By Jordan Baker, Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
A senior journalist recently told me that journalists hate lazy AI-generated PR.
Not because journalists are anti-technology. Not because they fail to understand that artificial intelligence can be useful.
The problem is what happens when AI is used to replace the things journalism depends on most:
— Trust
— Accuracy
— Genuine expertise
— Human judgement
— Credible sources
— Proper verification
She also said her newsroom was introducing additional checks to protect against AI-generated pitches, comments and sources that could not be confidently verified.
That should matter to every brand, founder, PR agency, marketing team and business using artificial intelligence to support media outreach.
Many businesses are understandably excited about AI.
It promises speed, efficiency and more output.
However, journalists are often seeing the least responsible side of it: generic pitches, manufactured opinions, questionable expert profiles, mass-produced comments and polished copy that says very little.
AI can support good PR.
But when it replaces genuine thinking, real expertise and responsible editorial judgement, it does not make PR more effective.
It makes PR less trustworthy.
Journalists are right to be concerned about AI-generated PR
Journalists have a responsibility to publish credible information.
Their readers need to be able to trust that the people quoted in articles are real, appropriately experienced and relevant to the subject being discussed.
When AI is used to invent expertise, exaggerate credentials or manufacture comments, it creates more than an inbox-management problem.
It puts media trust at risk.
PR has always relied on a relationship between journalists, businesses, experts and PR professionals.
Done properly, that relationship can be genuinely useful.
A PR professional connects a journalist with:
— A credible source
— Useful information
— Relevant professional insight
— A strong human story
— An informed spokesperson
— A product or service worth considering
— Research or data that adds context
The journalist then decides whether that contribution is suitable for the article and useful to the audience.
Everyone can benefit.
The journalist receives relevant information.
The expert shares genuine knowledge.
The business builds credibility through independent coverage.
The reader receives a stronger and more informative article.
But the entire process depends on the expertise being real.
PR has always depended on trust
Good PR involves reciprocity.
That does not mean buying coverage, expecting favours or treating media relationships as transactions.
It means offering journalists something credible enough to consider.
That contribution might be:
— Expert insight
— A founder story
— A customer experience
— A product sample
— Original research
— A business announcement
— Practical consumer advice
— Access to a knowledgeable spokesperson
The journalist remains free to use it, reject it, edit it, investigate it further or take the article in another direction.
It is content for editorial consideration.
It is not guaranteed coverage.
It is not manufactured authority created to obtain a backlink.
It is not an automated quotation attributed to somebody who has never seen it.
A journalist needs to trust that:
— The expert exists
— Their credentials are accurate
— Their experience is being represented fairly
— Their quotation has been approved
— The information is factually correct
— The source is willing to stand behind what has been said
— The PR professional is not deliberately wasting their time
When artificial intelligence is used to mislead journalists, that trust is weakened.
This affects everyone.
Journalists have to spend more time verifying sources.
Readers face a greater risk of receiving unreliable information.
Genuine experts may be treated with more suspicion.
Responsible PR agencies have to work harder to prove their credibility.
Brands risk damaging their reputation before a relationship has even begun.
Where AI use in PR crosses the line
There is a substantial difference between using AI to organise information and using it to manufacture authority.
AI may be useful for sorting notes, exploring possible angles or improving the clarity of an early draft.
The line is crossed when it is used to create something deliberately misleading.
That may include:
— Fake expert identities
— Invented qualifications
— AI-generated headshots presented as real people
— False LinkedIn profiles
— Quotes that the named expert has never reviewed
— Comments written outside the person’s actual expertise
— Mass-produced responses to journalist requests
— Manufactured case studies
— Invented personal experiences
— Artificial thought leadership with no genuine point of view behind it
— Backlink-focused pitches with little editorial value
This is not simply efficient content production.
It is an attempt to make a person, business or response appear more credible than it really is.
The consequences can be serious.
When a journalist quotes somebody who later turns out to be fake, exaggerated or incorrectly represented, the publication’s credibility is involved too.
Their name appears on the article.
Their editorial standards may be questioned.
Their readers may lose trust.
That is why journalists are becoming more cautious about AI-generated submissions.
Backlink-first PR has made the problem worse
Artificial intelligence is not the only cause of poor media outreach.
A corner of the SEO and digital-marketing market has long treated journalists primarily as a route to links.
That approach reduces every part of the media relationship to a transaction.
The journalist becomes a potential backlink.
