Why AI Isn’t Going To Replace Health Journalists Just Yet

As AI’s influence grows, especially in the digital and editorial space, a lot of my fellow editors are worried that artificial intelligence is coming for all of our jobs. To be honest, I think it’s probably inevitable — but not any time soon.

Despite advances in artificial intelligence and automated content generation, humans are still essential in health journalism for several reasons. First, health journalism requires a sensitive understanding of often knotty medical topics, and the ability to interpret nuanced scientific data accurately (especially when it comes to those pesky nutrition studies!). Human journalists are still better than machines at assessing the validity of studies, distinguishing credible sources from unreliable ones, and scrutinizing information with an eye toward broader societal and ethical frameworks.

For instance, a machine can tell you the conclusion of a study, but it won’t tell you — unless you ask it — if the researchers had any intriguing conflicts of interest.

Secondly, empathy is paramount in health journalism. It’s not just about respecting the dignity and experiences of those affected by certain conditions, outbreaks or health inequalities (“respect” can probably be programmed). It’s about understanding the historical and societal subtlety of such stories, ensuring that additional stress or injustice not be placed on the subject(s), nor that the wrong societal conclusion made.

Moreover, health journalism often involves investigating purposely hidden data, conflicts of interest, and malpractice within the healthcare system. Human journalists possess the nuanced judgment required for such investigative work. How can a machine build trust with an edgy source? How can a machine sit down with a survivor and give them the time and respect they deserve to tell their story? Right now, that reality does not exist.

Additionally, human writers contribute to the diversity of health journalism by bringing their own cultural insights and personal experiences to their work. This diversity is essential for creating inclusive and representative health content that resonates with varied audiences.

While AI can aid in certain aspects of content creation, the critical thinking, empathy, ethical judgment, investigative sensitivity, and diverse perspectives that human journalists bring to health journalism are simply irreplaceable. Until machines acquire true vulnerability and a 360 degree understanding of the complexities of human motivations when it comes to disease and the study of that disease, they will always come second to us.

References:

Hinnant, A., & Len-Ríos, M. E. (2020). Journalistic norms of health reporters. Journalism Practice, 14(1), 77-94.

Lewis, S. C. (2019). Investigative journalism in the digital era: The enduring power of facts. Journalism Studies, 20(7), 927-945.

McBride, K. (2021). The ethics of empathy in journalism. Journalism Ethics: A Philosophical Approach, 13(2), 165-180.

Nieman Foundation. (2022). The importance of human judgment in health journalism. Nieman Reports, 76(3), 34-41.