Journalists who are not incorporating the assistance of artificial intelligence into their daily work are making a mistake. But at the same time, AI could be the hurricane that will deliver the final blow to the sustainability of news organizations.
This paradox between potential gains and existential losses was at the heart of a spirited discussion during a panel titled “The role of major newsrooms in shaping journalism with artificial intelligence,” at the International Congress of Investigative Journalism hosted by the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism, or Abraji, on July 11 in São Paulo.
Representatives from four of Brazil’s largest media outlets—Folha de S.Paulo, G1, Grupo Estado and O Globo—discussed the dilemma playing out in newsrooms around the world. They said adopting tools from companies like OpenAI, Google and Anthropic is practically unavoidable while the risks of technological dependence, content piracy and a steep decline in digital revenue put the future of journalism in jeopardy. It could represent mass layoffs in newsrooms, one said.
Panelists endorsed the use of generative AI tools because of their potential to streamline tasks such as editing, polishing writing, checking data inconsistencies, transcribing and indexing interviews, analyzing large volumes of information, generating story ideas and monitoring reader comments.
Said Luiza Baptista, head of digital strategy at O Globo: “You’ve got to use it, you’ve got to use it.”
Claudia Croitor, editor in chief of G1: “If you’re not using it, you’re wrong.”
And Camila Marques, audience editor at Folha de S.Paulo: “AI shortens the path from your idea to publication.”
There are clear limits, however, to how this technology is applied, the panelists said. None of the outlets currently allow content to be generated by AI systems. The use of AI is encouraged behind the scenes to support news and feature production, but the final output—the content that reaches the public—is always the responsibility of a named journalist.
“Nothing can go out in Estadão, on any channel, that is the product of artificial intelligence,” said Eurípedes Alcântara, director of journalism at Grupo Estado. “Every article, every chart, every photo has an author with a CPF [tax] number and an ID.”
The emphasis on human authorship is not just an ethical or legal requirement but also a strategy to distinguish journalism in an environment flooded with automated content . If journalists delegate too many tasks to AI, the field risks becoming irrelevant, panelists said.
No matter how advanced the systems become, it’s still the journalist who must interpret the data, provide context, recognize what is newsworthy, and identify factual or analytical errors. “You have to be very smart to ask good questions and get good answers. The human brain is still decisive,” Marques said.
Moderator Katia Brembatti, editor of Estadão Verifica and president of Abraji, agreed.
“AI doesn’t do anything on its own,” she said. “The investigative journalist’s perspective remains irreplaceable.”
Artificial intelligence also threatens to dismantle journalism’s funding model. The main concern raised by panelists was the loss of web traffic from search engines, which is now being cannibalized by tools that summarize journalistic content without redirecting users to the original websites—drastically reducing clicks and digital advertising revenue.
“In the U.S., clicks sent by Google to newspapers dropped by about 35%,” said Alcântara. Marques, of Folha, predicted the same will happen in Brazil. “Your content might have a huge number of impressions, but nobody clicks. This is already happening,” she said.
For media executives, this is part of a broader trend that began with the rise of what’s known as “zero-click search” or queries that are answered directly on the platform.
Marques described how some websites are now recycling and mixing content using AI.
“In the past, people copied by hand, changing a word here and there. Now they just feed a link from each news site into a sausage-making machine and produce a completely new text,” she said.
Baptista, of O Globo, said it’s impossible for publishers to effectively block all improper reuse of news content because bots continuously change.
Alcântara highlighted the example of Perplexity, an AI-powered search engine that provides precise, concise answers to queries and cites sources.
“They don’t understand the reality of journalism, and they don’t care,” he said. “Yet they offer an extraordinarily good service, unfortunately using pirated content.”
On the topic of potential job cuts, Alcântara made an ominous prediction. “If you look at the U.S., where they’re quicker to lay people off, they’re already reporting newsroom reductions.
Facing this looming storm, several panelists echoed advice from Rosental Alves, director of the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas, who had participated in a keynote panel on the past and future of investigative journalism in Brazil.
“As Rosental said, you’re probably less likely to lose your job to AI than to someone who knows how to use it,” said Brembatti, the panel’s moderator.
Brembatti even suggested that AI represents a “final frontier” in journalism’s sustainability crisis.
“The platforms have already drained our revenue streams, and now AI is here to take what’s left,” she said.
Faced with such a complex landscape, panelists agreed on the urgent need to find new ways to monetize journalism—whether through lawsuits, negotiations with platforms, or legislation that ensures payment for the use of news content.
“What can’t happen is that there’s no compensation at all,” Marques said.
