Though I didn’t fully appreciate it at the time, one of the best day jobs I ever had was as a receptionist. Not because I have a great love of patching phone calls through, but because I basically got to sit up front by myself and read all day. What a luxury! Then I was an idiot and accepted a promotion, sigh… When it came to the very personal question of selecting which books to read, obviously I followed word of mouth from friends and family, plus building a network of favorite authors and seeking out their work. I also picked up from my mother checking out recommendations from Vanity Fair, People Mag, and perusing the recent releases section of the library. So my head and heart go out to the readers of major newspapers last weekend who sought out a summer reading list. Why? Because the list turned out to be an AI-generated collection of books that, to quote the Chicago Sun-Times’s apology, “do not exist.” Read the human-penned apology for yourself:
On Sunday, May 18, the print and e-paper editions of the Chicago Sun-Times included a special section titled the Heat Index: Your Guide to the Best of Summer, featuring a summer reading list, that our circulation department licensed from King Features, a unit of Hearst, one of our national content partners. The special section was syndicated to the Chicago Sun-Times and other newspapers.
To our great disappointment, that list was created through the use of an AI tool and recommended books that do not exist. We are actively investigating the accuracy of other content in the special section. We will provide more information on that investigation when we have more details.
The Chicago Sun-Times has committed its strong journalism resources to local coverage in the Chicago region. Our journalists are deeply focused on telling the stories of this city and helping connect Chicagoans with one another. We also recognize that many of our print readers turn to us for national and broader coverage beyond our primary focus on the Chicago region. We’ve historically relied on content partners, such as King Features, for syndicated materials to help supplement our work, including national articles as well as comics and puzzle books.
King Features worked with a freelancer who used an AI agent to help build out this special section. It was inserted into our paper without review from our editorial team, and we presented the section without any acknowledgement that it was from a third-party organization.
King Features released a statement to Chicago Public Media saying it has “a strict policy with our staff, cartoonists, columnists, and freelance writers against the use of AI to create content. The Heat Index summer supplement was created by a freelance content creator who used AI in its story development without disclosing the use of AI. We are terminating our relationship with this individual. We regret this incident and are working with the handful of publishing partners who acquired this supplement.”
We are in a moment of great transformation in journalism and technology, and at the same time our industry continues to be besieged by business challenges. This should be a learning moment for all journalism organizations: Our work is valued — and valuable — because of the humanity behind it.
At Chicago Public Media, we are proud of our credible, independent journalism, created for and by people. And part of the journalistic process is a commitment to acknowledging mistakes. It is unacceptable that this content was inaccurate, and it is equally unacceptable that we did not make it clear to readers that the section was produced outside the Sun-Times newsroom. Our audiences expect content with our name on it to meet our editorial standards.
Chicago Sun-Times: “It wasn’t us, it was our third-party partner King Features! We maintain the highest journalistic integrity!” King Features: “It wasn’t us, it was a lone rogue nameless freelancer! We demand the highest integrity from our freelancers! But, yeah, oops.” Am I the only one getting a kick out of the gravely serious tone of this notice? Yes, they totally f–ked up, but the language here is so self-flagellating… all for an explanation that’s still basically passing off the buck to someone else, not once but twice. Something about the high stakes with which they’re treating the snafu is tickling my funny bone. This totally feels like it could be an episode of the forthcoming midwestern newspaper-set Office reboot, The Paper!
As for the AI of it all, between the technology ascribing fake movie reviews to real critics in the Megalopolis trailer, to its making an X-rated boo-boo by slapping the Wicked Barbie doll boxes with a link to an adult website, at what point can we drop the “intelligence” part, and just call it “artificial”?
Photos credit: Anna Tarazevich/Pexels, Lory Lory/Pexels, Mike Jones/Pexels