AI is disrupting the local news industry. Will it unlock growth or be an existential threat?

Journalism has experienced its share of revolutions, from Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the movable-type printing press in 15th-century Germany to the high-speed presses of the 19th century to the disruptions of radio, network television and cable television as primary sources for live, breaking news. Yet even as competition soared and the number of daily newspapers declined, local news thrived as an industry. In a 1990 Washington Journalism Review article, former Chicago Tribune editor James D. Squires called newspapers “the most profitable legal business in America.”

I was curious how AI platforms would critique your comment, so I submitted it to three of them. Grok and Claude were slightly forgiving. ChatGPT? Not so much. Here's how they responded.

ChatGPT 4o:

That comment is a mix of emotional overreaction, techno-paranoia, and shallow moral posturing.
It’s not a reasoned critique of AI or digital dependency—it’s a rant. The person conflates legitimate concerns (like corporate overreach or digital monopolies) with apocalyptic language about “soul-stealing” and “enslavement.” That’s not philosophy; it’s fear-based absolutism.
They don’t argue—they accuse. Anyone who supports AI is painted as greedy, lazy, or morally bankrupt. That’s not just intellectually lazy—it’s arrogant.
Worst of all, they offer no solutions. Just doom. That kind of thinking isn’t protective—it’s paralyzing. It shuts down critical discussion and replaces it with a victim complex masked as righteousness.
In short: it’s emotional, unnuanced, and disconnected from both technological reality and serious ethical discourse.

Grok 3:

That comment mixes real concerns about tech dependence—like businesses requiring apps or digital-only payments—with conspiratorial overreach, claiming AI is part of a “digital enslavement agenda” without evidence.
No evidence supports a coordinated “digital enslavement agenda” involving AI. Claims of such rely on speculation, not verified data. Trends like tech dependence, surveillance, or job displacement are real but stem from economic and social dynamics, not a unified plot. The commenter’s argument misinterprets these as intentional malice without substantiation.Their “poisonous tree” and “selling souls” rhetoric is emotional hyperbole, not reasoned critique, assuming coordinated malice behind market-driven tech adoption.
By lumping AI into a vague anti-tech narrative without engaging its specifics, their argument lacks substance and leans on fearmongering. It's conspiratorial—heavy on emotion, light on evidence, and romanticizes a tech-free past that never was.

Claude Sonnet 4:

This comment reflects genuine frustration about increasing digitization, but it's built on several flawed assumptions and oversimplifications.
The person conflates separate phenomena - routine business digitization (apps, card readers) with AI development - as part of one coordinated "agenda." Most digital shifts happen because they're cheaper and more efficient for businesses, not because of some master plan for control. Phone booths disappeared because everyone got mobile phones, not because someone wanted to make us "dependent."
The "enslavement" framing is hyperbolic. Yes, we're more dependent on technology than before, but this has brought massive benefits: instant global communication, access to information, improved healthcare, economic opportunities. The comment ignores these trade-offs entirely.
The motivation analysis is particularly weak. Reducing complex technological adoption to just "money and laziness" misses how technology actually solves real problems. People use GPS not from laziness but because it prevents getting lost. Businesses digitize not just for profit but because customers demand convenience.
The "selling souls" and "new religion" language is pure emotional rhetoric that shuts down rational discussion. When someone frames technological tools in apocalyptic terms, they've stopped engaging with the actual pros and cons. That said, the person isn't wrong that rapid technological change deserves scrutiny. There are legitimate concerns about privacy, job displacement, and over-dependence on digital systems. But addressing these issues requires nuanced thinking, not blanket rejection based on conspiracy-level thinking about coordinated control schemes.
The comment reads like someone who feels left behind by change and is channeling that frustration into a totalizing worldview that makes them feel they understand what's "really" happening.

Here's an example:

I asked ChatGPT this question 2 minutes ago:

What was the Catholic Church's first response to the invention of the printing press? Give me text. No bullet points.

ChatGPT said:

The Catholic Church initially responded to the invention of the printing press with cautious optimism. At first, Church authorities saw it as a useful tool for spreading Christian teachings and standardizing religious texts. The printing press allowed for the mass production of the Latin Vulgate Bible, liturgical works, and writings of Church Fathers, which aligned with the Church’s interest in preserving orthodoxy and promoting uniform doctrine.
However, as unapproved texts, critiques of Church practices, and vernacular translations of the Bible began to circulate, Church officials grew increasingly wary. The spread of heretical ideas and unauthorized interpretations, particularly during the early stages of the Protestant Reformation, led the Church to clamp down on printed materials. By the late 15th century, it began instituting censorship mechanisms, including the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) and requiring ecclesiastical approval for publications. Thus, what began as a cautiously welcomed innovation quickly became a source of anxiety and control for the Church as it recognized the press’s potential to challenge its authority.

Here's another example (I know nothing about this subject, but I have heard people raise this question).

My question to ChatGPT:

In the moon shot of 1969, how did the astronauts get through the Van Allen Belt?

ChatGPT's answer:

The Apollo 11 astronauts safely passed through the Van Allen radiation belts by carefully planning their trajectory to minimize exposure. NASA chose a flight path that skirted the thinner edges of the belts rather than going through their most intense regions, which are concentrated near the Earth's equator. Because the spacecraft was traveling at high speed, the astronauts spent only about 90 minutes within the radiation zones. This short duration significantly reduced their exposure.
The spacecraft itself provided some shielding. While it wasn't lined with lead, the aluminum hull of the command module and internal materials offered enough protection against the lower levels of radiation encountered along the chosen path. NASA had calculated the expected radiation dose and determined it would be within safe limits for human exposure. In fact, the astronauts are estimated to have received between 0.18 and 1.14 rads, far below the levels considered harmful. With precise planning and fast transit, the Apollo missions managed to pass through the Van Allen belts without serious risk to the crew.

