Deconstruction
Can the technology that will likely drive us deeper into filter bubbles help us break out of them?
The promise of Generative AI-intermediated news that we’ll get more personalized, more useful, more targeted information — and that at its best, it’ll better serve communities that have historically been left out of legacy media’s one-size-fits-all model. The peril of Generative AI-intermediated news is that we’ll all fall deeper into personal rabbit holes with fewer shared facts and perspectives — and that at its worst, only get news that plays to our biases. (And that’s not even counting misinformation and other woes.)
On the other hand, that world is likely coming, whether we like it or not; just look at how much we already use Google’s AI-generated news summaries, or tools like Perplexity.
So how can we nudge this coming reality in a better direction? I have thoughts.
First, a step back. There are some unquestionably good things about AI summaries — at least from a user point of view. If you’re tracking a fast-moving event, you don’t have time to read eight versions of the same story, looking for some fresh news or insight the other seven don’t have — especially if you, like me, don’t want to entrust my entire news diet to just one organization.
(And yes, before you remind me: Of course there are issues about copyright, business models, nuance and hallucinations. But we need to figure out how to play in this space as much as we need to discuss issues with this space.)
For example, I asked Google about the indictment of James Comey last Thursday, and here’s what it gave me:
Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury on September 25, 2025, on charges of making false statements and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The indictment was issued in the Eastern District of Virginia, and Comey is scheduled to be arraigned on October 9.
Which is fine, as far as it goes. But what if I want more? And more importantly, what if I want to know what the various news sources I trust (or care about, or hate) are reporting about this, and how they’re framing it?
So I built a bot.
I dropped in stories from the Guardian, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Fox News on the Comey indictment, and had it tell me: a. what facts they all agreed on; b. what unique facts each one might have; and c. how each organization framed the story.
Here’s what I got, leveraging Gen AI’s ability to parse language:
Consensus reporting
Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted Thursday on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstruction of a congressional proceeding, related to his 2020 testimony about the Russia investigation. The charges came after Trump publicly demanded prosecution and replaced the U.S. attorney who found insufficient evidence with loyalist Lindsey Halligan. Comey declared
Information unique to each outlet
The Guardian: Comey’s son-in-law Troy Edwards resigned from his federal prosecutor job minutes after the indictment, citing his oath to the Constitution; Trump called Comey a ‘dirty cop’ in Friday morning Truth Social posts
The New York Times: Grand jury rejected a third charge prosecutors sought against Comey; judge noted the unusual late hour of the proceedings saying ‘this has never happened before’ and ‘we’ve never met this late’
The Wall Street Journal: The statute of limitations was set to expire next week, forcing prosecutors to race for the indictment; Halligan was the only prosecutor to sign the indictment, which is unusual
Fox News: FBI Director Kash Patel promised ‘full accountability’ and said the investigation into ‘Russiagate hoax’ continues; former CIA Director John Brennan is also under criminal investigation
Perspectives
The Guardian: Frames this as Trump’s dangerous weaponization of the justice system for political retribution against his enemies
The New York Times: Emphasizes the unprecedented nature of prosecuting a former FBI director and the procedural violations involved
The Wall Street Journal: Focuses on the timeline pressure and Trump’s direct intervention in forcing the prosecution despite weak evidence
Fox News: Presents this as legitimate accountability for past corruption during the Russia investigation
It’s not bad. In fact, actually quite good. (And especially not bad for something I built just before lunch on Sunday.)
Sure, it’s not as good as if I read through every story carefully and took meticulous notes — or paid a smart intern to do that for me. But it’s a very efficient way to digest a lot of information quickly while providing both a spread of information and a spread of perspectives.
I may or may not agree with any of those perspectives, but the cognitive load on me seeing them is pretty low — especially compared to the alternative of trying to cajole readers into delving into multiple stories, especially from outlets they may detest.
Imagine, if instead of the current default summary that Google gave us, this was the default summary, tuned to news organizations that you — say — had subscriptions to, or I wanted to have perspectives of, or, as with Google now, were ranked high in its algorithm. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s arguably better than what we have now, where everything is mashed together. And yes, the question of which sites and sources are selected is critical — but at least the choices are visible. (And there may even be some possible business models that could arise out of this.)
And besides, I literally put two hours into building this. Imagine if someone who actually knew what they were doing put some elbow grease into this.
Some caveats: If people started getting most of their news from AI-generated summaries, that would devastate current news business models (even more than they’re already devastated.) This bot (technically, a Claude Artifact) doesn’t address that issue — but that’s a development that’s already in motion, and not having this doesn’t make that trend go away. We need to address that separately, and I do plan to in later posts. And more importantly: Who chooses what sources to analyze and compare? What’s to stop people from just picking the news organizations that reflect their point of view, or an algorithm from preferring one version of the news? Nothing — but again, that’s already happening, and there’s a meta-question about how we can design systems (like this one) to nudge people to see multiple perspectives. At least this is a lower lift than trying to force you to read through a site you detest.
My broader point is: We are very likely going to be moving into a world where news is going to be aggregated and presented to us via AI systems, whether we like it or not. We can all wish that things stayed exactly the same as they are now (or 20 years ago), but that world was far from perfect, too. And so as much as we should be flagging the issues that come from such a world, we should be putting an equal — or more — effort into thinking about how to make that world a better place for news and information in the public interest.
Next week (or post, whichever comes later), I’ll show another tool I’ve built that tries to do something similar, both for news literacy and for pre-publication editing help.
Meanwhile, here’s another example of what the bot spit out on the ordering of troops to Portland this weekend, from stories in Fox News, the BBC, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Consensus reporting
President Trump ordered troops to Portland, Oregon, to protect ICE facilities from ongoing protests, authorizing use of ‘full force’ if necessary. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson opposed the deployment, saying there was no security threat. Protesters have been demonstrating outside an ICE facility since June, leading to clashes with federal agents. — Fox News, BBC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal
Information unique to each outlet
Fox News: Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote to Portland Mayor Keith Wilson in August demanding compliance with federal immigration law; city attorney responded that Portland follows applicable laws
BBC: A federal judge ruled Trump’s National Guard deployment in Los Angeles was illegal and violated the Posse Comitatus Act; 65% of people detained by ICE had no criminal convictions according to Cato Institute
The New York Times: Governor Kotek spoke directly with Trump and Secretary Noem on Saturday, telling them to stay out; she learned of the deployment through social media; protesters rarely number more than two dozen
The Wall Street Journal: Major Cities Chiefs Association report showed 51% drop in Portland homicides in first half of 2025; Trump has pulled back from sending troops to Chicago despite previous threats
Perspectives
Fox News: Frames the story as necessary federal action to protect ICE facilities from ‘domestic terrorists’ and violent ‘Antifa’ attacks in a ‘war ravaged’ sanctuary city
BBC: Presents it as an escalation of Trump’s military deployments amid immigration crackdown, emphasizing Democratic opposition and legal questions about authority
The New York Times: Emphasizes local officials’ bewilderment at Trump’s ‘fixation’ with Portland and portrays the protests as small-scale with federal descriptions contradicting local accounts
The Wall Street Journal: Focuses on the legal and constitutional implications of expanding domestic military use, noting the Posse Comitatus Act limitations and recent court rulings