It’s No Surprise The Media Got AI So Wrong

Hype and doomerism sell better than roll-up-your-sleeves optimism.

Ed Zitron, host of the Better Offline podcast, is one of the long-time AI skeptics that are being vindicated in the wake of GPT-5’s flop.

In a recent monologue, Ed shares his frustration at journalists and editors who have been boosting the AI narrative over the past couple of years, forfeiting their intellectual integrity and journalistic commitment to dig beneath the surface.

I share Ed’s frustration. As I wrote back in AI Does Not Need Welfare, too many journalists accept exceptional claims without asking for exceptional evidence—or explanations.

Unfortunately, the explanation-less pattern does not stop with AI. We see it at play, for example, in the reporting on the Gaza conflict, where prominent outlets share victim counts published by Hamas, a terrorist organization that boasts of using human shields and propaganda. We saw it during the final years of Biden’s presidency, when we were assured the president was fit and lucid despite it being visibly not the case.

The problem is not limited to the so-called “legacy media.” Many of the independent podcasters and writers that filled the trust void left by traditional publications are no better. They might be worse, actually. In rejecting the attitude of established outlets, some also reject rigor, fact-checking, and accountability.

For sure, I’m not accusing all journalists of having lost their way, but the recent flip on AI is a clear example of an overall preference for sensationalism and narrative in favor of truth-seeking.

I don’t pretend to have a good explanation for this complex phenomenon, but perhaps the diagnosis Neil Postman offered in his 1985 Amusing Ourselves To Death could be a good place to start.

As television became ubiquitous in the West, discourse and information morphed into entertainment. But entertainment is not an exercise in truth seeking. Television’s aim, Postman wrote, is “applause, not reflection.”

Television’s paradigm reshaped discourse across all other media. Social media, with its algorithms promoting the most engaging content with no regard for depth or correctness, fits perfectly within TV’s framework.

With a media landscape that incentivizes engagement, is it any surprise that those working in it chase emotion-inducing partisan headlines?

How off the mark do all those interviews by Ezra Klein and others on the imminent collapse of education and white-collar work look now, after GPT-5’s disappointment?

But also, how predictable. Doomerism is more engaging than grounded optimism. Nuanced discussions on trade-offs and how much work still needs to be done are plain and boring compared to stories of impending ruin and injustice, never mind how unfounded.

If you’ve been seeking explanations below the flashy headlines, only to be left wanting, then you won’t be surprised that so many news outlets got it so wrong. They haven’t been in the business of looking for truth for a long time.