The Pulitzer Prize is one of the most prestigious journalism awards. Organized by the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, it is awarded each year in 21 categories, including 14 in the field of journalism and 7 in the arts. Named after the “King of the Press,” Joseph Pulitzer, it’s an award every journalist would love to win.
But this year, the Pulitzer Prize committee innovated. He asked journalists to disclose whether they used generative AI in their reporting. He thus recognizes that generative AI is an important element in the creation of stories. A change of criterion which illustrates a new phenomenon.
According to Nieman Journalism Lab, 45 articles were shortlisted out of 1,200 Pulitzer Prize submissions, including 5 using generative AI. The list of preselected candidates will be revealed when the winners are announced on May 8. We will then have an overview of how some authors use generative AI.
Understand the benefits and risks
The Pulitzer Prize selection committee began discussing generative AI last year. According to NiemanLab, their first reaction was to think “wow, the devil is coming.” But they quickly reached consensus on the need to explore possibilities and opportunities, as well as risks.
The fact remains that the arrival of AI in the world of journalism and reporting does not please everyone. This is not unexpected, given the journalistic tradition of rewarding hard field work. There is an English expression called “shoe leather reporting”. It means “leather shoe reporting”, or field reporting, work considered one of the most precious virtues of journalism.
Many of the biggest scoops in the history of journalism have in fact been made through on-the-ground reporting. One of the best examples of investigative journalism is the Watergate scoop. Between the first articles in 1972 and the resignation of President Nixon, more than two years passed, during which journalists met with countless sources and sifted through mountains of documents.
Should journalists reject generative AI?
The fact remains that journalism has also been using new technologies for a long time. From making data collection and analysis easier to experimenting with ways to deliver information more immersively to readers, journalism has taken leaps and bounds thanks to digital. From attempts at immersive journalism in the late 1990s to computer-assisted reporting (CAD) and data journalism, there have been many efforts to use new technologies.
But it is generative AI that is obviously attracting the most attention in recent months. Since the release of ChatGPT, generative AI has even been called a scary technology that could disrupt the future of journalism.
So should journalists reject generative AI, or will smarter generative AI drive “human journalists” out of newsrooms? These questions often lead to the misconception that journalism and generative AI are “antagonistic.”
Transform deeply
But generative AI, like so many other technologies that have made journalism more productive, has many qualities that make it a friend of journalists.
Of course, to survive the era of generative AI, journalists and media outlets will need to fundamentally transform themselves, and at the center of this transformation will be the development of skills that are not easily replaceable by AI. Reviewing the basics of journalism as highlighted in journalism textbooks would be an important first step.
However, technologies such as generative AI can go a long way in implementing the “fundamentals of journalism”. This idea was reinforced when I read that five of the Pulitzer Prize finalists are using generative AI.
Source: “ZDNet Korea”