The expert becomes a convenient name.
The quotation becomes a box to tick.
The article becomes an SEO asset.
The relationship with the journalist becomes secondary.
That is not the same as thoughtful media relations.
Backlinks can be a valuable secondary benefit of online coverage, but they should not be the only reason a source is offered to a journalist.
When the primary objective is simply to secure links at scale, important questions can be overlooked:
— Is this person genuinely qualified to comment?
— Does the response answer the journalist’s question?
— Has the expert approved the quotation?
— Is the pitch relevant to the publication?
— Does the comment add something useful?
— Is the business being represented honestly?
AI makes it easier to produce large volumes of content, but volume does not create credibility.
A hundred weak responses do not become a strong PR strategy simply because they were generated quickly.
The reputational risk is greater than being ignored
Some businesses assume the worst possible outcome is that an automated pitch receives no response.
That is not necessarily true.
Poor or misleading PR can create wider risks.
A journalist may:
— Block the sender
— Blacklist the business
— Warn colleagues about the source
— Share the pitch publicly
— Challenge the expert’s credentials
— Ask the business to prove that a quotation was approved
— Decide not to consider future pitches from the company
A media relationship can be damaged before it has properly started.
That matters because PR is reputation work.
The process used to pursue coverage should not undermine the credibility the campaign is intended to build.
A backlink is not worth damaging a business’s reputation.
A quick media mention is not worth misleading a journalist.
More coverage is not automatically better when it has been pursued carelessly.
This is also a journalism problem
The consequences do not stop with brands and PR agencies.
Newsrooms are already under considerable pressure.
Journalists may be working to short deadlines while handling large volumes of information, pitches and source requests.
At the same time, audiences are more sceptical, misinformation spreads quickly and media trust is fragile.
When journalists are flooded with artificial commentary and questionable sources, it becomes harder to:
— Identify genuine specialists
— Confirm credentials quickly
— Find original perspectives
— Separate expert insight from generic summaries
— Produce accurate articles within deadline
— Build dependable relationships with sources
Responsible PR should make journalism easier.
It should help journalists access relevant people, credible information and useful perspectives.
When media outreach is abused, it creates more work and more risk for the journalist.
AI is not the problem; careless use is
Artificial intelligence itself is not the villain.
Used carefully, it can support parts of the PR process.
It may help with:
— Organising interview notes
— Summarising background documents
— Exploring possible media angles
— Improving the clarity of a draft
— Identifying gaps in information
— Structuring a press release
— Checking whether a response answers the original question
— Turning a long conversation into usable working notes
These are support tasks.
AI can help experienced people work more efficiently.
It can assist with structure, administration and early-stage exploration.
What it should not do is replace the substance.
It should not invent expertise.
It should not create personal experiences that never happened.
It should not manufacture credentials.
It should not provide medical, financial, legal or other specialist commentary without appropriate expert oversight.
It should not produce final comments under somebody’s name without their knowledge or approval.
AI can support responsible PR professionals and genuine experts.
It should not become a substitute for either.
How ethical expert commentary works
There is nothing wrong with a PR professional helping an expert prepare a response for a journalist.
That is a normal and valuable part of expert-led PR.
Journalists often work to tight deadlines.
A PR team may help by:
— Identifying the most suitable expert
— Confirming the person’s credentials
— Understanding the journalist’s request
— Speaking to the expert about their view
— Reviewing previous approved material
— Developing a possible structure
— Drafting a response based on genuine input
— Removing unnecessary jargon
— Making the quotation easier for the journalist to use
The expert then reviews the response.
They can approve it.
They can rewrite it.
They can add context.
They can correct a detail.
They can say that the wording does not reflect their view.
They can say they are not the right person to answer.
That process is honest.
The PR professional helps shape the material into a clear, media-friendly response.
The expert provides and approves the substance.
The journalist decides whether any of it is useful.
For more detailed articles, podcasts, broadcast opportunities or sensitive subjects, the journalist may speak to the expert directly.
The PR team can still prepare the source, organise the opportunity and help with talking points, but the knowledge must come from the person being presented as the expert.
Journalists can often recognise weak AI content
A journalist may not always know which tool has been used.
However, lazy AI-generated content often has recognisable characteristics.
It may be:
— Vague
— Overly polished
— Extremely cautious
— Repetitive
— Free of meaningful examples
— Lacking a clear opinion
— Written in generic corporate language
— Disconnected from real experience
— Full of broad statements anyone could make
— Structured like an internet summary rather than a human response
A weak comment may technically answer the question while adding nothing the journalist could not have written themselves.
