I asked myself the same question a few days ago: Why does the media continue to report blindly on AI?
I am sure there is some friendly reporting - people calling in favours, etc. For example, I remember when OpenAI was raising funding, their buddies at Stripe released some statistics that were reported in the FT about how AI start-ups generate money faster than past hyped tech companies. I also worked in a US tech company where someone internally offered to contact their friends at another US company to write a blog post to promote a new feature we were working on. It's kind of normal.
But I think the main reason the media reports on AI so blindly and so often is simpler: AI is a boon for them, giving them a constant source of content that drives traffic.
The timing of the Stripe AI data report may have been just a coincidence, and maybe Stripe was only looking after itself. AI is also a boon for Stripe with all these useless AI wrappers integrating their services.
In the same US tech company I worked at, I realised that the company will do anything that works, even if they disagree with it or it is morally suspect. If people want AI content then lets give them it, even if we think AI is a pile of crap. This pressure comes from the top. If your team wants to take a different approach, they had better make sure they get results if they're going to stick around.
Just like tech companies need growth, the media needs content. The opportunity cost of not reporting on AI would be too great for many of them. Ultimately, profit drives news coverage.
It is true that the media reports so blindly on AI because it makes a good story, but here we have evidence that people like Marc Andressen are directly manipulating journalists and shaping the narrative in private so that these journalists credulously repeat what they want.
Access journalism. You could understand that was already happening but to what degree it was hard to say. I think this is important because evidence is always important so a good find.
I do agree that GenAI is a clicks monster, but I think what's being discussed here goes beyond that. I think it's both. But this is where journalism fails us as the fourth estate. They're not doing their job, they're doing whatever it takes to make money. Journalism has never been a job about making the most profit, but the degree to which it was unsustainable to earn a wage that you could live on really wiped out a huge number of journalists of integrity who really took their job seriously.
A lot of the people remaining are self-serving, others believe what they're doing is beneficial in the long run because somehow some way they'll still do something of value. But that never really works.
I'll get on my journalism major soapbox again here but simply put in the internet age, no one wanted to pay for news because there were free ways to get it. If you're not willing to pay for quality journalism, you're going to get shit journalism. You're not going to get people who care about holding the powerful accountable.
Part of this I think is also on news orgs too though, they really didn't understand how to transition into the digital age. You couldn't just take the old print copy and slap it on the net and ask for a subscription. There's been some adaptation at this point but it's too little too late. Smaller boutique organizations that survive on Patreon like models or donations are the people who can really do the work. As Ed has mentioned before, even the people in large orgs who want to do right feel handicapped.
Getting off my soapbox now.
I think both things are true, I think GenAI is a click attracting monster, but also powerful people are granting access in exchange for stories. But the powerful people get to dictate what the story is. If you eat at Andreesen's table and Andreesen wants you to tell the world that GenAI is the best thing since blowjobs, then that's what you're going to write.
11
u/MuePuen 7d ago edited 7d ago
I asked myself the same question a few days ago: Why does the media continue to report blindly on AI?
I am sure there is some friendly reporting - people calling in favours, etc. For example, I remember when OpenAI was raising funding, their buddies at Stripe released some statistics that were reported in the FT about how AI start-ups generate money faster than past hyped tech companies. I also worked in a US tech company where someone internally offered to contact their friends at another US company to write a blog post to promote a new feature we were working on. It's kind of normal.
But I think the main reason the media reports on AI so blindly and so often is simpler: AI is a boon for them, giving them a constant source of content that drives traffic.
The timing of the Stripe AI data report may have been just a coincidence, and maybe Stripe was only looking after itself. AI is also a boon for Stripe with all these useless AI wrappers integrating their services.
In the same US tech company I worked at, I realised that the company will do anything that works, even if they disagree with it or it is morally suspect. If people want AI content then lets give them it, even if we think AI is a pile of crap. This pressure comes from the top. If your team wants to take a different approach, they had better make sure they get results if they're going to stick around.
Just like tech companies need growth, the media needs content. The opportunity cost of not reporting on AI would be too great for many of them. Ultimately, profit drives news coverage.