AI in PR: Why Fake Expertise Is Damaging Trust in the Media
Earlier this week, I spoke to a senior journalist about AI in PR.
Her view was clear: journalists hate lazy AI-generated PR.
Not because journalists are anti-technology. Not because they do not understand that AI can be useful. But because, in the wrong hands, AI is becoming a threat to the things journalism depends on most: trust, accuracy, real expertise, human judgement and credible sources.
She also told me her employer is putting more measures in place to protect against AI-generated pitches and commentary.
That should make every brand, founder, PR agency, SEO agency and marketing team pay attention.
Because while many brands and agencies are excited about AI, journalists are often seeing the worst of it: generic pitches, fake expertise, bland comments, manufactured insight and inboxes full of content that sounds polished but says very little.
AI can be useful.
But if it replaces real thinking, real expertise and real writing, it does not make PR better.
It makes PR less trustworthy.
Journalists Are Right to Be Worried About AI
Journalists are not wrong to be protective.
The media has a responsibility to publish credible content. Readers need to be able to trust that the experts quoted in articles are real, qualified and relevant.
When AI is used to fake expertise, manufacture quotes or flood journalists with low-quality responses, it does not just waste a journalist’s time.
It chips away at trust in the media.
That matters.
PR has always relied on a relationship between journalists, PRs, brands and experts. Done properly, that relationship can be genuinely useful. A PR professional helps connect a journalist with a credible source, useful information, a strong story or an expert who can explain something clearly.
Everyone benefits.
The journalist gets helpful content.
The expert shares genuine knowledge.
The brand builds credibility.
The reader gets better information.
But that only works if the expertise is real.
AI misuse breaks that agreement.
PR Has Always Been Built on Trust
Good PR is a form of reciprocity.
Not in a transactional, cynical way. In a useful way.
PRs offer journalists credible content, expert insight, stories, products, research, commentary or access. Journalists decide whether that information is useful enough for their audience.
It is content for consideration.
Not content for guaranteed coverage.
Not fake authority for backlinks.
Not manufactured expertise for a quick media mention.
The whole thing depends on trust.
A journalist needs to trust that the person being pitched is real.
They need to trust that the credentials are accurate.
They need to trust that the quote has actually been approved.
They need to trust that the PR is not wasting their time.
They need to trust that the information will not embarrass them later.
When people use AI to dupe journalists, that trust is breached.
And it hurts everyone.
It hurts journalists because they have to work harder to verify sources.
It hurts readers because the quality of information is at risk.
It hurts real experts because journalists become more sceptical.
It hurts proper PR agencies because the inbox gets more hostile.
It hurts brands because one bad pitch can damage a reputation.
Where AI Pitching Crosses the Line
AI becomes a problem in PR when it stops supporting the process and starts replacing honesty.
There is a big difference between using AI to organise notes and using AI to manufacture expertise.
The line is crossed when people use AI to create:
fake expert comments
fake expert identities
fake LinkedIn profiles
AI-generated headshots
manufactured credentials
generic quotes that were never properly approved
mass responses to journalist requests
pretend thought leadership
backlink-first pitches with no editorial value
This is not harmless efficiency.
It is an attempt to make something look more credible than it is.
And journalists are right to protect themselves from it.
If a journalist quotes an expert who later turns out to be fake, exaggerated or AI-manufactured, the risk sits with the journalist and the publication too. Their name is on the article. Their credibility is involved.
That is why lazy AI-generated PR is such a serious problem.
It is not just bad pitching.
It is an assault on trust.
Some SEO-Led “PR” Has Made This Worse
This is where some SEO agencies and non-PR providers have taken the problem to another level.
Not all SEO agencies, of course. There are very good SEO teams who understand the difference between earned media, digital PR, content marketing and link building.
But there is a growing corner of the market where “PR” is treated almost entirely as a backlink tactic.
The journalist becomes a route to a link.
The expert becomes a tool.
The quote becomes a box to tick.
The article becomes an SEO asset.
The relationship becomes irrelevant.
That is not proper PR.
It is link building dressed up as media relations.
And AI has made it easier to scale.
If someone sees journalists only as backlink opportunities, they may not care enough about whether the expert is genuinely credible, whether the comment is useful, whether the pitch is relevant, or whether the source is being represented honestly.
That is the danger.
PR should not be about tricking journalists into publishing something.
It should be about helping journalists access credible, useful, relevant information.
The Risk for Brands Is Bigger Than Being Ignored
Some brands may think the worst-case scenario is that an AI-generated pitch gets ignored.
It is not.
The real risks are much bigger.
A brand could be blacklisted by journalists.
A pitch could be shared publicly on social media.
A publication could call out poor practice.
A journalist could decide not to trust that brand again.
A media relationship could be damaged before it has even started.
Some brands have already been publicly criticised for poor PR behaviour.
And once that happens, the damage can be hard to undo.
PR is supposed to build credibility. If the way you pursue coverage makes your brand look dishonest, careless or fake, you are moving in the wrong direction.
A low-quality backlink is not worth damaging your reputation.
A quick quote is not worth losing journalist trust.
A media mention is not worth making your brand look like it does not understand credibility.
The Risk for Journalism Is Bigger Than a Bad Inbox
This is not only a PR industry issue.
It is a media trust issue.
Journalism already operates in a difficult environment. Newsrooms are stretched. Journalists are under pressure. Audiences are sceptical. Misinformation spreads quickly. Trust is fragile.
If journalists are flooded with AI-generated expertise, fake sources and manufactured comments, it becomes harder for them to do their jobs properly.
It becomes harder to find genuine experts.
It becomes harder to know who to trust.
