Recently the New York Times was alerted by a reader that one of its book reviews bore striking similarities to another review in The Guardian. When the Times investigated the matter, the reviewer—established author and journalist Alex Preston—said he had used AI as part of his process. As a result, the Times severed its relationship with Preston. (Preston says he did not use AI for his other published works.)
Notice the evolution of AI use: In May 2025, freelancers were using AI to compose reading lists that included fake books for advertising supplements. This spring, freelancers are using AI to help craft reviews that get published in the New York Times.
I do wonder if the New York Times and other media outlets will feel it necessary to at least use plagiarism detection to catch anything as egregious as what you can find in Preston’s piece. Just compare his penultimate paragraph with the final paragraph of the Guardian’s review.
In an email exchange with a colleague, Preston elaborated on exactly what happened, and the upshot is that he used AI to “help expand and smooth [the review], with instructions about US spelling and house style at the NYT, which I always get wrong …” He also says he was “rushed” and that it’s a case of “someone naively and clumsily using a tool they didn’t understand.”
I find it interesting that in a few short weeks, two writers have essentially blamed AI editing for their problems. I can offer this practical tip for anyone using AI as part of the editing process (at least as of today): Never use it to expand your work. Only use it to condense.
It could be relevant in this case that The Guardian has signed a licensing deal with OpenAI, but even so, it’s not typical for AI tools to regurgitate—that’s considered a bug, not a feature. At least one person in the comments believes Preston isn’t being entirely honest about his use, since there are in fact guardrails put in place by the AI companies against this sort of thing. Whatever the case, there was certainly a very small pool of criticism available for this book if you’re asking an AI to “expand” your review of it, so it does heighten the risk of things going wrong.
Meanwhile, some journalists and media outlets are being up front and transparent about AI use: One Fortune editor says he’s written hundreds of pieces using AI and that AI-assisted stories have accounted for nearly 20 percent of Fortune’s web traffic. Fortune says AI-assisted stories have helped drive subscribers. Learn more in the Wall Street Journal (gift link).
Jane Friedman has spent her entire career working in the publishing industry, with a focus on business reporting and author education. Established in 2015, her newsletter The Bottom Line provides nuanced market intelligence to thousands of authors and industry professionals; in 2023, she was named Publishing Commentator of the Year by Digital Book World.
Jane’s expertise regularly features in major media outlets such as The New York Times, The Atlantic, NPR, The Today Show, Wired, The Guardian, Fox News, and BBC. Her book, The Business of Being a Writer, Second Edition (The University of Chicago Press), is used as a classroom text by many writing and publishing degree programs. She reaches thousands through speaking engagements and workshops at diverse venues worldwide, including NYU’s Advanced Publishing Institute, Frankfurt Book Fair, and numerous MFA programs.
