Tag: BBC

  • You deserve the truth, not AI’s interpretation of it

    You deserve the truth, not AI’s interpretation of it

    To understand the world around us we need reliable and rigorous reporting, with AI as a tool that amplifies such journalism rather than exploits and distorts it, writes Liz Corbin and Vincent Peyrègne.

    We all want to understand the world around us.

    Perhaps we want more clarity about the war in Gaza, or what our government is doing about the healthcare our family relies on.

    It might be something as simple as changes to a bus route that will affect our daily commute.

    No matter how momentous or mundane the issue, we have a right to news we can trust.

    We’ve all been there, scrolling our feed, seeing an astonishing clip, or a shocking must-share story. But now we must constantly question what’s real and what’s the creation of artificial intelligence.

    AI-generated output is so convincing today and shaping so much of the information we consume that we risk being unable to trust anything anymore. And mistrust is the fuel that drives conspiracism, social polarisation and democratic disengagement. 

    In reality, the integrity of what we call ‘news’ is being eroded by the tools that are meant to help us make sense of the world. 

    This World News Day, we want to underline that the public are entitled to the facts that professional journalists and the organisations they work for worldwide are committed to finding, corroborating and sharing.

    However, the tech companies building AI systems that millions of people use daily are falling far short of their responsibility to truth.

    Original research carried out this year by the BBC found that half of AI-generated answers to news-related requests left out important details and made other key errors.

    The AI assistants they tested consistently churned out garbled facts, fabricated or misattributed quotes, decontextualised information or paraphrased reporting with no acknowledgement. 

    So what? It’s useful and saves time, it’ll improve, we can live with the errors.

    Except we’re not talking about a cake recipe or holiday recommendations. Democracy is at stake, because a society with no common understanding of what’s true can’t make informed choices.

    And individuals who rely on a deceptive distortion of originally independent, accurate journalism risk losing themselves in a toxic mire of half-truths and bad-faith manipulation.

    This isn’t faraway, abstract paranoia. The internet is already inundated with synthetic fakery designed to deceive, drive clicks, and promote vested interests.

    AI-generated voices, faces, and headlines are degrading the information ecosystem, often with no clear provenance or accountability. 

    Meanwhile, the output of journalists serving the public interest, especially in local, regional, and independent media, is being scraped without permission, algorithmically repackaged and redistributed with no credit or compensation.

    This phenomenon is arguably more pernicious than the glaring, outrageous deepfakes we have all seen because the inaccuracies are subtle, plausible and more likely to mislead.

    We are witnessing the sabotage of news we need to be able to rely on, and that is draining already depleted reserves of public trust.

    So, what can be done?

    The European Broadcasting Union and WAN-IFRA, together with a fast-growing collective of other organisations representing thousands of professional journalists and newsrooms around the world, are calling for urgent changes to how AI developers interact with news and the people who produce it.

    Many of the broadcasters and news publishers we represent are using AI responsibly to enhance their journalism without compromising editorial integrity, such as through automating translation, helping detect misinformation, or personalising content.

    They are mindful that the deployment of these tools must be principled, transparent and carefully handled.

    That’s why we are presenting five clear requirements to AI tech companies. These are not radical; they are realistic, common-sense standards that any ethical technology developer can and should embrace:

    1. No content without consent. AI systems must not be trained on news content without permission. That content is intellectual property created through rigorous work and public trust. Unsanctioned scraping is theft that undermines both.
    1. Respect value. High-quality journalism is expensive to produce but vital for society’s wellbeing. AI tools benefiting from that work must compensate its creators fairly and in good faith.  
    1. Be transparent. When AI-generated content feeds on news sources, those sources should always be clearly cited and linked because accuracy and attribution matter. We are entitled to know where information came from and if it differs from the original.
    1. Protect diversity. AI tools should amplify pluralistic, independent, public interest journalism. A robust, healthy information environment requires a representative cross-section of voices.
    1. Work with us. We invite AI companies to enter a serious, solutions-driven dialogue with the news industry. Together, we can develop standards for accuracy, safety, and transparency, but only if tech companies see journalists as partners, and not as suppliers of free data to be mined and monetised. 

    We consider this a civic challenge that affects every person who relies on credible information to make decisions about their life, to form credible opinions or decide whom to vote for.

    Tech companies talk a lot about trust, but trust is not built on talk. We’re calling on the leaders of the AI revolution to get a handle on this problem now.

    They have the power to shape the future of information, but we don’t yet see them taking their tools’ dangerous shortcomings, and the potential consequences of them, seriously enough.  

