International Journalism Festival Perugia 2025 : How to ‘Make Journalism Great Again’?
Confronted with the dual danger of dystopian dictatorships and disobedient artificial intelligence, journalism is faltering. The forgiving Umbrian sun softens tensions and makes conversations more porous, but everyone is left wondering whether a beleaguered profession can still survive—one that must now, more than ever, reassert its purpose.
Those with a deep understanding of artificial intelligence technologies and the economic logics that drive them remain the most sceptical about their integration into newsrooms. Surprisingly, few journalists are investigating the extent of the power imbalance at play in this new societal upheaval — despite the fact that it challenges the very raison d’être of their profession. The sharp analyses of Karen Hao, Martin Andree, and Christopher Wylie stand out as rare exceptions.
The early adopters of large language models in newsrooms, for their part, have paid a high price: exhausting phases of testing and fine-tuning that have kept them from doing their core work and fulfilling their mission. A mission that, in any case, now needs to be redefined. Journalists must relearn how to listen — some even speak of a therapeutic role — if they hope to maintain a connection with user needs (often championed by product teams), or even with basic human needs. Needs that content creators have clearly understood. But they too are showing signs of fatigue, and are now almost calling for the emergence of new intermediaries to stand between them and the platform algorithms on which they rely — before perhaps one day being replaced by AI avatars trained on their own material.
In some of today’s conflicts in this increasingly war-torn world, the public at times seems to demonstrate greater news literacy than the major newsrooms themselves. This raises an unsettling — and perhaps slightly outdated — question, inherited from the era of gatekeepers: what is the point of producing rigorous journalism if it can, quite legally, contribute to the election of resolutely authoritarian leaders? Without claiming to shape public opinion, it may be time to move beyond a purely reactive stance and adopt a more constructive, more supportive approach: offering reference points, providing tools to help make sense of a world in growing disarray — in the face of platforms that now dominate not only entertainment, but also information.
If the media are being called into question today (#NewsFatigue), perhaps it is time to stop blaming a supposedly disengaged public — and to acknowledge that the real struggle to adapt lies first and foremost within the media themselves. What we need now are more “full stack” journalists: professionals who understand their product (the world), know their audience in depth, and know how to listen — and speak — to them.
To watch
All sessions are freely available on the IJF 2025 website, but here is our top 3 to catch up on:
10 key takeaways
- According to David Caswell, no one is making money from generative AI.
- In the artificial new world, “Digital doubt is becoming the new normal.”59.9% of people are now more likely to question the authenticity of online content than before, according to the latest Wayfinder report by Ezra Eeman on media trends.
- Karen Hao warns that while newsrooms hope for fruitful partnerships with OpenAI, the scenario could mirror what happened with social platforms — where publishers were pushed aside overnight.
- LLMs are Large Language Models — not Large Fact Models (always worth repeating). These technologies are based entirely on probability, which may fundamentally conflict with journalism’s fact-checking ethos.
- Audiences are increasingly searching for answers, not just information. Every interface is turning into an answer machine. According to the CJR, nearly a quarter of Americans now use AI tools instead of traditional search engines.
- Ellen Heinrichs, founder and CEO of the Bonn Institute, argues that instead of chasing the latest AI gadget, newsrooms should invest in more human journalism. A view echoed by the News for All report from Cymru and the BBC, by Karen Hao and by Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower behind Cambridge Analytica.
- It does not matter whether journalism is publicly or privately funded — journalism is at risk because visibility is disappearing. The printing press only transformed distribution. AI disrupts both production and dissemination. Martin Andree gives us four years before Big Tech fully takes over the media space.
- What if, as Chris Moran from The Guardian suggests, the answer is not to produce more, but to produce differently? Rather than using AI to multiply content, why not use it to reduce volume and enhance relevance? A bold move towards editorial sobriety.
