Here’s a startling fact: Australian journalism is being pushed to the margins in the era of AI-generated news summaries, and it’s happening right under our noses. But here’s where it gets controversial—research from the University of Sydney reveals that Microsoft’s Copilot overwhelmingly favors U.S. and European media, leaving Australian voices largely invisible. And this is the part most people miss: only about one-fifth of Copilot’s news responses include links to Australian sources, according to Dr. Timothy Koskie, a researcher at the Centre for AI, Trust and Governance.
In his eye-opening paper, Invisible Journalists and Dominant Algorithms, Koskie warns that this trend could spell disaster for local journalism. He argues that the growing reliance on these tools will likely expand news deserts, silence independent voices, and weaken democratic discourse. His solution? Urgent policy interventions, like the news media bargaining code, to ensure journalism doesn’t just survive but thrives.
Here’s why this matters: AI-generated news summaries are now a go-to for millions, as Reuters Institute surveys confirm. But when users rely solely on these summaries without visiting the original news sites, they inadvertently starve local outlets of traffic and revenue—a double blow to Australian media’s financial stability.
Koskie’s analysis of 434 AI-generated summaries uncovered a troubling pattern: even when users are based in Australia, non-Australian sources like CNN, BBC, and ABC America dominate. Worse, when Australian sources do appear, they’re often major players like Nine or the ABC, with smaller, independent outlets left out in the cold. Boldly put, local journalists are being erased from the narrative, as Koskie told Guardian Australia.
This isn’t just a technical glitch—it’s a symptom of deeper issues. As Koskie puts it, AI is ‘reproducing crises we didn’t properly address before,’ like concentrated media ownership and the decline of regional journalism. His interest in Copilot was sparked when it installed itself on his system in 2023, offering globally focused news prompts like ‘major health updates this week’ or ‘top global news stories today.’ Curious, he followed the prompts—only to find that most answers linked to U.S. sites, with three out of seven prompts excluding Australian sources entirely.
Even when Australia was mentioned, it was rarely specific—think ‘Australia’ instead of ‘Ballarat’ or ‘the Kimberley.’ Here’s the kicker: international studies show people trust local news the most. Yet, these AI platforms are feeding users content from distant sources, further eroding trust in media. As Koskie notes, ‘Trust is also in people, and the people are invisible.’
The Reuters Institute predicts that generative AI could ‘upend the news industry’ by offering efficient but impersonal ways to access information. Meanwhile, search engines are morphing into AI-driven answer engines, raising fears that publishers’ referral traffic could vanish, threatening their business models.
Koskie’s solution? Expand policies like the news media bargaining code to include AI tools and incentivize tech companies to prioritize geographical relevance in their designs. But here’s the controversial question: Are we willing to let algorithms decide what news we see, or will we demand tools that amplify local voices?
His paper warns that if left unchecked, AI tools like Copilot risk deepening Australia’s media pluralism crisis rather than solving it. So, what do you think? Is AI a threat to local journalism, or can it be part of the solution? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
