The question of AI in journalism is nearly unavoidable in 2026, and a recent column by the president of News Media Canada, Paul Deegan, ignited the debate once again.
While Deegan rightfully calls for the government to protect the industry in this age of AI — he also mentioned that real journalism will become more valuable in the age of AI writing.
And it’s for a good reason. While the ethical reporting of information is the single most important aspect of journalism, the purpose and value of journalism extends far beyond that. Journalism is also an excellent avenue to spread new ideas and to facilitate meaningfully important conversation and debates.
Because of this, there is an unshakable, and often unspoken, component of human connection that is undeniably engrained within journalism itself.
AI may be able to reproduce writing samples that ostensibly present as journalism, but it certainly cannot replace that.
In fact, journalism is a form of storytelling. The writers are expected to engage critically with factual material — but that is only part of the process. As much as writers contribute to journalism, it’s equally as important for readers to engage with the material and subsequently form their own opinions.
However, for this process to function effectively, there must be a certain level of trust within the process. Journalism, therefore, is both intrinsically and instrumentally human.
And this is why AI can never truly replace journalism.
Where journalism relies on human connection, AI is entirely devoid. Where journalism is contingent upon originality, AI cannot provide an opinion it cannot plagiarize. AI is bland, recognizable, predictable, standardized, and impersonal.
AI both undermines the values of journalism, while also dichotomously opposing what journalism is meant to represent.
Not only that, if journalism is about human-connection, writers using AI without readers being aware is a complete violation of that unspoken agreement.
It’s not as though the use of AI isn’t obvious either. Readers are smart and they can recognize when a text is written by a Large-Language-Model. Putting aside the fact that AI cannot replicate the quality of human work, incorporating AI into journalism is so obviously against what readers want.
While this is an issue to consider for the future, it’s not as though AI isn’t already causing problems in journalism already. News organizations — especially smaller ones — are already moving towards more AI-written articles.
Not only that, AI-written news stories can only source from preexisting sources online. In effect, it means that AI is stealing the intellectual property, and potential earned revenue from hard-working journalists.
Like all industries that involve written work, journalism is at great risk for AI-plagiarism. Legislation that forces articles written by AI to be disclosed is a good first step and will help restore trust in the industry.
Furthermore, intellectual property has thus far been paralyzed by how quickly AI is advancing. Updating our laws to account for AI-driven content will help journalists avoid having their content stolen.
There’s no denying that AI is putting journalism at risk, but what journalism represents, AI will never be able to fully replicate. In a world increasingly devoid of human-connection, journalism is an industry we should protect.
— Journal Editorial Board
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to eic@queensjournal.ca.