We're headed toward a future with fewer journalists doing costly investigation
En Marsella, ante la Asociación Mundial de Editores de Noticias, el director del New York Times alzó la voz contra una forma de despojo que avanza sin consecuencias: las empresas de inteligencia artificial se apropian del trabajo periodístico a escala industrial, sin permiso ni compensación, erosionando el modelo económico que hace posible el periodismo de investigación. Es una advertencia que trasciende los intereses corporativos y toca una pregunta más profunda sobre quién controla el flujo de información en las democracias modernas, y quién asume la responsabilidad que ese poder conlleva.
- Las empresas de IA extraen contenido periodístico a una velocidad y volumen sin precedentes históricos, redirigiendo lectores e ingresos publicitarios lejos de las redacciones que produjeron ese trabajo.
- La industria de la prensa llega a esta crisis ya debilitada: las plataformas sociales fragmentaron primero la audiencia y el mercado publicitario, y ahora las compañías tecnológicas van por el contenido mismo.
- Sulzberger acusó al sector periodístico de haber sido demasiado pasivo, dividido y complaciente ante lo que describió como un robo de propiedad intelectual a escala industrial.
- El riesgo concreto es la desaparición progresiva del periodismo de investigación: sin el modelo económico que lo sostiene, ese trabajo costoso y lento simplemente dejará de existir.
- El llamado del director del Times es a que los editores exijan una rendición de cuentas —mediante regulación, acuerdos negociados o acciones legales— antes de que la erosión sea irreversible.
Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, director y editor del New York Times, aprovechó la 77ª reunión anual de la Asociación Mundial de Editores de Noticias, celebrada en Marsella, para lanzar una advertencia que el sector lleva demasiado tiempo evitando pronunciar con claridad: las empresas de inteligencia artificial están tomando el trabajo periodístico sin autorización, sin pago y sin consecuencias, a una escala que no tiene paralelo histórico.
El mecanismo es directo y devastador. Las compañías tecnológicas extraen el reportaje, lo reempaquetan como propio y, al hacerlo, se quedan con la audiencia y los ingresos publicitarios que deberían llegar a las organizaciones que realizaron ese trabajo. Han acumulado un control extraordinario sobre cómo circula la información en el mundo —sobre los datos, sobre la atención pública— sin asumir la responsabilidad que ese poder debería implicar: garantizar que el público tenga acceso a noticias confiables.
Lo que distingue este momento de disrupciones anteriores, argumentó Sulzberger, es la desfachatez. No se trata de empresas que negocian licencias ni buscan acuerdos con los editores. Simplemente toman. Y la industria periodística, ya fragilizada por años de fragmentación a manos de las redes sociales, ha respondido con una pasividad y una división que han agravado el daño.
Las consecuencias apuntan directamente al corazón del oficio: habrá menos periodistas, y sobre todo menos de los que hacen el trabajo caro, lento y difícil de la investigación. El modelo económico que sostiene ese periodismo está siendo vaciado desde adentro. Sin un cambio en la conducta de estas empresas o en la forma en que son reguladas, esa capacidad simplemente se perderá.
La pregunta que sobrevoló la conferencia —y que sobrevuela a toda la industria— es si los editores serán capaces de forzar una rendición de cuentas real. El discurso de Sulzberger fue un llamado a abandonar la aceptación silenciosa. Si ese llamado se traducirá en regulación, acuerdos o litigios, aún está por verse.
Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, the publisher and chief executive of The New York Times, stood before the World Association of News Publishers in Marseille on Monday with a stark warning: artificial intelligence companies are systematically taking news content without permission, without payment, and without consequence—and the journalism industry has been too quiet about it for too long.
The scale of what's happening, Sulzberger argued, is unprecedented. AI firms are extracting journalistic work at a volume and speed that has no historical parallel. They take the reporting, repackage it as their own, and in doing so, they redirect both the readers and the advertising revenue that would otherwise flow to the news organizations that actually did the work. The tech giants, he said, have accumulated enormous power over how information moves through the world—control over data, control over attention—yet they have abdicated the basic responsibility that should come with such power: ensuring the public has access to reliable, trustworthy news.
What makes this different from past media disruptions, Sulzberger suggested, is the shamelessness of it. These are not companies licensing content or negotiating with publishers. They are taking it. The news industry, he argued, has been too passive, too divided, too polite in the face of what amounts to intellectual property theft on an industrial scale. The profession failed to mount a unified response when it mattered most.
The consequences, he warned, will reshape journalism itself. As AI companies continue to siphon away the audience and revenue that sustains newsrooms, there will be fewer journalists. And not just fewer journalists in general—fewer of the kind who do the expensive, difficult, time-consuming work of investigation. The economic model that has supported that work is being hollowed out. Without a change in how these companies operate, or how they are regulated, the capacity to do serious reporting will simply erode.
Sulzberger's remarks came during the 77th annual gathering of the World Association of News Publishers, a conference that itself reflected the industry's anxiety. The meeting was taking place against a backdrop of genuine crisis: the news business is under pressure from multiple directions at once. Social media platforms have already fractured the audience and the advertising market. Now AI companies are doing something more direct—they are taking the actual content itself. The economic model of the press, already fragile, is being tested in ways it has never been before.
The question hanging over the conference, and over the industry more broadly, is whether publishers will be able to force a reckoning. Sulzberger's speech was a call for the industry to stop being passive, to stop being divided, to recognize what is being taken from them and to demand accountability. Whether that call will be heeded, whether it will translate into regulation or negotiated agreements or legal action, remains to be seen. But the urgency in his voice suggested that the moment for quiet acceptance has passed.
Notable Quotes
Our profession was too quiet, too passive, and too divided in the face of abuses by the companies driving the AI revolution— Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, New York Times publisher
Tech giants plunder news sites without permission or payment, reappropriating stolen content as their own and diverting audience and revenue— Arthur Gregg Sulzberger
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
When Sulzberger says AI companies are stealing without scruple, what does that actually look like in practice? How does it work?
They take a New York Times article—say, an investigation that took weeks and cost tens of thousands of dollars to produce—and feed it into their training data. Then when someone asks their AI chatbot a question, the AI synthesizes that reporting and presents it as its own answer. The reader gets the information. The Times gets nothing. No link, no credit, no payment.
But doesn't the AI company argue they're just learning from publicly available information?
That's the legal argument, yes. But Sulzberger's point is that there's a difference between learning and looting. A student can read a newspaper article and learn from it. A company that builds a product on top of that article without compensating the publisher—that's different. It's taking the work and the value.
Why does he think the industry has been too passive?
Because this happened gradually. Social media fractured the audience first. By the time AI companies started scraping content at scale, the industry was already weakened, already divided between different business models and different survival strategies. There was no unified response. Some publishers tried licensing deals. Others sued. Most just watched.
And the future he's describing—fewer journalists, less investigation—is that inevitable?
Not inevitable. But it's the trajectory if nothing changes. Investigative reporting is expensive. It only survives if there's enough revenue to pay for it. If AI companies keep redirecting that revenue, the economics break. You can't sustain a newsroom that way.
So what would change it?
Regulation, probably. Or successful lawsuits that establish that scraping news content without permission is infringement. Or negotiated licensing agreements where AI companies actually pay for what they use. But all of those require the industry to stop being passive and demand accountability.