloid journalists say that they're not even receiving half as much as they used to in the 90s. These days some online titles pay you around £90 for an article. The Guardian and BBC pay around £350 per 1000 words and £326 respectively (quite decent compared to everyone else). If you want to see how much other titles pay, you can check out this handy Freelance Fees Guide, where you can drill down into local news, magazines, books, etc.

Speak to any freelance journalist and they'll no doubt agree that it's a tough out there. Money is one of the key reasons why many journalists leave the industry, perhaps to go into roles some of you are in (PR/comms). Many like me have diversified into other areas and are juggling a few balls. If we still want to be a journalist, we simply have to. I know many who have added copywriter, celebrant, coach, and other jobs that don't begin with the letter 'c' to their bow. (Another popular choice is lecturing, as well as writing books). I actually love discovering what other career paths are out there.

As for me, I'm forever grateful that the Guardian contacted me about four years ago to run its PR masterclasses. Although journalism resolutely remains my focus, as many of you will know, that invite paved the way for me to start running my own workshops, setting up a course, creating Power Hours and a content network matching talented journalists with PRs and business owners. I also let out my home when I'm not there, which has been a lifesaver over the past five years. These other revenue streams have meant I can focus more on the kind of journalism I want to write.

I understand that publishers are having a torrid time, but these paltry rates need to stop. Stop giving overinflated pay packets and bonuses to the people at the top and start paying freelancers (and in-house journalists) a decent rate instead.

Have a great rest of the week.

Susie

Is This The Right Way To Keep Journalism Alive?

Photo by brotiN biswaS

Hi everyone

There was much derision at Rolling Stone magazine's announcement offering people the chance to write for the magazine – for $2,000.

The magazine has set up Culture Council, "an exclusive community for visionary leaders" who, after passing a vetting process and stumping up an annual fee of $1,500 plus $500 upfront, will have the “opportunity to publish original content” to its website and become “thought leaders”.

Its website goes on to whip up interest by adding that such “thought leaders” would “join a vetted network of innovators in the multi-faceted entertainment industry who are doing inspiring work”, adding that “each member adds a unique vibe and perspective to the community”.

Each person will be able to set up a member profile, featuring their bio, company description, and areas of expertise.

Rolling (pun intended) my eyes at the nauseating copy, it goes on to say that these so-called thought leaders will “get direct access to a living, breathing think tank – a crucible for the visionaries of our time”.

With a feeling that now anyone can claim to write for Rolling Stone, critics are outraged. However Rolling Stone has insisted that people are vetted and it's created a dedicated editorial team to help polish the words that pass through its gates.

Does it weaken the Rolling Stone brand? Pimping out a slice of the well-regarded title to those with the biggest pockets probably may devalue it slightly in the eyes of its loyal readers, who may feel stung that only the rich amongst them can contribute to their favourite magazine. But from what I understand, it sits separately on the website and it should be clear that the articles haven't been penned by its in-house journalists or freelancers. This style of publishing is similar to Forbes’ membership councils where you have to pay to join.

While thought leadership posts are generally unpaid, paid-for content has been propping up publishing for years. Whether we pick up the Guardian or The Telegraph, chances are we'll see (clearly marked) branded content. 

In an ideal world our most valued newspapers and magazines would be free of advertising, and we'd listen to radio without hearing an annoying ad. But unfortunately journalism is underpaid and underfunded, and many publishers are on the cusp of going under. We saw popular music title Q magazine fold last year after 34 years. NME stopped printing after 66 years. Shortlist was axed.

Do we want our magazines to find new ways of survival if not enough people are willing to pay for journalism and advertising revenue isn't stacking up? 

 Have a lovely rest of the week,

Susie

Don't ignore this segment of journalists

Photo by Mikey Harris

Hi everyone,

While not exactly The Devil Wears Prada standards of glam, working as a staff journalist can certainly bring its benefits: I can happily recall deliveries of Fortnum & Masons hampers, Krispy Kremes dropping every week from agencies, and packages of chocolate, books, clothes, and various other gifts landing on our desks.

I was about 24 when I entered journalism, starting my career as an editorial assistant on a salary of £18,000. I might have been living on a budget but when it came to work, I was in a privileged position of choosing which restaurants I wanted to meet a PR or founder at. And so began a chapter of breakfasts at The Wolseley or Charlotte Street Hotel, lunch at Yautcha or Andrew Edmunds, and partying on an evening at private members clubs or in a box at the O2. That wasn't my average day – we did have a magazine to get to press and we worked bloody hard – but the glitz, the glamour, and the fun were certainly there in rich abundance.