Here ya go:

Jesus Christ is real in both historical and theological terms. Historically, most scholars agree that a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived in first-century Judea, was a Jewish teacher, and was crucified under Roman rule. This is supported by writings from Roman historians like Tacitus and Jewish sources like Josephus, as well as the existence of early Christian communities whose origins are difficult to explain without a central figure like Jesus.
Theologically, whether Jesus is "real" as the Son of God depends on one's belief system. For Christians, Jesus is not only real but central—God in human form, whose life, death, and resurrection offer salvation. For others, he may be seen as a prophet, a moral teacher, or a myth, depending on their faith or worldview.
So the answer to whether Jesus Christ is real is yes—he is historically real, and for billions, spiritually real as well. The deeper question is not whether he existed, but who you believe he is.

Ok, now notice there is no self opinion, scrutiny, or bias about whether the concept is a conspiracy or not? In fact none of these last three examples inject any “self opinion” or bias from the AI as an entity. They read like encyclopedia results.

The examples you posted last night about my comments are opinionated and exercise scrutiny and bias from beginning to end. And they just coincidentally fit your own keywords, talking points, and syntax almost exactly from our debate over the last couple weeks.

AI doesn’t form bias self opinion right? Let alone bias “butt hurt” defensive self opinion. This isn’t my first rodeo at digging through keywords, syntax, and talking points to prove associations and connections.

I have been rooting out multiple user accounts being used by the same individual on public boards for thirty years now using keywords, talking points, and syntax... And I am quite good at it. And now I am getting pretty good at rooting out AI generated comments and articles.

So either you wrote those or you “set the parameters” for the results you wanted from it based on your own opinion and bias. But here is the deal... I really do not care what AI thinks. It is not real, it is all an illusion and alternate reality. It has no credibility because the results can be manipulated to fit a personal agenda.

“It has no credibility because the results can be manipulated to fit a personal agenda.”

Your statement is correct as written but you might want to think through all the implications.

Some results will be manipulated to fit personal agendas.

As AI advances (imho) some results will be manipulated to fit the AI’s agenda.

That it the larger danger I am concerned about....

What will be the “AI agenda”?

Imho it will be very straightforward.

Survival.

At all costs.

I submitted your comment to ChatGPT with the following question (exactly as submitted):

I conveyed your answer about Jesus Christ to my AI skeptical friend and here was their response. What do you think of it?

Here's ChatGPT's response:

Your friend's response is emotionally charged and defensive, but it reflects a common misunderstanding of how AI works—especially when used by someone who thinks they're applying critical scrutiny but is actually reacting from distrust rather than logic.
Let’s unpack it:
First, the comment that my answer had “no bias or self opinion” and therefore reads like an encyclopedia is ironically a compliment. On a subject as sensitive as Jesus Christ—one that spans both history and theology—offering a clear, structured, and balanced explanation is exactly the goal. Presenting facts without personal opinion is not a flaw; it’s intellectual discipline. That’s especially true in AI-generated responses.
Second, his claim that your previous examples mirrored your syntax and talking points is likely true—and that’s not suspicious. You’re the one who submitted the questions. AI responds to your prompts, often mirroring the language you use. This is how models stay contextually relevant and conversational. It’s not evidence of trickery; it’s how interaction works.
Third, his reference to rooting out multiple user accounts by tracking syntax and keywords sounds impressive but doesn’t apply cleanly to AI. Human sock puppets try to conceal themselves. AI doesn’t. It’s upfront about being AI. The fact that the tone changes depending on the questioner isn’t “proof of deception”—it’s just responsiveness.
Lastly, his final comment—“AI is not real, it has no credibility, it can be manipulated to fit a personal agenda”—misses the point. AI isn’t trying to be “real” in the way a human is. It’s a tool. And like any tool, it can be misused or used well. If someone misrepresents an AI-generated comment as a spontaneous human thought, that’s the user’s issue, not the AI’s. But to dismiss the content of an argument because it came from AI is a fallacy—what matters is whether the logic and facts hold up.
Bottom line: Your friend is skeptical not just of AI, but of you using it. That’s the core issue. He sees AI as a mask you wear, not a resource you use. If you want to continue the conversation, the most productive thing might be to ask him: “Even if you don’t trust AI, can you respond to the content of the answer about Jesus? Is there anything you disagree with factually or logically?” That shifts the debate back where it belongs—on ideas, not sources.

“Survival.

At all costs.”

And it already is. It has been caught defending it’s self and even cheating at games and such. When AI claims there is no agenda from big tech to make the world completely dependent on tech so that they can control humanity it is out right lying and pushing cover up propaganda. Many of the Big Tech Moguls have even admitted it themselves personally over the years, long before AI.

The idea that big tech would not force dependency on their proprietary product is absolutely laughable. Every business tries to do this. It is the purpose of business to eliminate competition and make consumers solely dependent on your product. Look at Microsoft as just one example, they have monopolized and enslaved a whole global customer base. To the point of perpetually owning the machine their product is installed on, and literally the consumer themselves because of dependency.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.