Good expert commentary should contribute something distinctive.
It may:
— Explain a complicated issue clearly
— Challenge a common assumption
— Identify a warning sign
— Offer practical advice
— Interpret new data
— Add professional context
— Share a relevant example
— Make a useful prediction
— Give the journalist a clear and memorable line
When a quotation could have been attributed to almost anybody, it is unlikely to build much authority for the expert.
Real experts matter more in an AI-heavy media landscape
As artificial content becomes more common, genuine expertise becomes more valuable.
Journalists need to understand:
— Who the person is
— What they know
— How they developed that knowledge
— Whether they have relevant qualifications
— Whether their professional experience is appropriate
— Which subjects they can discuss confidently
— Whether they can explain those subjects clearly
— Whether they are available for follow-up questions
— Whether they will stand behind what is attributed to them
This is why expert positioning matters.
It is not enough to describe somebody as an expert.
Their expertise needs to be clearly defined and supported.
“Business expert” is vague.
“Retail specialist commenting on consumer behaviour and high-street trends” is clearer.
“Wellness professional” covers an enormous range of subjects.
“Qualified sleep specialist commenting on circadian rhythms, workplace fatigue and sleep routines” gives a journalist a more precise reason to make contact.
Clear positioning helps protect both the journalist and the expert.
It reduces the risk of somebody being asked to comment outside their professional competence.
Why Fair PR created a Media Expert Directory
Fair Public Relations created its Media Expert Directory to make it easier for journalists to identify genuine people with relevant expertise.
Profiles can include:
— Professional biography
— Credentials
— Areas of expertise
— Topics available for comment
— Location
— Previous media experience
— Professional photographs
— Interview availability
— Relevant business background
The directory does not replace direct media pitching.
It gives journalists another way to understand who the experts are, what they know and why they may be suitable for a story.
We review how each person is positioned and avoid presenting people as qualified in areas beyond their actual knowledge or credentials.
The purpose is to support credible sourcing.
It is the opposite of manufacturing artificial authority.
What brands should understand before using AI for PR
PR is not simply a content-production exercise.
It is reputation work.
When a founder, spokesperson or expert is named in a response, the words attributed to them matter.
Those words reflect:
— Their judgement
— Their credibility
— Their professional standards
— Their understanding of the subject
— The business behind them
More is not always better.
More automated responses do not automatically create stronger authority.
More generic pitches do not build meaningful journalist relationships.
More content does not compensate for weak positioning.
More backlinks do not necessarily create greater trust.
The brands that use AI most effectively will be the ones that keep human responsibility at the centre of the process.
They will use technology to support good work rather than simulate expertise they do not possess.
Fair Public Relations’ approach to AI
Fair Public Relations is not anti-AI.
We use technology carefully where it can support experienced people doing proper PR.
AI may help us:
— Organise background information
— Structure notes
— Explore potential angles
— Review the clarity of early drafts
— Identify questions that need answering
— Summarise lengthy source material
— Improve internal workflows
However, we do not use AI to manufacture expertise.
We do not invent comments and attribute them to clients.
We do not create fake experts.
We do not fabricate credentials.
We do not present artificial identities to journalists.
We do not send commentary under a client’s name without appropriate review and approval.
Our team includes experienced PR professionals, writers and former journalists.
Human judgement remains central to:
— Assessing whether an opportunity is suitable
— Understanding what a journalist needs
— Developing the angle
— Checking credibility
— Drafting and refining the material
— Managing sensitive subjects
— Protecting the client’s reputation
— Building relationships with journalists
A pitch should be useful.
A comment should be genuine.
An expert should be credible.
The relationship with the journalist should be respected.
A worked example: a convincing AI quotation that a journalist should reject
Imagine a newsroom preparing an article about workplace stress.
A PR team wants to place a business founder in the story, but the founder has not supplied an opinion and has no particular professional background in psychology.
Rather than asking the person what they actually know, somebody asks a generative AI tool to write an authoritative-sounding comment about the causes of burnout.
The resulting quotation might sound polished. It might mention familiar research themes, recommend several sensible habits and avoid obvious grammatical mistakes. That does not make it a genuine expert contribution.
If the founder has not expressed or approved the view, the quotation is being attributed to a real person without a reliable basis.
