Everyone in the room was using AI in some form – but not everyone agreed it was making journalism better. IBP’s summer party heard from a panel split between enthusiasm and caution.
A packed room, a show of hands
This year's annual IBP summer party event addressed a topical question for all journalists and comms professionals working in the built environment media: “What does artificial intelligence mean for Journalism and Communications?”
The event on 29 July in London, which was hosted by FTI Consulting, saw a packed room listening and engaging with a knowledgeable panel which brought together leading voices from journalism, media and communications.
Construction News editor Colin Marrs chaired proceedings and was joined by panellists Dominic Ponsford, editor-in-chief of Press Gazette, the national media journalist Jonathan Prynn, Chris Stokel-Walker, journalist and communicator specialising in tech, AI and digital culture, and Bethany Wheatley, managing director in FTI Consulting's digital and insights team.
The chair, Colin Marrs, kicked things off by asking the room how many people had used or were currently using AI during their work. Cue a sea of hands. Everyone it seems was using it in one way or another, so IBP had certainly picked the right issue for the event.
Panellists dived into a wide range of issues around AI. Its role in enhancing efficiency, particularly in data journalism and research, was discussed at length but concerns were raised about AI’s potential to undermine journalistic integrity and the business model of news publishing.
Efficiency vs. integrity: The Ponsford verdict
Press Gazette’s Dominic Ponsford did not hide his skepticism, as he noted that AI can lead to a loss of journalistic skills and the democratisation of complex tasks.
Ponsford thought that “nothing good has come from AI so far”. While accepting its use as a labour-saving device, he wondered whether labour savings were often the best thing. “It might make things quicker, but is speed often the best thing? It means you can write more stories, but do we need more stories, or do we need fewer best stories?” he asked.
The generational divide
Chris Stokel-Walker highlighted the generational gap in AI adoption, noting that his familiarity with AI came from a young age. He said that he mainly used AI for research and it had significantly sped up the process of sifting through information. “In terms of kind of getting across a very complicated thorny news agenda, it’s absolutely fantastic,” he said.
Setting the boundaries: AI in corporate comms
FTI Consulting’s Bethany Wheatley discussed the use of AI in corporate communications, focusing on efficiency and data optimisation. She emphasised the importance of maintaining quality over quantity, especially in the context of AI-generated content.
“It's really important to set clear parameters and clear expectations when using AI. People want to be able to be seen to be achieving and getting ahead and doing as much as possible – and you can do that with AI tools – but there’s a danger that people can often skip over the learning phase,” she said. So, boundaries and expectations needed to be made clear.
The red line: AI for research, not for writing
Media journalist Jonathan Prynn highlighted the impact of AI on web traffic and advertising models, emphasising the need for a sustainable business model. Like Stokel-Walker, Prynn extolled the virtues of AI for research, saying that it was a “gamechanger” in that area of his work.
“AI has now taken it onto a whole new level of speed and comprehensiveness and it’s extraordinary how much ground you can cover in such a short space of time from a research point of view,” he said. He did have clear boundaries on its use though. “I do not use it for writing. Maybe there are plenty of people in the industry who do, but that for me is the red line,” he said.
The wide-ranging panel discussion and questions from the floor covered a lot of ground. The importance of human skills like critical thinking and storytelling were highlighted as was the need for ethical AI use. The challenges of AI-generated content, such as the potential for misinformation and the need for robust verification processes, was also stressed by a number of panellists and audience members.
What happens next? Calls for regulation
The discussion concluded with a call for government support to sustain journalism’s role as the fourth estate. There was a clear view that the big tech companies shouldn't have it all their own way when it comes to the application and use of AI and there had to be some boundaries. There also needed to be some way of compensating the journalism industry and protecting its work from being exploited for free by AI. This would need some kind of regulatory intervention to ensure the sustainability of journalism as a profession.
Panellists and audience agreed that there was an enduring role for the specialist media in the new AI age and they also stressed the importance of maintaining human qualities in journalism, such as wit and humor, which AI cannot replicate.
Some things AI still can’t do
The event concluded with something that not even AI can do and something that is a mainstay of every IBP gathering – the enjoyment of drinks, canapés and networking with colleagues from across the built environment journalism and communications community!
IBP would like to thank all the panellists who took part and a massive thank you and appreciation to the event hosts FTI Consulting for their generous support.