- Early adopters of large language models in newsrooms have paid a heavy price: exhausting testing and fine-tuning phases that keep them from doing their core journalistic work.
- According to Isobel Cockerell, the Vatican — “the Silicon Valley of its time” — is one of the few institutions taking the risks of AI seriously, calling it “a substitute for God.”“The old religion seems to be waging a battle against the new one,” she remarks ironically.
How not to drown in AI?
Everyone is talking about productivity tools, but few are questioning the very source of this pressure to perform: social networks and always-on connected devices, hungry for fresh content 24/7. What if, as Chris Moran from The Guardian suggests, the point was not to produce more, but to produce differently? Less journalism, but more service. Instead of using AI to flood the world with content, why not use it to reduce the volume and increase relevance? A deliberate shift toward editorial restraint. And what if the chatbots of fifteen years ago—based on simple decision trees—were actually better suited to journalism than today’s hallucinatory foundation models?
How to become a Full Stack Journalist?
In the opening session, Nic Newman summed up 15 years of “product” in just seven minutes. Twenty-five years ago, tech was still a marginal presence in newsrooms. In the history of “product” — a term that remains vague for many journalists (Nic Newman cites a Reuters Institute survey: 93% of newsrooms consider the topic important, but only 45% feel they truly understand what it involves) — the launch of the iPlayer was a turning point. It went online on Christmas Day 2007, after three years of failed attempts, marking the introduction of the “agile method” into the media world.
Creators in search of independence
The creator economy is projected to reach $500 billion by 2027. Meanwhile, the traditional media business model is collapsing. The bond that once tied journalists to a newsroom for their entire careers no longer holds. Into this gap, some journalists are making the leap and becoming content creators themselves. But this transition is neither easy nor necessarily desirable, as it demands an entrepreneurial mindset (self-promotion, audience building, personal branding), often far removed from the journalistic role. To support this shift, organisations founded by former journalists are emerging to help their peers enter this new economy.
@underthedesknews How do you say Banana in Italian? #news#italy♬ original sound - UnderTheDeskNews
The Muskification of Media
“Big Tech represents an existential threat to journalism,” declared Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of Reporters Without Borders USA, during a panel titled The Muskification of American Media. “What solutions do we have against disinformation when powerful men are the ones spreading it?” he asked.
How Silicon Valley’s AI Emperors Are Reconfiguring Reality
Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower behind the Cambridge Analytica scandal, is sounding the alarm: Silicon Valley is no longer just a centre of technological innovation, but a dangerous ideological movement — a “religious cult.” “These are the richest men in the world, leading the most powerful companies in the world,” he states.
Journalism’s Final Countdown
With AI, we are on the brink of total saturation: a flood of content generated at breakneck speed — often hollow, sometimes toxic — in a world where the ability to understand is more vital than ever. In his Wayfinder presentation, as clear and concise as ever despite the surrounding chaos, Ezra Eeman captures the shift in power: on one side, media groups capable of producing at scale; on the other, individuals who create value. But both are dependent on platforms they do not control.
Tomorrow, will we be working in cybernetic newsrooms? The risk is not only machines poorly imitating humans, but also humans gradually imitating machines — poorly.
A countercyclical movement is emerging: on one hand, a growing awareness among newsrooms facing Big Tech’s grip on the entire value chain — from creation to distribution; on the other, a frantic race to integrate AI, in order to keep up… with the very actors setting the pace. In the end, AI-assisted journalism may well become one of the last remaining spaces where humans stay in the loop. Everywhere else, they will be progressively pushed out.
What can we create that truly belongs to us?
What would give someone a compelling reason to come to us rather than go elsewhere?
Martin Andree estimates that we have four years left before Big Tech gains total control over the media system. When Silicon Valley figures begin presenting themselves as prophets of a new religion, with AI as its god — omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent — perhaps it is time to acknowledge that the issue goes far beyond technology alone.
The conclusion of an International Journalism Festival… sponsored by Google.
