I read in Dircomfidencial that La Vanguardia has suffered a severe blow in digital audiences and attributes it to Google and Discover's algorithmic changes and to "the line of content written by external companies". They explain that up to three different companies prepared articles that were only reviewed after publication. The press should be careful not to lose focus: most of the media that worked not for the reader but for Facebook disappeared the next day the tech giant decided to turn off the tap. A bit of foamy froth on beer is pleasant and tickles the mustache, but if your glass is fundamentally foam, the sip is insubstantial. The crisis in the press is worrying, but there is a truth that has remained solid in recent years: the best dependence is that of the readers. Which is not the same as that of the clickers.
This case shows that there are no shortcuts to journalism. Many of these external companies rely on AI, because it is a cheap and fast technology if you want to churn out eye-catching content with zero genuine substance. And it is ethically reprehensible because, in the end, these companies draw on the work of someone else who receives neither credit nor compensation. Furthermore, it never replaces the added value that a human brings: an AI can tell you the intensity of an earthquake and which seismographs detected it, but the story of the consequences will always require someone to be there with a notebook, microphone or camera... and a willingness to listen. Articles made by AI are increasingly proliferating, often stolen from other media and rewritten in the orthopaedic manner of the machine. There are fake journalists with invented names signing pieces and with their cheap social media profiles created. This is noise, not journalism, and it ends up being as reckless as cutting the grass under your feet.