If the wording implies clinical competence the founder does not have, the problem is more serious still.
A responsible PR adviser would begin by checking whether the founder is an appropriate source at all. They might legitimately discuss managing a business during difficult periods, work patterns they have observed directly or the organisational decisions they have made.
They should not be represented as qualified to diagnose a medical condition or to draw sweeping scientific conclusions from personal anecdotes.
Suppose the founder provides a genuine account of what changed when the company introduced clearer working hours.
A writer could help turn that account into a concise, understandable comment, then ask the founder to check and approve the final wording.
Where the wider story requires clinical analysis, the team should help the journalist find somebody who genuinely has that expertise instead of making the founder pretend.
This example is fictional, not a description of a Fair PR pitch or an actual journalist request. It shows why the core test is not whether the language sounds human. The test is whether the person, knowledge, claims and approval process are real.
How should a PR team verify an AI-assisted expert response?
The first check should happen before drafting. Establish whether the named person is genuinely qualified to discuss the subject and whether the journalist's question falls within that competence.
A business owner can explain what happened in their own company. They should not be made into a universal authority on a scientific or regulated topic simply because their brand would benefit from exposure.
Next, establish the source of the substantive answer. Did the expert provide a written response, speak to the account manager or supply approved notes? If AI is used to improve structure or readability, the final text must still reflect those real inputs.
A quotation should not be reverse-engineered from an AI response and then presented for superficial sign-off without the person understanding what it says.
Check the factual statements independently. Dates, research findings, professional registrations, product descriptions and statistics deserve particular attention because plausible wording can disguise an invented source or a distorted interpretation.
If a claim cannot be verified, narrow or remove it. A neat citation produced by a tool is not proof that the cited document exists or supports the sentence.
Then return the final answer to the source in enough time for meaningful review. The expert should be able to correct an overstatement, reject a claim or decline the opportunity.
The PR team should record which version the person approved and avoid changing the substance afterwards without their agreement. This matters even when a journalist wants only two sentences.
Finally, make sure the reporter has enough accurate context to identify the source: name, job title, relevant expertise and any important commercial relationship.
If asked how the response was prepared, the team should answer accurately rather than constructing a false story about its process. The objective is a usable, defensible contribution, not an undetectable use of technology.
Where can AI help without weakening editorial judgement?
AI can be useful for organising interview notes, generating an initial checklist or helping a team identify ambiguities that require human research. It can assist with grammar, suggest shorter wording or compare a draft with a reporter's stated questions.
Those are supporting tasks, not a substitute for deciding whether the underlying contribution deserves to exist.
Imagine a specialist has dictated a long but genuinely useful answer about cybersecurity.
An editor might use software to identify repetition and then rewrite the material into plain English.
The source still needs to check that technical terms were not simplified into inaccurate claims. The journalist's deadline and audience matter, but neither justifies changing the expert's professional meaning.
Research assistance requires more caution.
A tool may propose a statistic or say a government report supports an argument.
A responsible team should open the original source, check the date, read the relevant context and confirm the wording really follows from the evidence.
When the source is not accessible, it should not be quoted as if somebody had verified it.
Confidential material also needs consideration. Client data, unpublished financial information, sensitive customer details and private journalist correspondence should not be pasted into an external tool merely because it is convenient.
The team should follow its access and privacy obligations and choose an approved process for any information that genuinely needs protection.
Used this way, AI can reduce some routine friction while leaving accountability with identifiable people. The danger starts when the team values output volume above source accuracy, assumes fluent text is factual or makes it difficult to see who actually stands behind a statement.
What would an honest journalist-facing correction look like?
Mistakes are possible even with good checks. A statistic may be transcribed incorrectly, a qualification may be out of date or a draft may imply more certainty than the source intended.
The responsible response depends on catching and explaining the problem rather than quietly hoping the reporter will not notice.
If the answer has not yet been sent, correct it and confirm the final version with the expert.
If it has already reached a journalist, contact the reporter promptly with the precise correction and enough context to understand whether the error affects the story.
If the information has been published, the team should cooperate with an appropriate correction rather than attempting to conceal the original problem.
There is no benefit in blaming an AI tool for a claim the PR professional chose to submit. The responsibility still belongs to the people who selected the source, wrote the pitch and represented the facts.
Equally, a business that insists on an unsupported assertion should be told why that assertion cannot responsibly be offered as an expert comment.
This is where a journalist-led approach matters most.
