NAB The show is largely known as a bonanza for tech geeks and engineers, and its New York edition last week was no exception.
But broadcast An industry lobbying group issued a statement highlighting discussion of a central challenge for its members: restoring public trust in an era AI and misinformation. Opinions varied among broadcast and digital executives, a union leader and seasoned journalists, as well as Radio station executives weighed in on the First Amendment concerns over ABC's suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
Director General of NAB Curtis LeGate moderated a discussion entitled “The Future of News: Artificial Intelligence, New Revenues and Risks and Policy Responses.” He noted that about 70% of newsrooms have already adopted AI, raising “serious concerns about copyright, consent, compensation and the integrity of the information being delivered.”
Ahead of the meeting, campaign strategy firm OnMessage released new data from a survey of 1,000 likely voters across the country (an equal number of Republicans and Democrats) who were asked about the rise of AI in mid-September. The results showed a striking bipartisan consensus on the technology, with 82% of respondents saying they were “concerned” or “very concerned” about its development.
According to OnMessage vice president Tommy Binion, some other survey data relates more directly to the discussions taking place on NAB stages. One of them was a response to the question: “How concerned are you about AI stealing or reproducing journalism and local news published online?” Responses of “concerned” or “very concerned” accounted for up to 76% of respondents, a level Binion described as “sky-high.” He called the figure “great news” from the perspective of politicians and regulators who feel they have strong public support to rein in artificial intelligence companies. He also noted how much respondents distrust news about artificial intelligence (68%) and would support Congressional legislation restricting it (77%).
Nick Radziul, executive vice president of large local TV owner Hearst Television, said he was surprised by the survey results about a lack of trust in artificial intelligence as a source of information. The extent of this sentiment, he said, “underscores the challenge of implementing AI” at his company’s stations. Despite the dangers of introducing it into the newsgathering process, AI tools have also come to be seen as useful and less burdensome ways to improve efficiency in editing, advertising and other areas.
John Schloess, president of the NewsGuild-CWA, said union members are building trust with readers and viewers “brick by brick,” but widespread adoption of AI would put that at risk given the proliferation of “junk” online. “There is real tension here,” LeGate said. The survey data “exceeded my wildest expectations,” he added. “And we are in the trust business.”
“The challenge is to focus on concrete results rather than getting caught up in the fluff and trash of the Internet,” said Brad Silver, vice president and global head of public policy, artificial intelligence and intellectual property at Condé Nast parent Advance. AI search results, namely through Google Gemini, must be provided with “right compensation” to news organizations that obtain them using broad-language models. (Penske Media, Deadline's parent company, is a plaintiff in a pending lawsuit against Google over its current search practices.)
Licensing and deals are “possible,” but “we need incentives” for AI companies to participate in the licensing scheme, Silver added.
“The power of attorney is in favor of the big tech companies,” Radzul said. “Politicians need to get involved,” LeGate responded. Radziul agreed, saying the size of the tech sector has made them “anti-competitive” gatekeepers of news content. “Unless Congress steps in, I'm not sure there will be another solution that, frankly, will save local news producers.”
Another NAB group zoomed out to look at the trust factor more broadly – and unlike AI, there is a yawning partisan divide.
Patrick Healy, assistant editor-in-chief of the magazine New York Times who moderated the session, noted recent examples of pressure on the media by the Trump administration. One of them was White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt, who recently responded, “Your mother,” when a reporter asked how Budapest was chosen as the location for a summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Another example was Trump's response in Texas that “only a truly evil person” would ask him, as one reporter did, about the US response to flooding in the state.
Healy asked panelists Brian Stelter of CNN, Sarah Fisher of Axios and Oliver Darcy of Status how they think news organizations should build “resilience” in the face of such attacks.
There are “many, many unscrupulous actors trying to ruin everything,” Stelter said. “Much trust is gained or lost in ways that are beyond our individual control. But each of us individually has a little power and responsibility.”
Darcy, who was Stelter's colleague at CNN before co-founding the independent news outlet Status, lamented recent trends at many major news organizations. They are “largely led by corporations and billionaires trying to provide coverage to people who in many ways have been trained to hate them,” that is, conservative viewers and readers. “You see it on Paramount with CBS News, you see it on Los Angeles Timesperhaps in Washington Post on the editorial side…. The owners are thinking, “How can we please the Republicans?” And the thing is, the Republicans, or a lot of them, will never like you guys.”
When networks and digital publishers “try to win over these audiences by softening the coverage Donald Trumpor tone down your coverage of Charlie Kirk because you're afraid of offending him, what's really happening is that you lose trust between people who rely on New York TimesOr everything else,” Darcy said. CNN, he added, has lost ratings over the past year for what he believes is the same reason.
Healy noted that Time gets a lot of criticism from the left. A few weeks ago, he quoted a headline that called slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk “charismatic.” Many readers felt “racist” would have been a more appropriate word, he said.
White House reporters for Time during Trump's second term, Healey noted, “behaved quite professionally… When we ask questions and seek information, we get answers.” He contrasted the current state of affairs, despite all the chaos surrounding it, with the relations between Time Biden staff and administration.
Dealing with the previous White House was “much more difficult,” Healey said, marveling at “the pressure that was put on Time and others were held accountable for our reporting that Joe Biden was asking the American people to re-elect him as the oldest president in the history of this country, and the reporting we did about his age and his cognitive abilities caused hellfire. There was enormous pressure from Biden and the Democratic Party.”
The intensity of the pressure on journalists has only increased, Healy added, and the stakes also continue to rise. “We all know this: When you begin to give in and preemptively bend your knees out of fear, it only strengthens the authorities’ determination to further weaken your independence,” he said.
