Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the gathering, processing and dissemination of information. The outcome of this revolution will depend on our technological choices. To ensure that AI supports the right to information, we at Reporters without Borders think that ethics must govern technological innovation in the news and information media.
AI is radically transforming the world of journalism. How can we ensure information integrity when most Web content will be AI-generated? How do we maintain editorial independence when opaque language models, driven by private-sector interests or arbitrary criteria, are used by newsrooms? How can we prevent the fragmentation of the information ecosystem into numerous streams fueled by chatbots?
Predicting the full extent of AI’s impacts on the media is a challenging task. Yet, one thing is clear: Innovation per se does not automatically lead to progress. It must be accompanied by sensible regulation and ethical guardrails to truly benefit humanity.
History offers numerous examples, such as the ban on human cloning, nuclear non-proliferation treaties and drug safety controls, where technological development has been responsibly curtailed, regulated or directed in the name of ethics. Likewise, in journalism, innovation should be governed by clear ethical rules. This is crucial to protect the right to information, which underpins our fundamental freedoms of opinion and expression.
In the summer of last year, Reporters Without Borders convened an international commission to draft what became the first global ethical reference for media in the AI era. The commission brought together 32 prominent figures from 20 countries, specialists in journalism or AI. To chair it, none other than Maria Ressa, winner of the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize, who embodies both the challenges of press freedom and commitment to addressing technological upheavals (she denounced the “invisible atomic bomb” of digital technology from the podium in Oslo).
The goal was clear: Establish a set of fundamental ethical principles to protect information integrity in the AI era, as these technologies transform the media industry. After five months of meetings, 700 comments and an international consultation, the discussions revealed consensus and differences. Aligning the views of journalism defense non-governmental organizations, media organizations, investigative journalism consortia and a major journalists’ federation was challenging — but an unprecedented alliance gathered around this digital table.
In response to the upheavals caused by AI in the information arena, the charter that was published in Paris in November last year outlines 10 essential principles to ensure information integrity and preserve journalism’s social function. It is crucial that the international community cooperates to ensure that AI systems uphold human rights and democracy, but this does not absolve journalism of particular ethical and professional responsibilities in using these technologies.
Of the charter’s core principles, we will mention just four.
First, ethics must guide technological choices in the media. The pace of adopting one of history’s most transformative technologies should not be dictated by the pressure of economic competition. Polls suggest that an overwhelming majority of citizens would prefer a slower, safer deployment of AI. Let us listen to them.
Second, human judgement must remain central in editorial decisions. Generative AI systems are more than mere tools; they acquire a form of agency and interfere with our intentions. Though lacking will, AI is full of certainties, reflecting its data and training process. Each automated decision is a missed opportunity for human judgement. We aspire to augmented journalism, not diminished human judgement.
Third, the media must help society to confidently discern authentic from synthetic content. Generative AI, more than any past technology, is capable of crafting the illusion of facts and the artifice of evidence. The media have a special responsibility to help society confidently discern fact from fiction. Trust is built, not decreed. Source verification, evidence authentication, content traceability and editorial responsibility are crucial in the AI era. To avoid contributing to general confusion, the media must maintain a clear distinction between authentic material (captured in the real world) and synthetic material (material generated or significantly altered by AI).
Finally, in their negotiations with technology companies, media outlets and rights holders should prioritize journalism’s societal mission, placing public interest above private profit. Chatbots are likely to become a primary method for accessing news in the near future. It is therefore imperative to ensure that their owners provide fair compensation to content creators and rights holders.
Additionally, solid guarantees must be demanded concerning the quality, pluralism and reliability of the information disseminated. This becomes even more crucial as media entities start to form their initial partnerships with AI providers and engage in legal battles with tech companies over copyright infringement.
The media stand at a crossroads. Used ethically and discerningly, AI offers unprecedented opportunities to enrich our understanding of a complex world. As deepfakes potentially amplify disinformation and erode public trust in all audiovisual content, and language models promise increased productivity at the expense of information integrity, this charter affirms an approach where human discernment and journalistic ethics are the pillars of journalism’s social trust function.
In a noisy world, there are only two ways to gain attention: extort it or earn it. Social media, aided by recommendation algorithms, chose the former, with known consequences in terms of misinformation and the polarization of opinion. In a field where anything goes, quality journalism has no chance unless it abandons its defining traits: the pursuit of factual truth, nuance and impartiality.
The media must therefore earn our attention by focusing their practice on trust, authenticity and human experience.
We encourage media and information professionals to embrace the principles of the Paris Charter on AI and Journalism.
Charlie Beckett, professor at the London School of Economics (LSE) and director of the LSE Journalism and AI Project.
Christophe Deloire, secretary-general at Reporters Without Borders and chair of the Forum on Information and Democracy.
Gary Marcus, founder and CEO of the Center for the Advancement of Trustworthy AI and professor emeritus at New York University.
Maria Ressa, 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, journalist and cofounder of Rappler media, chair of the Committee of the Paris Charter on AI and Journalism.
Stuart Russell, distinguished professor of computer science at the University of California, Berkeley and founder of the Center for Human-compatible AI.
Anya Schiffrin, senior lecturer in discipline of international and public affairs, Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS