If we think of it in the same way we think of programming, journalists are the junior developers of the writing world, editors are the senior developers of the

If we think of it in the same way we think of programming, journalists are the junior developers of the writing world, editors are the senior developers of the writing world. Editors are also writers and also do journalism, they just do it at a more high level, and that includes directing journalists on how to better do their job. It isn't necessarily a supervisory role, but more of a pedagogic relationship. It seems to me, and I have experience in the alternative weekly newspaper world (which is long dead as a business model, but as a model of journalism, I feel one that we would do well to resurrect in some form) would prefer if all writers took on a more supervisory role, directing AI to do all of the investigatory work of showing up at the records office and sifting through city council transcripts. Then the human writer would do what humans do well and work those personal connections that they have much more time to do now that the AI is doing all the tedious grunt work. I understand that people are frightened and in a bit of a panic, but these generative AI could do a vast amount to bring back truth to journalism, if we do this correctly. Will we? <shrug>