18th century. Undetermined location. It could have happened in London, Paris, New York. The first newspaper exhibitors, the “newspaper boys” Christened “Canillitas” in 1904 by Uruguayan playwright and journalist Florencio Sánchez, they wasted no time. They shouted the news even before the printers have completely dried the ink. There was one tough competition for first place even with the shovel in the corner even if some data was inaccurate.
The scene with these precocious screamers gives it away Something essential about journalism: From the beginning there was a tension between speed and truthfulness, between quick storytelling and good storytelling. Over the years, the implementation of technology has never resolved this conflict; it just repressed it.
Today, With the emergence of artificial intelligence, new questions arise disguised as futurism in a discussion that usually moves between two extremes: the naive fascination with the machine and the fear that it will end up replacing the workers who enrich the newsrooms. However, the real problem lies elsewhere, and that is it The new situational framework forces us to rethink what it means to narrate reality at a time when data produces more words than people.
The advent of AI made the already necessary concerns structural Updates in journalistic workdriven by a necessary Renewal of the business model and the digital speed. As the philosopher Byung-Chul Han warned: Hyper-acceleration our time, the Information surplusundermines the human ability to “create meaning.” It is difficult to distinguish what is relevant and what is irrelevant and it is in this ecosystem that the journalist competes with machines and no longer writes, but writes.
The risk is not that they tell stories better. The risk is that by producing endless narratives without a break, time for reflection is lost. This is the case when the professional is caught in a productive logic that pushes him to publish earlier, summarize more and go into less depth. Everything boils down to the pure surface, the pure headline.
What’s next? Our nation’s and world’s newsrooms are coping with the dilemma, integrating and managing technology. The experience of translating texts or the opportunity to hear a report in the voice of its author is very enriching. A recent ADEPA report cites cSuccess stories highlighted during the recent JournalismAI Festival funded by the Google News Initiative, including tests carried out by the BBC, the Financial Times and the Guardian. In the same spirit, The New York Times has made it its mission to explain that, beyond the use of artificial intelligence, real people are ultimately responsible for the publications. The message is clear: AI can speed up processes, but the editorial function remains. The machine helps; The journalist interprets. This arrangement is defended so as not to dilute the trust agreement with the company.
On the other hand, the introduction of tools that can produce persuasive speeches in seconds seems to add fuel to the information chaos. This is what technologist Ethan Zuckerman, co-founder of Global Voices and the one who “regrets” creating the “pop-ups,” claims Technology reinforces social behaviors, but does not create them. So, If misinformation is rampant, it’s not because of AIbut because there are contact systems with the already weakened receptors. The machine only accelerates the trend and increases the challenge of combating misinformation.
A new (old) job
We can stay with the uncertain outlook or spread positivity: There have never been so many opportunities to produce high-quality content. AI can analyze large amounts of data, detect invisible patterns and feed them back as input for more sophisticated journalism. It can save time that is now wasted on mechanical tasks that the journalist does what no device can: nourish contexts, create added value, interpret human complexity and, above all, tell the story.
Perhaps this is where the historical continuity lies. Journalism has reinvented itself with every leap in technology. Radio would mean the end of newspapers. Television is the end of radio. The internet would end everything. Undoubtedly, new ways have been found to provide feedback on each of the formats. lAI seems to be the most challenging chapter, but also another in the same novel: that of a profession that mutates to continue to fulfill its purpose.
A journalist is on the horizon, less an editor than a curator, interpreter and architect of realities. Someone who is able to say, “This is important,” when machines and infinite scrolling seem to suggest that “everything is important.”
Just as the little tip from the indeterminate location was deciding which news to shout out first, Today it’s time once again to find out which stories deserve to be told. This is the new and old job of the journalist. Don’t compete with the machine, differentiate yourself from it. Pause between sounds to signal to the audience the event that requires an extra minute of attention.
We would like to get to know you!
Register for free at El Cronista for an experience tailored to you.
About The Author
