Kristin Houser

As a journalist, of course I worry about the future of the profession, especially as AI comes into play, but this story points out an assertion that I've been making for some time: If you're doing real reporting, talking to people, sorting through documents, attending events -- doing real shoe leather journalism; that's not going away. Bots are not equipped to do that. The business model is another matter, but the actual act of real reporting? That requires a set of human skills that will be very difficult for bots to reproduce. https://lnkd.in/ec_D2SB5

83

4 Comments

Either someone’s giving bad advice, or newsroom leaders are cherry-picking the advice that they agree with. We’ve been seeing a strong vertical video trend this year of high production value vertical explainers, with writers explaining their original journalism on camera. I don’t have a problem with these - I think they’re wonderful and actually very important - and my usual criticism of them is poor scripting rather than the format itself. Newsrooms showing they care about vertical video is always a positive. What’s a bit more concerning is that these videos aren’t coupled with lower production value, faster-to-make videos that are platform native coming from individuals. Content remains glued to publisher accounts across the board and journalists uploading work themselves (like they’ve done on Twitter for years) remains the exception, not the rule. This goes against everything data has been telling us for at least six years about the kind of content audiences want to see - peer-to-peer, not over polished. From people, not brands. Niche-specific and values-driven, not aggregating every news story under the sun. The comment sections actually tell you everything; anecdotally, I’d say the sentiment analysis on newsroom explainers are pretty depressing compared to those of individual creators. More accounts posting = more data to use and analyse. Who doesn’t like more data? Newsrooms - you have permission to make both kinds of content!

213

28 Comments

Attention #Microdrama apps and platforms: If you’re trying to break into or conquer the U.S. market and you’re not hiring American writers and producers… You’re going to FAIL. You can’t just translate tropes that worked in China. You need to work natively in our culture. Our tone, humor, pacing, etc. Clearly, the format works, in general. But American audiences don’t want only Chinese-derived stories. They want original, Western stories that speak their language (literally and emotionally). Look, as a group, I know you’re averse to risk, and addicted to data. But only the platforms that bet on real storytelling (and real storytellers) are going to thrive in the (not metaphorical) ‘wild west.’ When you’re ready to start conquering the west - I’ve got a long list of great writers, producers and directors for you to start with :)

54

13 Comments

Here’s my hot take on using AI in journalism: We got to get better at reporting. Lately, I’ve been reading a lot of drafts where it’s clear AI had a hand in the writing. Sometimes partially, sometimes almost entirely. Now, I don’t hate AI. I use it too. Sometimes I’ll run a sentence through Claud just to see if it can tighten things up. And, it often does. But here’s the problem: AI doesn’t know what matters in a story. It doesn’t know which quote to keep. The one that’s clunky but full of emotion or the one which reads well but doesn't say much. It doesn't know that the colour of someone’s shirt, the way they fidget with their hands, or how their home smells, can sometimes carry as much weight as a data point or stat. Without AI, there was one way to write well: write well. Now, there's another way: use AI. But it only works if there’s solid, detailed reporting behind it. AI might clean up our prose but it won’t sit with a grieving parent or notice how someone’s voice cracks mid-sentence. That’s still on us.

215

10 Comments

The more you meddle with a reporter’s story, the less influence you have. It’s a fine line. PR pros want to shape how their organization is represented… but push too hard, and you lose credibility fast. I’ve seen it happen: 🔹 The follow-up emails trying to reframe a quote 🔹 The requests to “soften” language that makes the story newsworthy Journalists aren’t in the business of making companies look good. They’re there to tell a strong, factual story. The best way to build influence isn’t to micromanage coverage. It’s to be a valuable, trusted source reporters want to come back to. 💡 PR pros & journalists, where’s the line between guiding and meddling?

91

22 Comments

Perplexity's publisher pitch exploits industry desperation Why it matters: Publishers facing traffic declines are considering partnerships with the AI company that allegedly stole their content for years. Perplexity is positioning itself as "publisher-friendly" with a new revenue-sharing model tied to its Comet browser, just as major outlets sue the company for copyright violations. The big picture: This isn't partnership. It's damage control masquerading as industry leadership. - Publishers report they can't even get meetings with Perplexity's one-person partnerships team - The company won't reveal how much of its $42.5M fund has actually been paid out - Success depends on Comet browser adoption, but Perplexity hides usage figures Between the lines: Publishers aren't considering this deal because it's good, they're drowning and grasping for any revenue stream. The catch: "Usage-based compensation" sounds fair until you read the fine print. - Payments tied to vague metrics: access by "humans, crawlers, or AI agents" - No transparency on how usage is calculated or verified - Previous Perplexity revenue programs were "underdeveloped and opaque" What's happening: BBC, Forbes, News Corp and others are suing Perplexity for systematically bypassing content protections and scraping without permission. - The timing of this publisher outreach, amid mounting legal pressure, isn't coincidental - Publishers who created the content powering Perplexity's AI are now offered table scraps The bottom line: When your industry is collapsing and you're desperate for revenue, even exploitative partnerships can seem preferable to extinction. That doesn't make them acceptable.

29

1 Comment