Generating key takeaways...
News outlets across Kentucky are experimenting with generative AI, balancing operational benefits against ethical concerns and audience trust, amid industry efforts to establish responsible standards.
At WKDZ in Cadiz, Kentucky, a roomful of antique radios , some more than a century old , is a reminder that technological revolutions can reshape how people receive news. The station’s owner, president and CEO Beth Mann, draws a line from the transistor to the internet and now to artificial intelligence, describing AI as “technology that’s changing” and something her organisation “discuss[es] … every single day.” According to the original report, Edge Media Group’s stations across west Kentucky are actively testing how generative tools might fit into reporting and production while staff debate where to draw ethical lines. [1]
Newsrooms in the region present a spectrum of approaches. Some, like Paxton Media Group, have posted AI policies on their homepages; WKMS says it defers to the NPR Ethics Handbook and does not employ generative AI; smaller outlets such as the Crittenden Press have begun to use AI pragmatically for tasks ranging from transcription to data work. The company said in a statement to local outlets that practices vary widely and that many organisations are still finalising internal rules. [1]
Editors and reporters describe a mixture of cautious experimentation and concern. WKDZ reporter Edward Marlowe, who has moved from scepticism to limited use of tools such as ChatGPT, summed up the pressure many journalists feel: “’Learn it or lose it,’ is what I kept hearing.” He also warned that AI “limits creativity” and that humans must review any AI-produced material , a view echoed by his employer, who insists that hiring journalists means expecting original reporting rather than fully AI-written stories. According to the original report, Marlowe has used AI to clean press-release wording and for specific data queries, while the station’s policy on attribution and bylines remains under development. [1]
Industry organisations are sharpening guidance for newsrooms wrestling with those very questions. The Poynter Institute has issued a practical AI ethics framework and an updated 2025 AI Ethics Starter Kit intended to help news organisations define permissible uses, disclosure practices and public-facing policies. Poynter’s work stresses that clear guardrails and transparency are central to preserving audience trust. Industry data shows that newsroom toolkits and templates are being promoted to accelerate responsible adoption. [2][6]
That push for standards has been reinforced by high-profile gatherings of editors, technologists and standards specialists. In April 2025, Poynter and The Associated Press convened more than 50 participants at a Summit on AI, Ethics and Journalism to focus on “clarity of purpose, ethical guardrails, and a real relationship with audiences,” with an emphasis on keeping human journalists central to the process. The summit’s discussions informed the Starter Kit and encouraged newsrooms to develop public statements explaining their AI use. [3]
Research and audience-testing underpin the concern. Surveys and Poynter-led initiatives show that many members of the public feel uneasy about journalists using AI, even for non-editorial tasks, and want more explicit disclosure when it is used. To address that anxiety, Poynter and partners developed the ‘Talking About AI: Newsroom Toolkit’ , a set of low-friction communications tools aimed at demystifying AI, explaining benefits to audiences and maintaining trust without requiring newsrooms to invent new outreach channels. According to the report, this approach is designed to be practical for understaffed local newsrooms. [4][5]
Supporters of careful AI use point to the stark economics facing local journalism. The State of Local News Project at Northwestern’s Medill Local News Initiative shows that nearly 40% of local newspapers have vanished since 2005 and that newsroom jobs have fallen sharply, producing news deserts across many counties. Small publishers such as Chris Evans of the Crittenden Press say responsibly applied AI can act like an inexpensive assistant , “an employee that I pay $20 a month” , helping with stats, briefs and routine tasks so limited staff can focus on original reporting. The publisher emphasised the rule he learned from AP training: “use it, use it, use it, but check it, check it, check it, and never publish or produce anything for public consumption that has not been read and checked by a human being.” [1]
But independent assessments caution against unexamined reliance. A 2025 Thomson Reuters Foundation report found that more than half of journalists surveyed said AI had affected their work in the preceding 18 months, while also flagging risks to creativity, critical thinking and misinformation. The report recommended investment in training, editorial frameworks and platform accountability to realise AI’s potential without sacrificing reporting quality. Those findings underscore why many newsrooms , from regional chains to single-person weeklies , are balancing operational needs against ethical and reputational risks. [7]
For stations and small papers in Kentucky the path forward is iterative: experiment with utility, embed human review, adopt transparent policies and explain practices to audiences. According to the original report, some local outlets are drafting formal policies or considering editor’s letters about AI use, while others continue to rely on external ethics guidance such as NPR’s handbook. Industry tools and summits are offering templates and messaging that local newsrooms can adapt, but the overarching imperative remains the same: preserve journalistic standards while using new tools to sustain coverage in communities at risk of being underserved. [1][2][3][4]
📌 Reference Map:
- [1] (WKMS/ Appalachia + Mid-South Newsroom) – Paragraph 1, Paragraph 2, Paragraph 3, Paragraph 7, Paragraph 9
- [2] (Poynter Institute) – Paragraph 4, Paragraph 9
- [3] (Poynter/Associated Press Summit) – Paragraph 5, Paragraph 9
- [4] (Poynter/Microsoft/Associated Press toolkit) – Paragraph 6, Paragraph 9
- [5] (Poynter 2024 initiative) – Paragraph 6
- [6] (Poynter Impact Report March 2025) – Paragraph 4
- [7] (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Paragraph 8
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative is recent, published on December 11, 2025, with no evidence of prior publication or recycled content. The article includes updated data and references to recent events, indicating a high freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
10
Notes:
The direct quotes from individuals such as Edward Marlowe and Beth Mann appear to be original, with no identical matches found in earlier material. This suggests potentially original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from WKMS, a reputable NPR member station in Kentucky, enhancing its credibility. The article also references established organisations like the Poynter Institute and Associated Press, further supporting its reliability.
Plausability check
Score:
10
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with known developments in the integration of AI in journalism. The article provides specific details, such as the involvement of local newsrooms and the Poynter Institute’s initiatives, which are consistent with other reputable sources.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is recent, original, and originates from a reputable source. The claims made are plausible and supported by specific details, indicating a high level of credibility.
