In a context where artificial intelligence (AI) is redefining the ways of creating and distributing content, the media world is crossed by deep tensions. The notions of ethics, truth, plagiarism, and information quality clash, raising fundamental questions about the future of journalism and the trust placed in information. The recent debates around Google Discover and “parasitic sites” generated by AI reflect a growing concern among traditional press professionals, but also a refusal to adapt to a changing reality.
AI and Journalism: Between Opportunity and Threat
An article published by Libération, titled “Fake Writers, Real Profits: How Artificial Intelligence Parasites the News”, highlights the rise of AI-generated content. Journalists Florian Gouthière and Jacques Pezet denounce a growing “parasitism”: hundreds of sites disseminate articles created by AI, often plagiarized or fabricated, exploiting the flaws of Google’s Discover system. According to them, these practices endanger the integrity of information.
This vision, although alarmist, deserves to be nuanced. If we talk about “hundreds of sites,” their actual impact remains marginal in terms of audience. The vast majority of these platforms attract few visitors and generate negligible revenue. However, their existence poses a central question: can AI replace the journalist, or should it be seen as a complementary tool serving humanity?
A Questioning of Credibility
Among the criticisms directed at AI, the “dehumanization” of information is often emphasized. Traditional journalists position themselves as guardians of the truth, a role that some believe is threatened by the use of automated content generators. Yet, human error remains commonplace in the media, and AI’s “hallucinations,” while problematic, do not fundamentally differ from human biases.
In reality, AI merely reproduces the data on which it has been trained, primarily sourced from human inputs. Thus, any error or approximation in an AI’s responses reflects the limitations of the information it has. The central issue lies more in the ability of AIs to generate content with apparent authority, without always recognizing their own shortcomings. The absence of “I don’t know” in AI responses remains one of the major ethical challenges of their deployment.
Plagiarism or Reinvention?
The accusations of plagiarism directed at AIs raise questions about intellectual property and the exclusivity of information. To what extent does the rewriting of an article by an AI differ from that of a journalist drawing inspiration from an existing source? If traditional press claims a monopoly on certain information, the debate also extends to the quality of the journalistic approach: is it the raw content or the way it is treated that gives value to an article?
The real challenge for the media seems to lie in their ability to value human writing, capable of providing a depth and sensitivity that AI cannot replicate. However, it would be naive to believe that AI is solely responsible for the current excesses. The press itself, faced with fragile economic models, must sometimes resort to questionable practices, such as SEO over-optimization or mass production of content, to maintain its visibility.
Google Discover: Censor or Facilitator?
Google Discover, often accused of favoring the dissemination of AI-generated content, is nonetheless dominated by major traditional media outlets. According to experts, these outlets capture up to 90% of visibility on the platform, relegating independent or “parasitic” sites to a marginal share of the audience. However, Discover also highlights another reality: the information that works on this channel is predominantly “evergreen,” meaning timeless, rather than tied to pure news.
The criticism directed at Google rests more on the regulation and filtering of content than on any real unfair competition. AI sites, although occasionally visible, are often ephemeral, quickly removed or penalized by the platform’s algorithms. The problem does not lie in the existence of these sites, but in the inability of traditional media to adapt their model to an ever-evolving digital environment.
The Press Facing Itself
The concerns expressed by journalists about the impact of AI reveal a deeper difficulty: that of reinventing themselves in the face of structural changes. Far from being an immediate threat, “GenIA” could be seen as an opportunity to improve editorial processes, provided they are used with transparency and ethics. However, the press must also take responsibility for its own shortcomings, particularly by recognizing the limits of its current economic and editorial models.
Hannah Arendt wrote that “the truth illuminates public debate,” but it is crucial that this debate is honest and constructive. The polarization between defenders of “human” information and critics of AI-generated content reflects a broader crisis of trust in the media. At a time when the plurality of information is essential to preserve democracy, it is imperative that traditional press opens up to innovation while reaffirming the values that underpin its role in society.
