Skip to main content

I just saw an article about high school sports coverage in newspapers owned by Gannett; apparently they had been using AI to generate articles, and people had strong complaints so they have now stopped:  https://www.axios.com/local/co...ett-ai-newsroom-tool.

My local paper has been owned by Gannett for a few years, they have axed the staff, and high school sports coverage has been decimated.  Where they used to post an article and a box score for each (of 3) local high school baseball games, now we are lucky to get an item on one game a week (never with box).  The reporter runs a "games this week" running column with scores.

This is such a shame.  When my son was in HS, friends, neighbors, people we hadn't seen in a while would comment if he was mentioned (or better, had his picture) in the paper.  Same with our youngest with golf.  It really is something that can tie a smaller community together, if everyone is reading the same local paper.

So I'm torn about this AI business - on the one hand, I guess it meant that news was getting published; on the other hand, no human reporter had actually seen the games.

(looking to @iowamom23 for expert take on this!)

Last edited by anotherparent
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I saw an article about a game review written by AI that didn’t mention any of the stars of the game.

My daughter works. for a large, prestigious, national law firm. The lawyers have been trained on how to use AI. She said used properly it’s a valuable tool that saves a lot of time. But she added you have to be careful. A lawyer somewhere got in a lot of trouble for citing a a trial in court for precedent that wasn’t real.

Last edited by RJM

I am generally leery of combining technology and kid sports, and I've loved seeing the local newspaper guy at games and reading the (rare) bits of coverage. But I see huge promise from this. Generative AI can enable a baseline of coverage for ALL sports. Not just the big games and big sports or local hero teams. Remember those Gamechanger "game summaries" -- that's all AI.

What would disappoint me is if the use of AI stopped with basic summaries/articles. Right now I'm sure someone is working on tech to bring in photos, video, stats and associate that all to game-summary content, and that could be pretty rich. Especially for sports/teams/populations that get ignored due to lack of "media market."

Baseball is going to be massively impacted by AI. All of the investment in collecting data makes baseball a sitting duck for AI. Like any new technology, we're talking about Generative AI through the lens of the old way of doing things (a better way to write text articles), but it's going to hit differently. If I knew how I'd be rich lol.

I am a newspaper owner who got laid off by Gannett five years ago. Before I went, I laid off the entire staff. It was a fun few weeks. My husband and I then started an online paper in our community and then bought the Gannett weekly that let me go. So I completely get why they tried the AI thing.

At this point, though, I think there is a great place for AI in the background of helping us organize our work, compile stats and maybe even for editing by offering ideas to smooth things out, but honestly, I have no intention of using AI to actually create content at this point. Honestly, I'm not sure why Gannett would even post those stories.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×