BoSacks Readers Speak Out: On AI, Freelancers, Teens Reading and Listening as Reading

Re: Part 1 - BoSacks Speaks Out: “I Was Forced to Use AI Until the Day I Was Laid Off

People don't seem to like it when I say that AI is wonderful but that it will destroy everything.
The best line in the article: "optimism doesn't pay the rent."

(submitted by an Industry Consultant)

Re: Part 1 - BoSacks Speaks Out: “I Was Forced to Use AI Until the Day I Was Laid Off

I find absolutely none of this surprising in the least. Since the Friedman Doctrine went into full force and effect in our economy in the 1980’s we’ve seen a slow and slippery slide to the brink of this precipice. Professionalism does not matter. A career you love or a career that allows you to love your “off-work” life no longer matters. Maximizing profits does. So if an AI slop salesperson tells you that you can cancel your freelancer contracts, outsource most of your work to bots, you’re going to go there.

Of course, 10 years from now, no one will be able to afford anything but we’ll deal with that next quarter. Won’t we? /s

(Submitted by a Newsstand consultant)

Re: Part 1 - BoSacks Speaks Out: “I Was Forced to Use AI Until the Day I Was Laid Off

I really enjoyed today’s dichotomy on AI.
As a techy, I really believe we need to embrace the use of AI in our organization.

As a techy in a news/publishing org, I also understand the ethical/trust issues with introducing AI into editorial process.

AI is a tool that journalist, editors can use to assist them in their jobs to help them focus on journalism.

The biggest issue I wrestle with is how far is too far?
Content Generation is such a big term…

Keyword extraction: OK, with human review

Short/Long meta summaries: OK, , with human review

Headlines: maybe for idea generation, but human review

Style Guide Adherence: maybe a 1st red-pen pass as an ai copy editor, but still needs human review.

Body Content: no. (at least not with clear attribution).

Social Media Posts for existing content: maybe but human review

The key, which was highlighted today in one of your pieces was the need for human intervention/review.

AI is a TRUST BUT VERIFY tool.

Sorry for the rant. I have heatedly debated with our editorial director about this.

I see AI like the web in the early days, if we don’t adopt it, others will, and we will be behind.

(Submitted by a Director of Technology)

Part 2 - BoSacks Speaks Out: Two AI Stories, Two Stark Realities

My question to CEOs would be this: Which is the higher priority -- using AI to cut costs (jobs), or using AI to provide a better service to your customers? I'm pretty sure it's more the former than the latter. (submitted by an Industry Consultant)

Re: Half of U.S. teens think journalists make up quotes and do favors for sources, new report finds

It would be interesting to know how many of the teens' parents also think journalists make up quotes and whether they are passing that cynicism on to their children. (Submitted by a freelance writer)

BoSacks Speaks Out: The View from 40,000 Feet (and Why It Matters)
I agree with your central point: "content without community is just noise. Build tribes, not traffic. Build loyalty, not vanity metrics."
My worry / prediction is that none of it will survive when Samantha comes along. (Samantha is the AI assistant in "Her.") (submitted by an Industry Consultant)

Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: The View from 40,000 Feet (and Why It Matters)

Just a thought…

While I agree with your opening statement that community IS the answer, my concern would be that the overall success is based on a consensus. With everyone promoting their own view and thoughts, and digesting only their beliefs, I do not know how we achieve this necessary component for overall success?

It will belong to the publishers who grasp one brutal truth: content without community is just noise. Build tribes, not traffic. Build loyalty, not vanity metrics

In the past, we consumed mass media in a way that allowed people to formulate their opinion based on the article/segment/news we all saw. It seems that today, people just read the links or social media that they already have an opinion on (and is supported by their tribe). I was just saying that we cannot rely on journalism to save us if people aren’t reading opposing views when they are taking the time to read at all. I think the “communities” being promoted are more insular and bias, and as such, create the opposite of a community - instead they create multiple non agreeing factions! So you can have as many tribes as you want to be successful as a journalist speaking to your view….but the lack of common exposure to journalistic ideas does not allow us to come to the consensus needed to make majority decisions (the political scene is a good example of this). Maybe too deep for a Monday AM ?(Submitted by a Publisher)

Re: New year, new rules: Jeff Jarvis says local journalism must reinvent itself now

The point I disagree with the most is the dissing of subscriptions but upholding of membership. I don't really see much of a difference between the two.

