The rise of the use of artificial intelligence to write newspaper articles is a relatively new thing, and one about which the National Union of Journalists is right to be worried. After all, if the job of journalists can be done by computers, then there will soon be scant need for newspapers to employ journalists.
So it was not surprising, then, to read that Seamus Dooley, the head of the NUJ, was somewhat upset by the publication this week, in two local newspapers, of an article which was, it seems, written by a computer:
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has expressed “grave concern” over an article generated by artificial intelligence (AI) about refugees published on a number of regional media websites on Tuesday.
The article, which originally had the headline, “OPINION: Should refugees in Ireland go home?”, was published by Iconic Media’s digital titles such as Limerick Live and Tipperary Live.
The headline has since been changed to “Can we trust artificial intelligence?” while the byline on the article says was “AI Generated”.
Séamus Dooley, NUJ Irish secretary, said the union would have “a grave concern at the use of AI generated material in this fashion”.
Had Mr. Dooley ended his complaints there, then one might have no complaint with him: It is his job to protect journalists and their sources of income. Newspapers outsourcing articles on any topic to lines of code developed in California is obviously an existential threat to the income of his members.
But Mr. Dooley did not end his complaints there. Had the article in question been favourable on the topic of immigration, it seems, then his bonnet might have contained fewer Bees:
“The heading ‘should refugees in Ireland go home’ is classic clickbait and is designed to be provocative,” he said.
“Asylum seekers granted refugee status in Ireland under international law are granted a new home and the notion of asking if they should ‘go home’ seems intended to fuel a debate similar to that generated in the UK.
“While the article seems relatively benign the question is loaded and is a classic trope. A journalist writing such a story would examine the local and national context, talk to relevant agencies and NGOs and perhaps discuss personal stories.
Note the bit in bold: Mr. Dooley’s objection to the article is not, it seems, who wrote it, but what it says. In particular, he seems upset that a journalist – either a real one, or a computer – might “fuel a debate” on immigration like the one allegedly taking place in the United Kingdom.
The only reasonable implication one can take from his remarks is that journalists, as he sees it, should actively work to prevent such a debate taking place in Ireland.
It should be said here that this is not revelatory: It is indeed how many journalists see themselves, and their jobs. It’s just that Mr. Dooley, in a perhaps unguarded moment, said the quiet bit out loud.
The problem, of course, is that this is not the role of journalists. Our job is to facilitate debate, not to suppress it. If a debate on immigration like the one allegedly underway in the UK is to happen here, then it will happen precisely because the public wishes it to happen. There can be no debate, after all, without debaters on either side. If Mr. Dooley finds the existence of such a debate distasteful or unpleasant, then that is his personal view to which he is entitled – but neither he or any other journalist has the right or the duty, as he argues, to suppress such a debate.
Further, his complaint about loaded questions, in the context of Irish journalism around immigration, is so hypocritical as to be barely believable. The NUJ, and its members, would find very little to write about when it comes to immigration if they could not turn to loaded questions – the only thing is that their loaded questions are on the side of goodness and decency, as they see it. And so instead of “should immigrants go home”, we instead get loaded questions like “is it time to do something about the far right”.
This is important because it goes to the very basic question about whether you, as a member of the public, can trust the things you read. Seamus Dooley (who, for the record, is a gentleman) is not some random person: he is the most senior representative of Irish journalists as a trade. And he is on the record here saying that the job of journalists is not to fuel a debate which he personally finds distasteful.
With the greatest of respect for Seamus: That’s nonsense. And disgraceful nonsense at that. He has every right, and indeed a duty, to decry how the article in question was written. But he has no right to suggest that journalism is not about fueling debates, just because you don’t like them.
The real problem here isn’t Seamus Dooley, though: It’s that comments like those from Seamus Dooley can be printed in a national paper without so much as a raised eyebrow by any of his members, or from those who claim to value the independence of the media. There’s a reason your readerships are falling, my friends: It’s because statements like this reflect your views, rather than appalling you. That’s one reason why AI might well replace many journalists in time – when it comes to bias, it’s more trustworthy than you are.