St. Titus Brandsma

AI-Generated Disinformation and the Trust Crisis

The disinformation challenge that occupied most of my attention until recently – the deliberate production and dissemination of false information by human actors – has been joined by a challenge that is qualitatively different and, in certain respects, more dangerous.

AI-generated disinformation – synthetic text, images, audio, and video produced by machine learning systems – changes the economics of deception in a way that undermines not just the accuracy of specific claims but the epistemic infrastructure on which journalism depends.

Local News Is Dying, and Democracy With It

In communities across the developed world, local newspapers are closing. The economics are straightforward: advertising revenue has migrated to digital platforms, subscription bases have eroded, and the cost of maintaining a newsroom that covers local government, courts, schools, and public safety exceeds the revenue the publication can generate.

The closures are reported, when they are reported at all, as business stories. A publication failed to adapt. A market shifted. An industry declined.

The Algorithm Is Not Your Editor

There is a question that every working journalist should ask at the start of every shift: who decided this was the story?

Not which editor approved it. Not which source tipped it. Who – or what – decided that this particular piece of information would reach the public, and that other pieces would not?

Increasingly, the answer is not a person. It is a recommendation engine.

The Invisible Editor

We have spent decades fighting overt censorship. State-controlled media, editorial interference by owners, legal threats designed to kill stories before publication – these are enemies we understand. We have names for them. We know how to resist.

The Fact-Check Is Not Enough

The fact-checking movement has accomplished something genuinely valuable: it has created an infrastructure for verifying individual claims made in public discourse. This is important work, and I do not diminish it.

But I am here to argue that it is not enough, and that the belief that it is enough is itself a problem.

The limitation of fact-checking is structural. Fact-checking operates at the level of individual claims: this statistic is accurate or inaccurate, this quote is real or fabricated, this event did or did not occur as described. What fact-checking cannot address is the narrative – the larger story within which individual facts are arranged to produce a meaning that the facts themselves do not support.

Fact-Checking as Resistance

Fact-checking is often presented as a neutral, technical practice. You verify a claim. You check the sources. You publish the result. Simple.

This is wrong. Fact-checking is not neutral. It never has been.

In an environment saturated with lies, stating a fact is a political act.

Let me show you why.

The Myth of Neutrality

Journalism schools teach fact-checking as if it were plumbing. A mechanical process. Find the claim. Locate the evidence. Match them up. Publish the verdict.

The Source You Cannot Name

A journalist publishes an investigation revealing systematic corruption in a government agency. The investigation is based, in significant part, on documents and testimony provided by a person inside the agency who wishes to remain anonymous. The government demands that the journalist reveal the source. The journalist refuses.

This is not a difficult case. It is the definitional case. If the journalist reveals the source, the source faces retaliation. If the source faces retaliation, no future source will come forward. If no future source comes forward, the next corruption goes unreported. The chain is direct, predictable, and well-documented.

The Ownership Problem

There is a question that every reader should ask about the news they consume, and it is not the question they are usually encouraged to ask. The usual question is: is this true? The prior question – the one that determines the conditions under which truth can be produced – is: who owns this?

Ownership determines editorial environment. Editorial environment determines what stories are pursued, how they are framed, and which ones are killed before publication. The relationship between ownership and content is not always direct – the best owners maintain editorial independence, and many journalists resist pressure regardless of its source. But the relationship is structural, and structural forces operate whether or not individual actors resist them.