    Without urgent, corrective action, AI won’t just distort the news – it will destroy the public’s ability to trust in anything and anyone, which will be disastrous news for us all.

    Liz Corbin is Director of News at the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), and Vincent Peyrègne is CEO of WAN-IFRA.

    This article was commissioned to mark World News Day on September 28, a global news industry campaign.to highlight the value of journalism.

  • Regenerating the base layer of democracy: local news

    Regenerating the base layer of democracy: local news

    Jonathan Heawood argues that local news is the foundation of a healthy democracy, yet it has been weakened by political hostility, collapsing business models, and the rise of social media.

    This summer, the leader of Nottinghamshire County Council banned a local news outlet from engaging with any of his 40 elected representatives. Councillor Mick Barton of Reform UK also instructed council officials to stop sending press releases and event invitations to journalists at Nottinghamshire Live.

    Why? Because these journalists had upset Barton with their coverage of his party.

    When Reform UK’s leader, Nigel Farage, was asked about this at a US Congressional hearing, he came out with characteristic bluster about his absolute commitment to free speech whilst denying responsibility for the ban.

    A few days later, Reform UK hosted a well-known anti-vaxxer at their annual conference. Challenged about the lack of scientific evidence for his claims, a party spokesperson told the BBC, ‘Reform UK does not endorse what he said but does believe in free speech.’

    It might seem strange when a political party vigorously defends the freedom to spread falsehood whilst curtailing the freedom to tell the truth, but this is straight out of the populist playbook.

    From Trump’s America to Orban’s Hungary and Modi’s India, authoritarian politicians are demonising journalists whilst eulogising fantasists. Every day, the bond between journalists and the public is stretched closer to breaking point – not that this relationship was in great health to begin with.

    The internet disrupted the business model for local newspapers, forcing hundreds of titles to close, whilst social media gave the public the opportunity to make sense of things on their own terms. 

    At first, platforms like Twitter and Facebook looked like democracy in action: everyone had a voice, and everyone could enter the conversation.

    We now know that this was a false promise. Social media makes some voices much louder than others, and these platforms are easily co-opted by politicians and activists for their own ends.

    To ensure a truly democratic public sphere, we need to rebuild the base layer of democracy: local news.

    Policymakers, philanthropists, investors and local news providers urgently need to take six steps to regenerate local news for the twenty-first century.

    Firstly, local news needs to be demonstrably local. The more that reporters are visible in their communities, the more they will be trusted. If journalists are setting out to hold local politicians accountable, then journalists, too, need to be accountable. This is partly about independent and effective media regulation, but also about building relationships with the audience and exploring co-creational models of local news, where members of the community are actively involved in producing journalism.

    Secondly, local news needs a sustainable business model. This probably means a blend of revenue streams, including subscriptions, donations and commercial partnerships, to avoid becoming dependent on any one source.

    Thirdly, local news needs to operate in the public interest, with stories that clearly inform and empower local people – not clickbait about celebrities and national politics.

    Fourthly, local news needs to keep innovating. A printed newspaper is still a fantastic way of telling the story of a local area, but it’s an alien artefact for many readers. If audiences prefer to engage with short videos, podcasts or email newsletters, then local news providers need to use these media.

    This also means that policymakers must broker a new settlement between big tech and local news. The platforms might own the audience, but they don’t own the public sphere. It should be their legal responsibility to carry local news with due prominence, so that serious reporters can counterbalance the populists and fantasists with accurate, ethical and impartial journalism.

    Fifthly, the people making local news need to resemble the people they’re representing. In the UK, the journalism workforce is disproportionately white and able-bodied, and the costs of higher education are a barrier to working class journalists. We need to diversify local news along every axis of identity.

    Finally, local news needs to be engaging.

    Local news will never become sustainable if it’s like the vegetables we’re supposed to eat but just can’t stomach. Local news has got to be a tasty mix of great stories and genuinely useful information.

    The people who want to destroy democracy are working hard to undermine local news. But we won’t restore democratic norms simply by telling people that local news is good for them. To coin a phrase, we need to make local news great again.

    The good news is that there are pioneering journalists reinventing local news around the world.

    They urgently need access to patient capital to build models of local news that are accountable, sustainable, in the public interest, innovative, representative and engaging. 

    It’s not too late to regenerate local news. But time is running out.

    By Jonathan Heawood, Executive Director of the Public Interest News Foundation.

    This article was commissioned as part of the World News Day campaign to highlight the value of journalism.