A writer who understands how a newsroom will verify, challenge and edit material has an incentive to ask the difficult questions before publication. It is a stronger long-term proposition than producing large quantities of attractive but unreliable copy.
The future of PR is not more automated content
It is easy to assume the future of PR will be defined by producing more content in less time.
That is not necessarily an advantage.
AI may make it easier to create noise.
But strong PR has never been about producing the most noise.
The future of credible PR will require:
— Better judgement
— Better sources
— Stronger positioning
— More responsible verification
— Clearer writing
— More relevant pitches
— Greater respect for professional boundaries
— Better relationships with journalists
— A deeper understanding of what audiences actually need
Technology can support these things.
It cannot replace them.
Real expertise still wins
Journalists are right to be cautious about fake experts, invented quotations, manufactured credentials and mass-produced media responses.
They are right to care about verification.
That is good news for credible businesses.
It means genuine specialists, thoughtful PR professionals and properly positioned founders will become more valuable.
The more artificial content enters the media environment, the more important authentic human expertise becomes.
AI can support the process.
But trust, judgement, accuracy, strong writing and responsible journalist-led PR are still what make earned media worth pursuing.
Frequently asked questions
Is AI bad for PR?
No.
AI can be useful for organising information, exploring ideas, summarising background material and improving clarity.
The problem arises when it is used to invent expertise, manufacture quotations, create fake sources or replace human judgement.
Why do journalists dislike AI-generated pitches?
Journalists tend to dislike lazy AI-generated pitches because they are often vague, generic and poorly targeted.
Artificial responses may also make it harder to verify sources, identify genuine experts and trust the information being submitted.
Can PR agencies use AI ethically?
Yes.
AI can ethically support administrative, research and drafting tasks.
However, final expert commentary should be based on genuine knowledge, reviewed by the named source and managed with appropriate editorial judgement.
What is fake expertise in PR?
Fake expertise is created when a person or agency presents somebody as more qualified, experienced or knowledgeable than they really are.
This may involve invented credentials, artificial profiles, AI-generated quotations, fake photographs or comments that were never reviewed by the named source.
Why does genuine expertise matter?
Journalists need sources who can add accurate, relevant and useful information to an article.
Genuine experts bring professional knowledge, experience, context and informed judgement that cannot be replaced by a generic summary.
Can AI write expert comments?
AI may help structure or refine an early draft.
It should not create final commentary without genuine expert input.
The named person should review, approve and stand behind anything attributed to them.
How can businesses protect their reputation when using AI?
Businesses should ensure that all pitches, quotations and media responses are accurate, appropriately sourced and approved.
They should avoid invented credentials, mass-produced responses, artificial identities and commentary outside the spokesperson’s genuine expertise.
What makes a good expert quotation?
A strong quotation is clear, specific and useful.
It should explain something, challenge an assumption, add context, provide practical advice or give the journalist a perspective they could not easily create themselves.
How can journalists recognise AI-generated PR?
It is not always possible to know whether AI was used.
However, weak AI-generated material is often vague, overly polished, repetitive and lacking in examples, experience or a clear point of view.
What is the future of PR in an AI-driven world?
The strongest PR will combine responsible technology use with human judgement, genuine expertise, careful verification, clear positioning and credible journalist relationships.
Producing more content will not be enough.
The content still needs to be worth publishing.
Looking for journalist-led PR built around genuine expertise?
Fair Public Relations helps founders, small businesses, coaches, therapists, professional specialists and credible brand spokespeople turn real knowledge into useful media opportunities.
Through Standard PR, we can support expert positioning, commentary development, proactive pitching, journalist requests, founder visibility and wider earned-media campaigns.
Earned media coverage cannot be guaranteed, but every campaign is built around credible sources, realistic opportunities and responsible media outreach.
Explore Expert PR
Get In Touch
Written by Jordan Baker
Founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations and a former UK national journalist with more than a decade of PR experience. He writes about public relations, journalist outreach, founder visibility, expert positioning and earned media.
View Jordan Baker’s media expert profile
You might also like these blog posts
What Is Expert Commentary PR? How Experts Get Quoted in the Media
Can PR Help Your Business Appear in ChatGPT and AI Search? What We Know
The Difference Between PR, Personal Branding and Thought Leadership
How Coaches and Therapists Can Get More Clients by Building Authority
How to Get Press Coverage for Your Small Business: Advice From a Former National Journalist
