It became prominent in the journalism field, where it created a massive suspicion that centered on authorship, revolving around the question: “Who wrote this story?” and, with growing skepticism, readers would wonder if an article was made with AI. These questions illustrate the growing unease about credibility and authenticity in the newsroom, as validated by a study conducted at the University of Kansas by Alyssa Appelman, associate professor, and Steve Bien-Aimé, assistant professor from the William Allen White School of Journalism & Mass Communications. The study discovered that the mention or suspicion of AI involvement in an article’s production creates a low readers’ perception of both the author’s and the source’s credibility, proving that even a small hint of AI can trigger skepticism. 

Even so, journalism has existed to adapt to modern trends. It had challenges with every innovation through the years— from the limitations of stone-carved information of Acta Diurna to Johannes Gutenberg’s moveable-type printing press that had paper scarcity and high-maintenance cost, and now, at the digital age of media, where misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation are prominent problems, especially with AI tools spreading amongst social media users. Such examples are deepfakes, where people can now generate synthetic media of people, and situations can be faked by swapping faces and cloning voices, once prompted by a human. Knowing the capabilities of AI speaks to why people would grow suspicious of using the tool. 

This shift in technology forces the industry to face a new challenge of automation in journalism. This evolution moves beyond the digitization of the medium as it introduces algorithmic authorship, where software can process data and is able to generate texts that are seemingly human. But rather than replacing our journalists, these tools are reshaping how newsrooms function. 

According to a 2026 study by Baslao and Abejaron, published in the American Journal of Educational Research, which surveyed 170 student journalists at St. Rita’s College, which found that AI is already part of their daily workflow. The research claims that campus journalists most often use AI tools for grammar checking, headline suggestions, and quick edits. Many of the students within the study stated that these AI tools helped them save time and improve clarity, but also expressed uncertainty about whether relying on AI weakened their credibility. The gap that was found in the study reveals that digitally literate and fluent students challenge and improve their skills, but journalism programs often lack in teaching AI literacy and ethics between AI and journalism. This left the students caught between efficiency and accountability, not sure how much AI use is acceptable before their authorship is questioned, especially where AI is a controversial topic.

This uncertainty leads to a deeper understanding of questioning authorship. It doesn’t merely point to who typed the words to an article or a story. It is about who takes responsibility for the story. There are multiple ways AI can assist in a newsroom, such as assisting with grammar, headlines, or summaries, but it cannot carry the weight of a journalist’s credibility. This creates the question: “Where do we draw the line when utilizing these automated tools for our reporting?” 

Ron Kirby Monzon, a current student from the University of the Philippines Manila (UPM), who was once a campus journalist from Concordia College’s school publication The Concordian, expressed that he still use AI tools, and when given the chance to write an article again, he is most likely to use the same generative AIs he use for studying such as Grammarly and Gemini, only as tools for cautious and responsible writing. While journalism is known as a form of writing, creating an article requires precision and responsibility. He also implied that using tools for writing isn’t entirely wrong once handled carefully.  Having an AI in the newsroom is a human decision to adapt to evolving technology, not a slow replacement.

In fact, another student, Raven Aurielle Mecayer, is currently enrolled in Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM) as a Circulations Manager for the Official Publication of the College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, “The Communiqué.” She shared her insights and experience regarding this issue, stating, “There are instances where I use AI for occasional grammar checks and headline suggestions. I must say that it helps in terms of efficiency, immediate grammatical clarifications, and suggestions that would lead me to come up with additional ideas. Personally, we can disallow the risks of AI in taking away journalistic integrity, as such is available for mere assistance, not a replacement to human competence, nor a ground for negligence to our responsibilities as student journalists.”

These perspectives prove the need for a stronger conceptual explanation. Algorithmic authorship describes the process by which generative AI creates text that appears human after giving it instructions or prompts, raising questions about originality and responsibility. While it may seem efficient, relying on automated generations alone may be the cause of crossing journalistic ethical boundaries and guidelines. Human oversight remains needed and is non-negotiable because an algorithm isn’t capable of verifying facts, creating interviews, or holding accountability when a problem or mistakes arise. 

Using AI tools isn’t prohibited, but one must consider the core distinction and standards of how AI must be used. As a newsroom guideline, there must always be a line drawn between acceptable AI assistance and high-risk AI automation. While leveraging AI for low-risk assistance, such as grammar checking, adjustments, audio transcription, and refining headline suggestions, is an efficient and acceptable flow with the use of AI tools. AI is a tool for assisting humans; it is not made as a substitute or replacement. There must always be a professional obligation of live verification and accountability in the name of journalism. 

When mistakes are made, the blame shouldn’t be pointed towards a machine; journalists and editors are to be responsible if any errors occur in using the tools because they are the ones who made the decision to publish it. To keep the trust and rapport between the student journalists and the audience, student journalists must always be honest and update if errors occur. It should always also be disclosed if AI tools were used, most especially if they wrote the actual text or summarized the data. 

AI has become an undeniable presence in campus journalism, but the use of the tool must always be as an assistance, not authoritative. The credibility of a story and an article remains in the hands of a student journalist’s judgment, ethics, and accountability, which are qualities no algorithm could ever replicate. Embracing AI cautiously for efficacy must be a practice integrated with adapting to technological advances, without surrendering journalistic integrity. In the end, the future of journalism is the human commitment to truth and responsibility.