television

AI Ethics in Journalism: Beyond Human Baseline

/ bobmonek / Leave a comment

The “human baseline” approach posits that the ethical success of artificial intelligence is achieved when its decision-making mirrors or marginally improves upon that of a competent human.  In the classic “trolley problem,” this implies that if an AI can consistently choose the “lesser of two evils” with more precision than a panicked human, it has cleared the ethical bar.

However, as the media and journalism industry increasingly integrates generative AI and automated editorial systems, it is becoming clear that a “slightly better than human” standard is insufficient. In the context of information dissemination, a human-level baseline for AI is not a gold standard; it is a liability.

While comparing AI to the human baseline in moral dilemmas reveals the machine’s capacity for consistency, it fails to account for the unique accountability required in journalism.  

Because audiences in 2026 are caught in a “breaking verification” crisis where trust is the ultimate currency, an AI that is merely “slightly better” than a biased human is ethically insufficient. To be truly ethical, AI in media must move beyond mimicking human choice to provide a level of transparency and evidentiary rigor that transcends a journalist’s capability.

Our newsrooms are facing a speed-versus-verification dilemma.   The human baseline for a journalist is breaking the story vs. being 100% accurate.   AI’s logic is fundamentally different.   AI shifts control from individual journalists to automated systems optimized for engagement and scalability.   Therefore, an AI that performs ‘slightly better’ than a journalist at producing content quickly may be ethically inferior if its underlying logic lacks the transparency and evidentiary rigor that defines journalistic integrity.

Because so much information is published in many ways across many platforms, audiences are having a difficult time distinguishing fact from fiction. 

“‘Breaking verification’ will replace ‘breaking news’ in 2026, and trust will decide who survives,” according to Vinay Sarawagi, co-founder and CEO of The Media GCC.

Audiences need to see evidence and sources to back up what they see online, because seeing is no longer believing.   If AI only does as well as humans at spotting fakes, it’s not enough. To solve the trust crisis, the AI must be exponentially better at citing sources.

In 2005, Wallach and Allen argued that the principal goal of the discipline of artificial morality is to design artificial agents to act as if they are moral agents. They distinguish between operational morality, in which an AI simply follows pre-programmed human safety rules, and functional morality, in which a system can independently navigate moral dilemmas.  In journalism, an AI that merely mirrors an editor’s baseline choices is operating within a limited framework.   If the media is to serve the public’s best interests, a journalist AI must move toward a functional morality that transcends basic human instinct and provides the transparency and accountability the public expects.

From a strategic standpoint, “slightly better” is a recipe for disaster.   If AI-generated content results in a libel suit or negatively impacts a company’s stock price, the defense that AI is slightly more accurate than an average human is a losing argument.  As the media shifts into what is being termed the ‘Answer Economy’, the traditional value proposition of a newsroom is being disrupted. When AI models synthesize reports into a single summary, the value of a news organization is no longer just the ‘answer’ or the scoop itself, but the auditable trail of evidence that allows that answer to be verified (Seo Ai Club, 2026). If an AI only meets the human baseline for producing a plausible-sounding summary without providing this rigorous, machine-readable proof of its sources, it fails to meet the ethical demands of a 2026 audience.

Note: This is an essay originally written for a course on AI and business strategy at Johns Hopkins University.

References

Wallach, Wendell and Allen, Colin. “Artificial Morality: Top-down, Bottom-up, and Hybrid Approaches.” Ethics and Information Technology volume 7, no. issue 3 (September 2005): 149-155. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-006-0004-4.

Li, Haoran et al. “Artificial Intelligence and Journalistic Ethics: A Comparative Analysis.” Journal of Journalism and Media volume 6, no. issue 3 (August 2025): 105. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-5172/6/3/105.

Mee, S. et al. “Moral judgments of human vs. AI agents in moral dilemmas.” Scientific Reports volume 13, no. issue 1 (February 2023). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9951994/.

Simon, Felix. “How AI reshapes editorial authority in journalism.” Digital Content Next (June 2025). 

Reuters Institute. “How will AI reshape the news in 2026? Forecasts by 17 experts around the world.” Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (January 2025). 

Seo Ai Club. “The Answer Economy: A Comprehensive Analysis of Answer Engine Optimization Tracking Software and Strategic Market Leadership.” Seo Ai Club (January 2025). 

Late-Night TV’s Crisis: Adapting to Audience Changes

/ bobmonek / Leave a comment

CBS pulled the plug on The Late Show, but the real story isn’t politics—it’s a failure to follow the audience into the digital age.

Some people on social media think The Late Show was canceled because of Trump. He’s celebrating on Truth Social, but it’s doubtful he had anything to do with it. The more likely reason is precisely what Paramount said: a financial decision.

A business that loses $40 million a year is unlikely to remain in business. Blame a shrinking linear audience, rising production costs, and a failure to evolve into a digital-first, everywhere-content machine. Whether politics played a factor is pure speculation, but the financial and market pressures are written on the wall.

When you look at the big picture, TV talk shows, regardless of daypart, are either mostly being watched in social media clips or being replaced by podcasts – video podcasts. I mostly listen, not watch—but over a billion people now watch podcasts on YouTube.

Streaming has changed everything. In June, streaming accounted for 46% of viewership while broadcast and cable combined for 41.9%. YouTube now leads all platforms in TV and streaming time, according to Nielsen.

If you’re like me, you’re not staying up for late-night shows—you’re catching the clips on YouTube, TikTok, or wherever they land.

