Business
The invisible heist: How AI is stealing from newsrooms
Predictions about the end of journalism have emerged time and again. From the rise of the internet to the explosion of social media, each disruption seemed poised to bring the industry to its knees. Yet journalism survived. It adapted.
What it faces now, however, is a different kind of threat — not another medium, not another platform, but a system that consumes journalism’s value without acknowledgement or return.
This is not some distant future. It is already happening. And the consequences are reshaping how people receive and interpret information.
The architecture of disappearance
When someone searches for information about a recent event, they increasingly receive summaries directly from tools like Google’s AI Overview, without needing to visit the original reporting.
Data from Ahrefs, based on 300,000 keywords, shows that the presence of Google’s AI Overview reduces click-through rates to news websites by over a third. Even major outlets such as The New York Times have seen their share of organic search traffic fall from 44% to just over 36% in only three years.
This is not merely a shift in traffic patterns. Search engines, which once served as conduits guiding readers towards publishers, are becoming destinations themselves. They summarise content, keep users within their own platforms, and reduce the incentive to visit the source. The $80 billion SEO market — built on the value of ranking high in search results — is now facing an existential threat.
As a venture capital firm, a16z recently noted, we are witnessing the rise of Generative Engine Optimisation (GEO), where visibility means being included directly in the AI-generated answer, rather than ranking highly on a search results page. This fundamentally alters the logic of content strategy and the function of traditional search engines.
While search engines once monetised their role by placing ads alongside results, AI models rely on subscription-based systems that have no incentive to drive traffic back to original publishers. If your content does not directly enhance the model’s output, it may simply vanish from the information ecosystem.
Josh Miller, creator of the Arc browser and now working on Dia browser, argues that traditional browsers themselves are becoming obsolete. He suggests chat interfaces are already functioning like browsers: they search, read, generate, and respond.
So, the goal is not to replace web pages, but to create a hybrid model in which the browser and AI chat interface are seamlessly integrated. Instead of clicking through multiple sources, a user might simply ask Dia to “find me the latest news about renewable energy in Bangladesh and summarise the key policy changes”.
This suggests that the entire pipeline of content consumption is being rewritten from the ground up.
The economics of invisibility
This transformation strikes at the heart of how journalism has sustained itself in the digital age. The model was simple: produce high-quality content, draw readers to your site, and monetise that attention through advertising or subscriptions. AI-powered answer engines short-circuit this process.
As researchers at a16z highlight, a new kind of brand strategy is emerging — one that considers not only public perception but how content is perceived by AI systems. If your reporting does not improve the model’s output, you may disappear from public view entirely.
News Corp recently announced a $250 million licensing deal with OpenAI over five years, giving the AI company access to content from The Wall Street Journal and other properties. While this may appear to be a solution, such partnerships are rare and disproportionately favour large, well-established publishers.
For most media outlets — especially smaller, local organisations — the outlook is far more worrying. Their content is often scraped, processed and repackaged by AI systems without compensation, while the platforms that once delivered their audiences are now being replaced by AI interfaces that retain users within their own ecosystems.
The irony is clear: AI systems become smarter and more valuable by ingesting journalistic content, but their success threatens to dismantle the very financial foundations that enable journalism in the first place.
Responses and impacts
Some publishers have begun to fight back. A few have signed licensing agreements; others are blocking AI crawlers or exploring legal recourse. Some are experimenting with AI within their own platforms. AFP, for instance, has partnered with Mistral AI to give its conversational assistant, Le Chat, access to its news archive, aiming to provide timely and accurate responses rooted in verified reporting.
ProRata, a new startup, is working on a compensation model that tracks which sources contribute to an AI’s output and distributes payments accordingly. Other efforts attempt to preserve the connection between the reader and the reporter by embedding visible citations in AI-generated summaries.
Yet these remain isolated and early-stage responses. The dominant AI companies have little incentive to redesign systems that already serve them well.
This shift also has cultural and cognitive consequences.
When information is delivered in pre-synthesised formats, users may lose the habit of contextual or critical reading. While AI-generated responses are fast and convenient, they often flatten complex narratives, omit nuance or introduce subtle errors.
After the recent plane crash in Ahmedabad, for example, Google’s AI Overview incorrectly identified the aircraft as an Airbus when it was, in fact, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. This error appeared at the top of the search results — likely the only version most users would see. Under older models, people might have clicked through to articles that issued corrections. Now, the AI’s version becomes ‘the’ version.
What is next?
The path forward does not lie in rejecting AI altogether. That moment has passed. But there is an urgent need to design systems that acknowledge and support the sources of their information. AI must not replace but reinforce the relationship between journalism and the public.
