By Premalatha Jayaraman

Artificial intelligence is changing how newsrooms gather, produce and deliver news. From transcribing interviews in seconds to translating stories across languages, AI offers journalists new ways to work more efficiently. But as its use expands, a critical question remains: can news organisations embrace the technology without compromising the accuracy, independence and public trust that underpin journalism?

For newsrooms across the Asia-Pacific, the answer will depend less on how quickly they adopt AI than on how responsibly they use it.

The 2025 State of Asian Newsrooms report, published by the World Association of News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) in September 2026, provides a timely indication of the opportunities and concerns surrounding AI adoption. Based on a survey of 42 media professionals across 12 markets, conducted in collaboration with Nanyang Technological University’s Centre for Information Integrity and the Internet (IN-cube), the report reveals a growing willingness to use AI alongside persistent doubts about the quality of its output.

Two-thirds of respondents said journalists in their organisations were permitted to use generative AI in story production, a slight increase from 2024. Proofreading and grammar correction, and transcription, were the most common applications, each cited by 52.4% of respondents. Background research followed at 50%, translation at 47.6% and summarisation at 42.9%. Only 11.9% reported using generative AI to produce written content.

These findings suggest that AI is currently more of a newsroom assistant than a replacement for journalists. That is a sensible starting point. Technology should help journalists work more effectively, not diminish the human judgement required to determine what is newsworthy, verify facts and hold those in power accountable.

Yet the report also highlights a contradiction that news organisations cannot afford to ignore. While 77.5% of respondents agreed that AI helps journalists and 75% said it could perform some tasks more efficiently, 65% did not trust the quality of its output.

This gap between usefulness and trust should shape how newsrooms approach AI. Saving time is valuable, but speed means little if the resulting content contains factual errors, misrepresents a source or misleads an audience.

Efficiency is valuable, but accuracy is non-negotiable

For broadcasters and regional news networks, AI-assisted transcription and translation could offer considerable benefits. In a region shaped by linguistic and cultural diversity, these tools can help journalists process interviews, prepare subtitles and make stories accessible to audiences beyond their home markets.

Smaller broadcasters could also use AI to summarise lengthy documents, organise information and adapt content for different digital platforms. If implemented carefully, these capabilities could free up time and resources for field reporting, investigations and public-interest journalism.

However, the benefits should not be confused with editorial reliability.

AI-generated summaries can omit crucial details, while translation tools may struggle with local expressions, cultural context and politically sensitive language. A mistranslated statement or an inaccurate summary could change the meaning of a story, particularly when reporting on conflict, elections, public policy or social tensions.

The consequences extend beyond individual mistakes. Repeated errors can weaken an organisation’s credibility and undermine audiences’ confidence in its reporting.

For this reason, AI-assisted content must remain subject to human verification. Journalists should check information against original sources, confirm names and figures, and ensure that translations preserve the meaning and context of the original material. Editors must retain responsibility for the final published product.

The principle should be straightforward: AI can assist the reporting process, but it must not become a substitute for editorial judgement.

Newsrooms need rules, not just tools

The challenge is not simply whether journalists have access to AI. It is whether their organisations have established clear rules governing its use.

The WAN-IFRA survey found that 57.5% of respondents said their organisations had ethical guidelines for AI use, while 25% said they did not and 17.5% were unsure whether such guidelines existed.

These findings point to a governance gap. Allowing staff to experiment with AI without explaining acceptable uses, verification requirements and accountability can leave journalists uncertain about their responsibilities.

Every newsroom should establish practical policies that specify which tasks may be supported by AI, what information must be independently verified and who is accountable for errors. Such policies should also address copyright, data privacy, cybersecurity and the risks of entering confidential material into external AI systems.

Transparency deserves equal attention. When AI plays a significant role in generating or altering published material, news organisations should consider when disclosure is appropriate. This is particularly important for synthetic images, audio and video, which can make fabricated events or statements appear authentic.

Disclosure alone, however, is not enough. Audiences need confidence that news organisations have verified the material they publish and will correct mistakes when they occur.

Trust is built through consistent editorial practice, not through technology labels or promises.

AI adoption must not come at the expense of journalists

Another important consideration is the effect of AI on newsroom employment and professional development.

Automation may reduce the time required for some routine tasks, but it can also create uncertainty about future roles and the value placed on journalistic skills. News organisations should not assume that introducing AI automatically produces better journalism or sustainable cost savings.

Research from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism provides a broader perspective on the pressures facing news organisations. Its Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends and Predictions 2026 report surveyed 280 news leaders across 51 countries and territories, examining technological change alongside challenges involving audience behaviour and the sustainability of news businesses.

The wider lesson is that technology adoption must be accompanied by investment in people. Journalists need training not only in how to operate AI tools, but also in how to identify errors, evaluate outputs, protect sensitive information and understand the limitations of automated systems.

For smaller broadcasters across the Asia-Pacific, this may be particularly challenging. Financial and technical constraints can limit access to training and specialist expertise.

Regional media associations and public service broadcasters therefore have an opportunity to support their peers through shared training programmes, practical guidelines and exchanges of experience. Collaboration could help smaller newsrooms adopt useful tools without having to navigate every risk independently.

The objective should be to strengthen journalistic capabilities, not simply to produce more content with fewer resources.

The Asia-Pacific needs a responsible approach

The region’s diversity makes responsible AI adoption especially important. Tools that work well in widely used languages may perform less reliably in smaller languages or contexts where high-quality training data is limited. Cultural nuances and local knowledge may also be difficult for automated systems to capture.

News organisations should therefore assess AI tools according to their actual performance in the languages and communities they serve, rather than assuming that a tool’s success elsewhere guarantees similar results locally.

Further research is also needed. The WAN-IFRA survey, based on 42 media professionals across 12 markets, offers a useful snapshot but cannot represent every newsroom in the Asia-Pacific. Broader studies involving public service broadcasters, commercial media, smaller organisations and journalists across more countries would help clarify how AI adoption, training and governance differ across the region.

Nevertheless, the current findings provide a clear reason for newsrooms to act. Responsible AI use should be treated as an editorial priority, rather than merely a technology or efficiency project.

Journalism must remain a human responsibility

AI presents genuine opportunities to improve newsroom workflows, overcome language barriers and expand access to reporting. Rejecting these tools outright could mean missing valuable opportunities to strengthen journalism.

But adopting them without sufficient safeguards could create risks that outweigh the gains.

The way forward is neither uncritical enthusiasm nor blanket rejection. It is a deliberate approach built on human oversight, transparent practices, clear accountability and continuous training.

For newsrooms across the Asia-Pacific, the real measure of AI’s success should not be how many stories can be produced in less time. It should be whether the technology helps journalists deliver more accurate, relevant and trustworthy reporting to the public.

AI can make journalism faster. Ensuring that it remains fair, independent and credible is still a responsibility that belongs to people.