However, something happens when you go freelance. The lunch offers dwindle. The gifts stop rolling in. It's like you fall off everyone's radars in that sense (but not when it comes to pitching). It's a funny world as even if you're working for a variety of titles including the nationals, PRs and founders stop trying to build relationships with as much vigor. Now I'm certainly not asking anyone to start playing the violin or suddenly shower me in gifts; I understand, peering back with a new lens a decade or so later, that the level of consumerism was probably all a bit too much.

But I bring this up as we're in the height of the Christmas season and perhaps you're sending the odd card and gift to in-house journalists and editors. But also have a think about the freelance journalists you've worked with this year. Many self-employed journalists are struggling even more this year as a result of budget cuts. So could you send a little treat to a freelancer in your sector that you've worked with a few times this year on a campaign? Or a freelancer who continues to quote you? You could email them asking them if you could send them a little gift of your or your client's product (if that doesn't work you being some kind of tech solutions tool, perhaps some chocolate, a mulled wine kit, or a donation to their food bank?). The journalist might say no (many are cutting back on things they don't need), or they might just say yes – and you might put a smile on their face. What you will also do is put you on their radar. It doesn't mean they're going to write about you necessarily, but spreading a little kindness is all part of nurturing relationships.

Enjoy the rest of the week,
Susie

Don't Contact Journalists This Way

Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

Hi everyone

How do you feel about WhatsApp? Personally, I have a love/hate relationship with the platform. The upshot, of course, is that it's a brilliant way to quickly chat and ping pictures to friends and family, but on the other hand who doesn't get that sinking feeling when you're added to yet another group?

I bring up WhatsApp as the other day the founder of a business I'd featured in an article WhatsApped me at 6am. Yes, that's right. 6am. I'm just very grateful (for him and me) it didn't wake me up.

The founder had originally been in touch with me over email yet he caught my number at the bottom of my signature and started WhatsApping - asking about pictures, another time asking when the article would be published. I did say to him it would be better to email but still the messages came through.

There was never any reason to bring the conversation onto another (non-work) platform. But this isn't the first time this has happened. I'll often receive WhatsApp messages from PRs when the conversation should have stayed on email. I check my emails regularly enough (probably far too much) and in none of the cases has there ever warranted an urgent need to message me.

For me, and I believe most journalists would nod their heads in agreement on this, from a PR perspective WhatsApp isn't the right platform to converse with journalists on. That is what email is there for.

So my advice is: stick to email (if that wasn't clear enough). Unless a journalist wants you to WhatsApp them, you're pals with a journalist, or you're already working with them on something urgent and it's impossible to get through to them by all other means (and you've tried their email, calling and voicemail).

I know it's not always possible, but some people try to keep their work and personal life separate and jumping into their WhatsApp messages could be overstepping boundaries.

Have a great rest of the week.

Thanks
Susie

What Would I Advise Someone Looking To Enter Journalism Now?

Earlier this month I received a message on Instagram from a 16-year-old who had spotted me on her college's alumni page. She wanted to know how I had made the move into journalism. Given the personal connection and recalling the lack of opportunities and career inspiration when I was 16, I responded asking if she had availability that evening as I'd give her a call. 

She confessed she was nervous. Of course, she didn't need to be. But I was once a shy 16-year-old and even years later I can still remember how nerve-wracking it was making calls when I was starting off in journalism. We spoke for about 30 minutes and during that call, I laid bare the reality of journalism today: how the industry is having a torrid time, with many magazines closing their doors, and that it's really really difficult to survive - many fantastic journalists are being forced to leave the sector, or if they're freelance, they're holding down so-called portfolio careers.

But of course, I didn't want to be overly pessimistic. I wouldn't want to push someone completely away from a career that they have a deep desire to explore. Knowing what I know today, would I have chosen a different path and not entered journalism? No. I still think it's a brilliant, interesting, and varied career, and one that I'd still have a good stab at. Yes, I'd love a career with more money and security, but the world still needs journalism (more than ever) and if you understand the almighty challenges ahead (and are ready to accept other jobs on the side like content marketing and teaching), then go for it, I say. It's not like my parents' generation where you stick to one job; you can always slide into another industry if need be. 

Over the course of the half-hour, I shared tips with her, including stepping up your tech skills (especially video) and standing out on work experience. I applauded her for using her initiative to contact me. For scouting me out online and sending a message demonstrated key skills needed for a career in journalism.