Imagine a world where the news you read isn’t written by journalists but by machines—and you can’t even tell the difference. That’s the reality we’re hurtling toward, and it’s raising some seriously uncomfortable questions. A prominent think tank is now sounding the alarm, arguing that AI-generated news should come with ‘nutrition labels’ to reveal its sources, and that tech giants should pay publishers for the content they’re using to train their algorithms. But here’s where it gets controversial: should AI companies be allowed to profit from journalism without playing by the same rules as everyone else? The Guardian dives into this debate, exploring how newsrooms are grappling with AI’s uncertainties and opportunities (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/mar/22/we-need-to-set-the-terms-or-were-all-screwed-how-newsrooms-are-tackling-ais-uncertainties-and-opportunities).
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) warns that AI firms are becoming the new gatekeepers of the internet, and without intervention, the future of journalism could be at stake. They propose standardized labels for AI-generated news, showing exactly what data—from peer-reviewed studies to articles from reputable news outlets—was used to craft those stories. But that’s not all. They’re also pushing for a licensing system in the UK that would force tech companies to negotiate with publishers for the right to use their content. And this is the part most people miss: without such measures, smaller and local news providers risk being shut out entirely, as AI deals favor the big players.
‘If AI companies are going to profit from journalism and shape public opinion, they must pay fairly and operate under rules that protect plurality, trust, and the future of independent journalism,’ says Roa Powell, senior research fellow at IPPR and co-author of the report. The think tank suggests starting with the UK’s competition regulator using its new powers over Google. This week, the Competition and Markets Authority proposed giving publishers the ability to opt out of Google’s AI overviews (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/28/uk-media-groups-should-be-allowed-opt-out-of-google-ai-overviews-cma-proposals), a move that could pave the way for collective licensing deals.
Google’s AI overviews already reach 2 billion users monthly, and roughly a quarter of people now rely on AI for information, according to the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. But here’s the kicker: IPPR argues that copyright law should remain unchanged to ensure a licensing market can grow, while the government should support new business models for news that aren’t dependent on tech giants. This includes backing the BBC and local news providers, who are often the backbone of community journalism.
‘With the right policies, the government can shape this market so that UK news organizations adapt to the AI age, and AI companies improve their products by relying on trusted sources,’ the report states. To test these claims, IPPR analyzed four AI tools—ChatGPT (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/chatgpt), Google AI overviews, Google Gemini, and Perplexity—by inputting 100 news-related queries and examining over 2,500 links generated by their responses.
The results were eye-opening. ChatGPT and Gemini avoided using BBC journalism, as the broadcaster has blocked the bots they rely on. Meanwhile, Google’s overviews and Perplexity used BBC content despite the broadcaster’s objections. Even more striking, The Guardian—which has a licensing deal with OpenAI (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/openai)—appeared as a source in nearly six out of 10 responses, while outlets like The Telegraph and GB News were cited in fewer than 4% of answers. The Financial Times, another OpenAI licensee, also featured prominently.
Google’s AI summaries at the top of search results have already slashed click-through traffic for publishers, hitting their revenues hard. Many users read the summary and move on, never clicking through to the original article. This raises a critical question: how do financial relationships between AI companies and news providers influence the content we see? If licensed publications dominate AI answers, smaller outlets could be left in the dust.
While licensing deals might offset some lost advertising revenue, they won’t sustain a healthy news ecosystem, IPPR warns. News organizations could become overly reliant on tech giants, and that income could vanish if copyright protections weaken. The think tank calls for public funding to create new business models for investigative and local journalism, whose survival is threatened by AI’s rise, and to help the BBC ‘innovate with AI.’
Here’s the big question: As AI reshapes the news landscape, who gets to decide what’s fair? Should tech companies be forced to share their profits with publishers, or is this just the cost of innovation? And what does this mean for the future of journalism—especially for smaller, independent voices? Let’s debate this in the comments. What’s your take?