It becomes harder to produce credible content quickly.
That should worry everyone.
The media has a responsibility to publish credible information. PRs have a responsibility to help, not exploit that process.
When PR is done properly, it supports journalism.
When it is abused, it makes journalism harder.
AI Is Not the Villain. Lazy Use of AI Is.
AI itself is not the villain.
Used carefully, it can be useful.
It can help with:
editing
idea exploration
checking possible angles
organising information
summarising background
improving clarity
Those are support tasks.
AI can help tidy thinking. It can help structure notes. It can help explore routes into a story. It can help make a messy document easier to work with.
But it should not replace the substance.
It should never replace expertise.
It should never invent quotes.
It should never create final expert commentary without real expert involvement.
It should never manufacture credibility.
It should never mass-produce journalist responses and pretend they are thoughtful media contributions.
That is the distinction.
AI can support experienced people doing proper PR.
It should not become the PR.
How Ethical Expert PR Actually Works
There is nothing wrong with PRs helping experts respond to journalists.
In fact, that is often how good expert PR works.
A journalist may be writing a piece and need a clear, quick comment from someone credible. The PR will identify the right expert, understand the request, suggest a possible angle, and sometimes prepare a first draft or outline based on the expert’s known views, previous input, credentials and area of expertise.
The expert then reviews it.
They can edit it.
They can approve it.
They can add detail.
They can reject it.
They can say, “That is not quite right.”
They can say, “I would phrase it differently.”
They can say, “I am not the right person for this.”
That is honest.
It means the response is PR-ready and well written, but still endorsed by the person whose name is attached to it.
Journalists may also interview experts directly, especially for more detailed pieces, broadcast opportunities, podcasts or sensitive topics.
That is how the relationship should work.
The PR helps shape and manage the opportunity.
The expert provides the expertise.
The journalist decides what is useful.
Journalists Can Spot AI Slop
Journalists may not always know exactly which tool has been used, but they can often spot lazy AI-generated content.
It usually has tells.
It is vague.
It is safe.
It is over-polished.
It has no real opinion.
It has no lived experience.
It says what everyone else says.
It lacks examples.
It avoids specifics.
It sounds like a summary of the internet, not a person with real knowledge.
That kind of content rarely helps a journalist.
A good expert comment should add something.
It should clarify a point.
Challenge an assumption.
Explain a trend.
Offer practical advice.
Bring experience.
Give a journalist a useful line.
Sound like it came from someone who actually knows the subject.
If a comment could have been written by anyone, it is probably not strong enough.
Why Real Experts Matter More Than Ever
In an AI-heavy media landscape, real experts matter more, not less.
Journalists need credible people they can trust.
They need to know:
Who is this person?
What do they know?
Why are they qualified to comment?
What can they speak about confidently?
Are they available?
Can they explain things clearly?
Can they respond quickly?
Will they stand behind what is being said?
That is why expert positioning matters.
It is not enough to say someone is an expert. The expertise needs to be clear, credible and easy for a journalist to understand.
This is also one of the reasons we created our Expert Directory.
We want journalists to be able to see who our experts are, what they can comment on, and why they are credible.
We vet the experts we work with. We build profiles around their knowledge, credentials, topics and media suitability. We want to make it easier for journalists to find real people with real expertise.
That is the opposite of manufacturing fake authority with AI.
What Brands Should Understand
Brands are understandably excited about AI.
It promises speed.
It promises lower costs.
It promises more output.
It makes PR feel easier.
But PR is not just content production.
PR is reputation work.
If your name, your founder, your spokesperson or your expert is attached to a comment, that comment matters. It reflects your judgement. It reflects your credibility. It reflects how seriously you take the media.
More is not always better.
More generic quotes do not make you more authoritative.
More automated pitches do not build journalist relationships.
More AI-generated content does not make you more credible.
More backlink-chasing does not make you more trusted.
The brands that win will be the ones that stay real.
They will use AI carefully, but they will not let it replace expertise, judgement or authenticity.
Our Approach to AI in PR
At No Strings Public Relations, we are not anti-AI.
But we are very clear about its place.
We do not use AI to manufacture expertise. We use it, carefully, to support experienced people doing proper PR.
That means AI may help with editing, organising information, exploring ideas, checking angles, summarising background or improving clarity.
But the thinking, writing, judgement and pitching still need people who understand PR, journalism and the client.
Our team includes PR professionals, writers and ex-journalists.
We know what it is like to be on the other side of the pitch. We know how frustrating bad PR can be. We know why journalists are becoming more protective.
That is why we care so much about credibility.
A pitch should be useful.
A comment should be real.
An expert should be genuine.
And the relationship with the journalist should be protected.
The Future of PR Is Not More Automated Content
The future of PR is not simply producing more content faster.
That is the trap.
The future of PR is better judgement.
Better sources.
Better expert positioning.
Better angles.
Better writing.
Better verification.
Better relationships.
Better understanding of what journalists actually need.
AI may make it easier to create noise.
But good PR has never been about noise.
It is about earning attention in a way that builds trust.
Real Expertise Still Wins
Journalists are right to protect themselves from lazy AI-generated PR.
They are right to be sceptical of fake experts, generic comments, AI headshots, manufactured credentials and mass-pitched nonsense.
They are right to care about credibility.
That is not bad news for good brands.
It is good news.
It means real experts, thoughtful PRs and credible brands will matter more.
The more artificial content floods the media, the more valuable real human expertise becomes.
AI can support the process.
But authenticity, judgement, strong writing and journalist-led PR are still what make media coverage worth earning.
If you want journalist-led PR built around real expertise, start with our short enquiry form.