The consumer (not advertiser) pays X dollars to get Y benefits with both. A membership just tries to make the Y sound bigger and more personal.( Submitted by an Industry Consultant)

Always enjoy your insights, but this one really resonated with me. Something that I have been espousing for the past couple of years is the danger of consuming only digital media is that you close your window into seeing what makes the world so interesting. Newspapers gave me the opportunity to learn about everything from the rewards of enjoying the rich diversity of theater to understanding the nuances of science and medical advances.

Thanks for sharing this one and let's hope that despite the inevitable, there remains a place for physical newspapers in our world. ( Submitted by a Founder/Publisher)

This is on the mark. Because of Justin Trudeau's short-sighted and counter-productive law that requires Google and Facebook to pay the Canadian government for news links, which the government then doles out to favored news organizations, Facebook blocks posts that share a news link (even of American publications that wouldn't get the subsidies. Facebook thinks I live in Canada (anyone who spends time in Canada or interacts a lot with people in Canada fall into this category), even when I'm not. As a result, I cannot post or see posts that include a link to a news website (even those with paywalls) There is one notable exception. "Sponsored" posts show up without any problem. So if BoSacks includes a link, sorry, can't see it. But if that link is in a paid posts, there it is. (I don't have an issue with Facebook's policy — I agree with it as a proper response — the issue I have is the implementation, which is just as frustrating and counterproductive.) (Submitted by a Senior Technical Advisor)

Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Listening Counts as Reading

This is the same point you make when people define magazines as "ink on paper." You have said consistently that the substrate doesn't matter and that a digital magazine is just as much a real magazine as a printed one.

I'm very close to agreeing with you about audiobooks. I listen to audiobooks for at least an hour a day, while walking the dog and driving home from the train station. I find that audiobooks work especially well for fiction. Sometimes it's even better than print. For example, I struggled to read Mark Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson in print because of the way he rendered the local dialect. For me, listening to an expert reader was a preferable experience. Fiction doesn't usually require keeping track of a lot of detail, so audiobooks are fine.

Non-fiction is a different story — in my opinion, print and audio are not interchangeable. Non-fiction is usually packed with facts and figures that are hard to remember from day to day. I may listen to a book first, to get the gist of it, and then buy the book for the notes, references, and sometimes, maps and illustrations. Each "substrate" has its own strengths and weaknesses.

One more thing — printed books smell good!

Thanks for this interesting topic.

(Submitted by an Analyst/Communications Manager)

Re: Can AI “Turn Evil”? Claude’s Founders Say It Can

Thanks very much for sending Linda Ruth's article, "Can AI 'Turn Evil'? Claude’s Founders Say It Can". I'd read the phone book if Linda wrote it. The only thing I might add to the discussion is that human creations always reflect human nature. If Claude is sneaky and prone to cheating... well, it wasn't built by saints.

(Submitted by a Publisher and Official BoSacks Cub Reporter)

Re: BoSacks Speaks Out: Listening Counts as Reading

Over the weekend, I read your Jan. 7 newsletter Welcome to the Era of Permanent Disruption. It's excellent.

One of the many points you made: "Consider reader comprehension and retention. Neuroscience research from institutions like MIT and Norway’s Stavanger University demonstrates that people reading on paper show better recall, deeper comprehension, and stronger emotional connection to content compared to screen reading. When someone reads your cover story in print, they’re more likely to remember it, understand its nuances, and act on its insights. In business publishing, that translates directly to impact and influence."

That led me to wonder if any similar research has been done about recall or concentration while listening vs. reading print. I checked with Gemini Pro, where I found the attached. And, almost as though Gemini wanted to find a compromise, it concluded with this gem:

The "Gold Standard" for Difficult Subjects

If you are tackling a very challenging subject, research suggests the most effective method is Reading While Listening (RWL). Simultaneously seeing the text and hearing it narrated:

Reduces the "cognitive load" of decoding words.

Keeps your eyes moving at a steady pace (improving focus).

Reinforces the information through two sensory channels (visual and auditory).

(Submitted by an Analyst/Communications Manager)