The Late Show has declined from nearly 4 million nightly linear viewers a decade ago, but it still gets over 2.5 million viewers and leads the pack. However, Colbert lags behind Kimmel and Fallon on the platforms where more people are watching.

The Tonight Show has 32.7 million YouTube subscribers and 19.2 million on Instagram. Jimmy Kimmel Live follows with 20.7 million on YouTube and 4.3 million on Instagram.

The Late Show? 10M on YouTube and 3.7M on Instagram.

It’s not just losing the attention war, but also the ad war. According to Hollywood Reporter, brands spent an estimated $32.2 million on The Late Show this year—compared to over $50 million each for Kimmel and Fallon. ABC and NBC also bundle in digital ad packages. CBS doesn’t.

With late-night linear ad spend falling from $439 million in 2018 to $221 million in 2024, it’s shocking CBS didn’t chase the audience—and the money—harder.

From all the reports, The Late Show’s downfall looks like a case of a legacy business failing to adapt fast enough.

And for the late-night shows still standing, the future’s uncertain. Even Jimmy Kimmel asked last year if they’ll still exist in a decade.

“There’s a lot to watch and now people can watch anything at anytime, they’ve got all these streaming services. It used to be Johnny Carson was the only thing on at 11:30pm and so everybody watched and then David Letterman was on after Johnny so people watched those two shows but now they’re so many options. Maybe more significantly, the fact that people are easily able to watch your monologue online the next day, it really cancels out the need to watch it when it’s on the air and once people stop watching it when it’s on the air, networks are going to stop paying for it to be made,” he said on the Politickin’ podcast.

As Kimmel noted, good programming is expensive, and appointment TV doesn’t fit this on-demand world.

Podcasts are cheaper and created for how people consume now—scrolling on phones, watching whenever they want.

That may sound like a doomed scenario, but audiences — and algorithms — are fickle. Creators have to stay nimble, and legacy media must evolve.

At the end of the day, content is still king. Late-night isn’t dead — it’s evolving. The shows still deliver; the challenge is distributing and monetizing them across every platform that matters.

Subscribe on Substack now

The Media Industry is not dead

/ bobmonek / Leave a comment

This New York Times article about how the media industry is losing its future is pretty doom and gloom, but I’d counter that media industry revenue continues to grow and hit all-time highs year after year. It’s certainly more competitive than ever, but I’d rather have an industry with a wealth of opportunities than one with only a few. And how amazing is it to be alive and working in an industry fueled by amazing technological change? Look how far we have come in such a short amount of time!

The article reminded me of Bob Iger’s book (paid link), his thoughts on disruption, and why many businesses have failed. He wrote, “Courage. The foundation of risk-taking is courage, and in ever-changing, disrupted businesses, risk-taking is essential, innovation is vital, and true innovation occurs only when people have courage. This is true of acquisitions, investments, and capital allocations, and it particularly applies to creative decisions. Fear of failure destroys creativity.”

We can’t be afraid of the future. Change may be disruptive to how things are, but how we adapt makes growth possible.

The ABC Solution

/ bobmonek / Leave a comment

I don’t know about you, but I have a hard time finding what to watch.   My nightly routine is usually starting with the cable guide to see what’s on, and then I’ll switch to Apple TV and nose around Netflix, Hulu or Prime or get distracted by something on YouTube.   If I can’t find anything, then I’ll do a Google – you know, what’s on TV tonight?  Or what can I binge watch?   And usually, I can narrow it down to a couple of choices, and if it’s a series, I’ll start binge-watching so I don’t need to do this whole process again at least for a few days.

If you are like me, you have a lot of haystacks to search to find the needle.

And that’s just TV.

Think about the 300 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute or the 5 billion videos watched on YouTube every day.

And then there are another 100 million hours of video watched daily on Facebook.

Not to forget, Twitter, Twitch, TikTok and the Gram.  Or how about LinkedIn.

So as a content creator or brand marketer, how is a consumer supposed to find your content in all these haystacks?

For this complex problem, I offer a relatively simple A-B-C solution.

With due respect to Alec Baldwin’s character in Glengarry Glen Ross, I’m not saying “Always Be Closing.”

I’m talking about “Attention, Brand Value, and Call to Action.”

A successful digital video is one that captures the audience’s attention, delivers brand value to that audience, and calls upon the viewer to act.    Action not in the form of a like, comment of share, but to say to themselves, “I learned something new and I need to try this product.”

To prove my theory, I offer three examples, but you can find many following the same basic formula.

Is the content memorable or shareworthy like Blendtek’s “Will It Blend” series?

Phinally! The Will It Blend? you’ve all been waiting phor! Watch Tom blend two phablets including the brand new iPhone 6 Plus and Samsung Galaxy Note 3. It’s…

Is the content something that the consumer associates with your brand’s value like RedBull’s live extreme sports coverage or action You Tube series like “Who Is JOB?

<div class="sqs-video-wrapper" data-provider-name="YouTube" data-html="
“>

Does the content inspire action on the part of the consumer like Krispy Kreme?   One of the many areas where Krispy Kreme excels is using influencers to market their product.   A year ago, when KK opened its first store in Ireland, Krispy Kreme Blanchardstown supplied the doughnuts that the TRY channel used to make an “Irish People Try Krispy Kreme Donuts For the First Time” video.   It’s their second most viewed video ever – just over 5 million.   And the Blanchardstown store is the most successful international store opening with 600,000 customers and 6.6 million donuts sold.

If you want to stand out in the crowd, begin by thinking about the ABC Solution.

Attention.

Brand Value.

Call to Action.

<div class="sqs-video-wrapper" data-provider-name="YouTube" data-html="
“>