AI-generated content blunder, in print, shocks Chicago newspaper journalists

The Chicago Sun-Times has ignited controversy after publishing AI-generated misinformation in a weekend special section, triggering strong pushback from the paper’s own journalists. This incident highlights growing tensions within the journalism industry as media companies experiment with AI tools, raising critical questions about editorial oversight, content verification, and the potential erosion of reader trust when AI-generated content appears alongside traditional journalism.

The big picture: A “summer reading list” published in the Chicago Sun-Times recommended 15 books, 10 of which were completely fabricated by AI but attributed to real authors, damaging the paper’s credibility with readers.

• The fabricated list appeared in a 64-page “Heat Index” summer guide that was produced by a third-party content provider, not the newspaper’s own staff.
• After readers identified the nonexistent books, an investigation by 404 Media revealed the content came from King Features, a subsidiary of media conglomerate Hearst.

What they’re saying: The Sun-Times Guild issued a forceful statement condemning the publication of AI-generated content alongside their journalism.

• The Guild described themselves as “deeply disturbed” that AI-generated content appeared next to their work and called the content “slop syndication.”
• Journalists emphasized that readers “signed up for work that has been vigorously reported and fact-checked” and expressed horror at the paper potentially spreading “computer- or third-party-generated misinformation.”

Behind the errors: The author who created the reading list admitted to 404 Media that he used AI to generate the content but failed to verify its accuracy before publication.

• The Sun-Times confirmed to media outlets that the content was externally produced and not reviewed by the newspaper before being printed.
• The content was published in the physical newspaper alongside legitimate journalism, creating confusion for readers about what content could be trusted.

Why this matters: The incident exposes significant vulnerabilities in publishing workflows as media companies increasingly incorporate third-party and AI-generated content without establishing adequate quality control measures.

• The journalists’ emphatic response underscores growing concerns about AI undermining journalistic standards and professional credibility within newsrooms.
• This case represents one of the most visible publishing failures involving AI in a major American newspaper, potentially serving as a cautionary tale for other media organizations.