Fake Experts Scandal: What Is an Acceptable Use of AI in the Media?
ANALYSIS: As the fake expert scandal rumbles on, the real question for the media and PR is what is acceptable use of artificial intelligence and what isn't?
The media landscape is changing at pace – and keeping up with the latest developments and moves will give every comms expert an advantage over their rivals. Every week we will take a look at the media business from mainstream and ‘legacy’ media to cutting edge tech and the latest trends and developments – and how you can use that know-how.
The fake expert scandal is gathering pace it seems.
So, apologies for returning to the issue but it feels there is more to say on the topic – not least because it seems the backlash against PR releases featuring AI-generated experts is starting to have consequences.
For the uninitiated, as we discussed a few weeks ago, an investigation by the Press Gazette has uncovered hundreds of fake experts who have given tips on everything from cookery and gardening to skin care, sex and how to win money in online gaming. And all have walked into national and regional websites, largely unchecked.
The Press Gazette has just done more research and found another tranche of fake experts, including perfume expert Esme Gelder, who have all gone mainstream.
Alex Cassidy, managing director of Neoman Studios, which campaigns against deceptive practices in PR and assisted the Press Gazette on the research, said: “A large part of the recent discourse has rightly focused on how bad actors abusing new technology have become one of the biggest risks to journalism.
“Unfortunately, the UK press remains too easily exploitable. When journalists are forced to source comment under unrealistic deadlines, they are actively disincentivised from checking whether a quoted expert is real. And in that vacuum the fastest PR wins, not necessarily the most credible.
“This environment allows fake, embellished, or unverifiable experts to feature in national coverage without ever having to validate their identity. The fundamental processes on both the press and PR sides need to change, so that expertise is treated as something to be proven not just stated.”
“Every fake source makes the next legitimate pitch harder for the tens of thousands of public relations practitioners who operate honestly and ethically” - Alastair McCapra, CEO of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations
There has been action taken by both the PR and media sectors. For publishers, we have seen stories have been taken down, reporters rebuked for not being thorough enough, company rules changed on sourcing. Reach, publisher of the Express, Mirror, Star and a host of regional titles, is going through its archive searching for fake experts. It has also created its own directory of trusted PR agencies and “won’t hesitate to remove agencies and PRs as well as add them”. Further steps for agencies who have not shown they are doing enough to stop the problem include potentially the wholesale blocking of emails by Reach from those domains.
And Britain’s two leading PR trade bodies, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) and the Public Relations and Communications Association (PRCA) have joined forces to campaign for journalists to check sources and the credentials of PR people they deal with. Their members sign up to a code of conduct and adhere to professional standards and both organisations have member registers which can help journalists to identify legitimate sources.
It’s a start but it feels this story has a long way to run.
And as Alastair McCapra, CEO of the CIPR, said: “Every fake source makes the next legitimate pitch harder for the tens of thousands of public relations practitioners who operate honestly and ethically.”
I will reiterate the points about what every good PR should be doing (and you can read more here). Make proper contacts in journalism, be trustworthy, have proper expertise, prove your value, use all the possible ways of showing the authority of your experts (such as through LinkedIn and professional qualifications and recognition).
But it also brings us to a wider debate of what is acceptable use of artificial intelligence.
