AI hasn’t doomed publishers. Gutting their newsrooms did.
The past decade has seen a depressing — and ill-informed — transformation in publishing. Prominent publications, once the bastions of insightful and thought-provoking content, have reinvented themselves into assembly lines of listicles, churn and burn “content,” and social media copypastas. They have diluted their distinct identities and actively suppressed their writers’ unique and creative voices to pursue a homogenized non-style. They have gutted their newsrooms and decimated their headcount, chasing publishing’s new ideal: cheaply produced content supported by advertising clicks.
The reason for this shift isn’t unfathomable. The internet has democratized content creation to a degree never seen before. Short, punchy, and accessible content formats have become the go-to vehicle for many publications. The transition is a tactical maneuver to ride the wave of the fast-paced digital consumption trend, where attention spans are dwindling, and the craving for TikTok-ified content is insatiable.
In the haste to jump onto the fast-food content bandwagon, these publications may have overlooked an essential truth. In suppressing their writers’ voices, they have inadvertently relinquished what once used to be their most formidable competitive advantage: a unique editorial voice. And doing so to make a broken advertising revenue model work has left them at the whims of social media platforms — including Twitter — who could not care less about supporting their distribution or enabling their survival. The result? Publications with recognizable brands dependent on third-party platforms to survive have sacrificed their only competitive differentiator — the writers who gave them life.
This oversight becomes all the more glaring in the post-AI era. With advancements in artificial intelligence, the listicle production process can now be readily automated. When all that’s required is the same iterations of the same topics, with no analysis, no thought, and no viewpoint, cutting-edge AI models, like OpenAI’s GPT series, can churn out bullshit content that rivals their human-authored counterparts in structure, coherence, speed, and relevance. The twist of irony here is that these publications now compete with practically anyone with access to such AI tools. The digital content creation arena has become a level playing field, and they are no longer the exclusive goalkeepers they once were.
In the face of AI automation, one element remains irreplaceable: a writer’s unique voice. The touch of humanity, the depth of emotion, the nuanced perspectives, and the ingenuity of thoughts separates the grain from the chaff. Machines, for all their prowess, cannot replicate the individual creativity and experience that a writer brings to the table.
This is where we can draw inspiration from publications like The New Yorker or The Atlantic, which have remained steadfast in maintaining their unique editorial voices, despite the AI revolution and the listicle trend. Their success lies in their commitment to upholding the individual voices of their writers, contributing to a distinctive brand identity that sets them apart from competitors.
The New Yorker has held onto a reputation for in-depth reporting and a distinctive narrative voice. Its writers, like Susan Orlean and Adam Gopnik, have become household names for their unique storytelling style, even in the era of AI automation. The Atlantic is celebrated for its thoughtful, in-depth content, ranging from politics and culture to technology and health. Writers like Ed Yong and Ta-Nehisi Coates bring their distinct perspectives and voices to their pieces, adding a layer of depth that no AI could reproduce.
This is the opportunity for independent writers, publishers, and one-person media startups. They have the freedom and the space to nurture their distinct voices. They can cut through the homogeneity of AI-generated content by providing readers with something authentic and unique. Independent journalism, therefore, finds itself on the cusp of an exciting future — one that treasures the individual voice amidst the din of automated content.
The wasteland of modern newsrooms is a tragedy. It was an entirely preventable tragedy; the Management of publications that should have been stewards of journalistic integrity and champions of their writers’ voices chose to chase short-term profitability and viral content trends. This choice, driven by an insatiable desire for ad revenues and quick audience growth, has eroded editorial quality and unique storytelling, replacing it with a deluge of listicles, clickbait headlines, and shallow content.
As a result, these once bustling hubs of creativity and critical thinking newsrooms have been reduced to content mills, churning out pieces aimed more at algorithms than human readers. This lack of long-term vision, respect for the craft of journalism, and the failure to adapt to the digital age sustainably and thoughtfully have been the root causes of their downfall.
In the post-AI era, the future of publishing may belong to those who dare to be distinct, cherish their individuality, and are unafraid to lend their unique voices to their work.
