Today’s world is a rapidly evolving hub for technology, where seeing may no longer mean believing. In a place where originality and creativity are applauded, what could be considered a “perfect” shot may just be the outcome of a well-thought-out prompt given to an ever-complex generative AI program. The continuous use of AI within journalism is starting to blur the line between inspiration and deception. From the programs being used to publish deepfakes of Nicolás Maduro, to people now accusing those such as Kamala Harris of AI use when unwarranted, it starts to raise the question of whether journalists around the world are being loyal to their ethics, or are they starting to stretch the truth a little?

          The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) has established on its website a clear set of ethics that they follow when photographing. One line on their Code of Ethics reads the following: “… Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.” While this doesn’t directly correlate to the usage of AI in particular, it can be interpreted as not using technology to aid in image creation for journalists. The New York Times posted its Handbook for Ethical Journalism, which states under “Integrity of Images,” “Any published images that readers or viewers will understand as depictions of real events or situations must be genuine in every way.” Additionally, under their “Artificial Intelligence Tools” section, they state that if A.I. is used, there must be someone overseeing its work, and the usage should be disclosed clearly and explained thoroughly. Every news outlet has a code of ethics that journalists are expected to follow as part of their contract when they arrive at the workplace. Disclosing information, such as the use of artificial intelligence,e is an important factor in getting an audience to trust what is being told. When the code is broken or a journalist publishes something without oversight, it can lead to serious consequences and discussion about ethics. Of course, there have been instances where a journalist or a group of journalists unwillingly go against their own code of ethics. A Pakistani newspaper titled Dawn recently got themselves in hot water for publishing an article with the ending prompt being a follow-up question from the A.I. program, ultimately giving away the fact that the technology was used to either write or oversee and edit the article. The paper issued an apology, but not after a knock threw them down the credibility ladder after people shared their opinions on the whole situation. When a newspaper doesn’t disclose violations of their ethics, or they make a mistake, as Dawn did, but without acknowledgment, it shows the paper’s ignorance towards their audience. It’s something to look out for, especially in the digital age, if outlets are following and effectively going about their business with the proper values and motivation to deliver accurate and original news.

          A.I. photography, especially in journalism, is a forever-growing issue; however, there are times when A.I. photos can be useful in reporting if approached correctly, and harmful at the same time. Only recently, in January of 2026, deepfakes of Nicolás Maduro, the ousted president of Venezuela, were shared across social media. The images were depicting the man in handcuffs by the U.S. military or surrounded by drug officers. This would be a time where A.I. images are harmful to society. Photos such as these, where it targets an individual or group of people, can be misleading and spread information that results in unnecessary negativity. Another example of how A.I. can be harmful when done improperly and for the wrong reasons was when, during the 2024 presidential election, images of President Trump’s “arrest” circulated in online communities. These images turned out to be fake, but not until many people had made up their minds after seeing one photo, not even thinking to double-take at the signs of an A.I. slip. Now, while these photos were created knowingly, motivated to place a bad name on someone’s reputation, there are definitely instances where A.I. can be used harmlessly and as a placeholder, exempt from the motivation of hate. In some cases, A.I. can be beneficial, say, an article on soft news needs a logo or depiction of the topic, and Creative Commons isn’t working well enough. A.I. can be a tool to help amplify and improve reporting without being destructive or lowering the levels of originality. The Daily Telegraph frequently will incorporate A.I. images into its articles, not because of deception, but instead for visual illustration. If the article is a soft news report, or it isn’t valued around a difficult subject, A.I. can be a good way to visualize an idea the exact way it is desired by the reporter. There are pros and cons towards the use of these programs; the times it becomes an issue and a violation of ethics is when it would be used to harm others, or it is being used in an undisclosed.

          While journalists are required to be truthful when reporting, it’s no secret that photography has become a creative field where people must be mindful of what reality is and what may not be the most authentic. Reporters can’t always be relied on for the truth, so it needs to be understood when something is genuine and when it should be questioned. Artificial intelligence is changing all the time. The programs are being updated constantly, and people are tirelessly working to make the technology answer the prompts more accurately. When A.I. was starting to grow in the digital world, it was easy to detect whether a picture was authentic or not. Sophie Nightingale, a psychologist interviewed by Scientific American, states, “‘Basically, we’re at the point where it’s so realistic that people can’t reliably perceive the difference between those synthetic faces and actual, real faces…” The lengths people need to go to discover whether an image is real or not are getting extensive; it can no longer be observed by the naked eye. As of now, viewers have to be on the lookout constantly. It is unrealistic to expect every journalist of every paper to be truthful and loyal to their contracts, and deception and gullibility are very dangerous games. When information isn’t being disclosed as inauthentic or it can be inaccurate due to the unoriginality, it can unintentionally sway bias and readers’ opinions.

          A.I. is essentially a tool for writers and artists, but when used improperly, it can be harmful. Journalists are expected to stay true to their ethics and follow guidelines when it comes to utilizing these applications. Reporters must know how to acknowledge when mistakes are made and what to do when battling with inauthenticity. In the end, it is up to the readers to decide whether they decide to believe what they see on their screens and become educated on how to detect when people aren’t being authentic to their audiences.