The New York Times has severed ties with freelance book critic Alex Preston after he admitted to using artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in writing a review, raising fresh questions about the role of AI in journalism and the standards of originality expected of professional critics. The incident, first reported by The Guardian, underscores the growing challenges news organizations face in detecting and addressing the use of AI-generated content.
Preston’s review of Jean-Baptiste Andrea’s novel, Watching Over Her, published online in January and in print the following month, drew scrutiny when a reader noticed significant overlap with a review of the same book published in August 2025 by Christobel Kent in The Guardian. The similarities extended beyond broad themes to specific phrasing and descriptive language, prompting an internal investigation by The New York Times.
The newspaper subsequently appended an editor’s note to Preston’s review on March 30, detailing the findings. The note stated that Preston “used an AI tool that incorporated material from the Guardian review into his draft, which he failed to identify and remove.” The Times deemed this a clear violation of its editorial standards, specifically regarding attribution and original work. This incident arrives as newsrooms worldwide grapple with establishing clear policies around AI use, balancing potential efficiencies with maintaining journalistic integrity.
AI’s Role in the Review Process
According to the editor’s note, Preston had not used AI in previous reviews for The New York Times, and an examination of those earlier pieces revealed no similar issues. However, the incident has prompted a wider conversation within the industry about the potential for AI to be used – and misused – in the review process. The ease with which AI tools can generate text raises concerns about the potential for plagiarism, the erosion of critical thinking, and the devaluation of original analysis. The question of whether and how to disclose AI assistance in journalistic work is now a central debate.
The specific overlap identified involved descriptions of characters and the overall conclusions drawn from Andrea’s novel. For example, both reviews described a character named Stefano as “lazy Machiavellian,” and both offered strikingly similar summaries of the book’s themes. The Guardian’s review characterized the novel as “most significantly a song of love to a country of contradictions, battered, war-torn, divided, misguided and miraculous: an Italy where life is costume and the performance of art, and where circuses spring up on wasteland.” The New York Times review echoed this sentiment, stating the characters “populate what is ultimately a love song to a country of contradictions: battered, divided, misguided and miraculous. This is an Italy where life is performance, where circuses rise on wasteland.”
Preston’s Admission and The Times’ Response
Preston, a six-time author, reportedly took responsibility for his actions, issuing an apology to The New York Times and to Christobel Kent and The Guardian. In a statement to The Guardian, he explained, “I made a serious mistake in using an AI tool on a draft review I had written, and I failed to identify and remove overlapping language from another review that the AI dropped in.” He expressed embarrassment and remorse for his lapse in judgment. The New York Times confirmed that Preston would no longer be contributing reviews to the publication.
The decision to terminate Preston’s freelance contract signals a firm stance by The Times on the issue of AI-assisted content. The newspaper has not yet released detailed guidelines regarding AI use for its contributors, but this incident suggests a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism or the submission of work that lacks demonstrable originality. The incident also highlights the challenges of detecting AI-generated content, even with careful editorial oversight.
The Broader Implications for Journalism
This case isn’t isolated. News organizations are increasingly experimenting with AI tools for tasks like transcription, data analysis, and even generating basic news reports. However, the use of AI in more subjective areas, such as criticism and analysis, presents unique ethical and professional challenges. The potential for AI to homogenize critical voices and undermine the value of human expertise is a growing concern. The debate extends to questions of copyright and intellectual property, as AI models are often trained on vast datasets of copyrighted material.
The incident also raises questions about the future of freelance journalism. As news organizations increasingly rely on freelance contributors, ensuring adherence to editorial standards and detecting AI-assisted content will become more complex. The need for robust verification processes and clear guidelines for AI use is paramount. The rise of AI-powered writing tools also necessitates a renewed focus on media literacy, both among journalists and the public, to critically evaluate the sources and authenticity of information.
What’s Next for AI and Book Criticism
The New York Times has not indicated whether it will conduct a broader review of previously published work for potential AI-generated content. However, the incident is likely to prompt a more thorough examination of its editorial processes and the development of clearer policies regarding AI use. Other news organizations are also expected to reassess their own guidelines in light of this case. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) has not yet issued a formal statement on the use of AI in journalism, but the organization is actively monitoring the evolving landscape and considering potential ethical guidelines.
The next step for many publications will be to develop and implement tools and strategies for detecting AI-generated content. While current AI detection tools are not foolproof, they are rapidly improving. The ongoing development of these tools, coupled with a renewed emphasis on editorial rigor, will be crucial in maintaining the integrity of journalism in the age of AI. The industry will also be watching for further developments in legal frameworks surrounding AI-generated content and copyright law.
This situation serves as a stark reminder of the need for transparency and accountability in the use of AI in journalism. As AI technology continues to evolve, news organizations must prioritize ethical considerations and maintain a commitment to original, high-quality reporting. The future of informed public discourse depends on it.
What are your thoughts on the use of AI in journalism? Share your perspective in the comments below, and please share this article with your network.