Publishers need to act swiftly. They must learn from experimental models and adopt strategies that align with their own contexts. AI can assist in organising and distributing information, but the essential work of reporting, questioning, and verification must remain in human hands.
Audiences, too, must be equipped to understand what makes journalism essential. If information arrives fully summarised, readers may stop checking for context, sources or accuracy. Over time, this weakens the very habits that sustain public knowledge. Previous shifts — from print to digital — at least preserved a direct link between journalists and their readers. AI, however, risks severing that connection entirely.
This is not merely about the survival of newsrooms. It is about protecting a societal function upon which democracy depends. AI can deliver swift responses — but it cannot attend court proceedings, investigate corruption, or report with empathy and context.
The labour behind journalism must be acknowledged, supported and protected. If we allow that connection to erode, the architecture of public knowledge may begin to crumble. The moment to act is now, while we still have the means and the clarity to do so.
Usama Rafid is currently a researcher at the Press Institute of Bangladesh (PIB), where he studies the intersection of media business and technology.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
Business
UK bosses to be banned from using NDAs to cover up misconduct at work | Employment law
Bosses in the UK will be banned from using non-disclosure agreements to silence employees who have suffered harassment and discrimination in the workplace as part of the government’s overhaul of workers’ rights.
Ministers will on Monday night table amendments to the government’s employment rights bill to prohibit the widespread practice of using legally enforceable NDAs to conceal unacceptable behaviour at work.
If passed, the rules would mean any future confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements that sought to prevent a worker speaking about an allegation of harassment – including sexual harassment – or discrimination would be null and void.
They would also allow victims to speak freely about their experiences, while any witnesses – including employers – would be able to call out poor conduct and publicly support victims without the threat of being sued.
The changes being introduced to the bill, due to return to the Lords next week, would not affect NDAs for legitimate commercial use, such as commercially sensitive information or intellectual property in business transactions.
But they would create one of the toughest protection regimes in the world, giving millions of workers, including those in low-paid jobs, more confidence that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace would be dealt with.
After years of campaigning by activists, ministers have looked beyond high-profile cases linked to the #MeToo movement to address concerns about workers in regular employment who may not have the means or confidence to pursue their employers through the courts to challenge “gagging orders”.
Announcing the change, Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, said: “Victims and witnesses of harassment and discrimination should never be silenced. As the Guardian has reported on widely, this is not an issue confined to high-profile individuals or the most powerful organisations.
“The use of NDAs to cover up abuse and harassment is growing – and sadly amongst those in low-income or insecure employment across multiple industries and workplaces.
“This cannot go on. That is why we are stamping out this practice and taking action to ban any NDAs used for this purpose. My message is clear: no one should suffer in silence and we will back workers and give survivors the voice that they deserve.”
The legislation represents the biggest overhaul of workers’ rights in a generation, introducing day one rights, establishing collective bargaining bodies in vital sectors and strengthening family-friendly entitlements, as well as going further on bereavement leave and tackling “fire-and-rehire”.
Over time NDAs have become the default solution for many organisations, corporations and public bodies to settle cases including sexual misconduct, racism, and pregnancy discrimination.
Their original purpose was to protect intellectual property or other commercial or sensitive information, but reports have shown they have become commonly used to prevent people speaking out about horrific experiences in the workplace.
There have been many high-profile cases of NDAs being used to prevent victims from speaking about crimes, often forcing women and vulnerable individuals to feel stuck in unwanted situations, through fear or desperation.
They have proliferated especially in lower-income, insecure employment including sectors such as retail, hospitality and accommodation, with non-disparagement clauses also typically attached.
A report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) last year found the use of NDAs was relatively common, with 22% of respondents to a survey of 2,000 employers saying their organisation used them when dealing with allegations of sexual harassment.
In contrast, 44% said they did not use NDAs in this way and a further 34% did not know, highlighting that awareness around their use in some organisations may be low.
The CIPD also found that most employers would not strongly object to the removal of NDAs in the workplace. Nearly half (48%) of employers would support a ban, with just 18% opposing, while 20% were ambivalent, and a further 14% did not know.
Zelda Perkins, a former PA to Harvey Weinstein who spearheads the campaign group Can’t Buy My Silence, said of the government’s plans: “This is a huge milestone, for years we’ve heard empty promises from governments whilst victims have continued to be silenced.
“To see this government accept the need for nationwide legal change shows that they have listened and understood the abuse of power taking place.
“Above all though, this victory belongs to the people who broke their NDAs, who risked everything to speak the truth when they were told they couldn’t. Without their courage, none of this would be happening.
“This is not over yet and we will continue to focus closely on this to ensure the regulations are watertight and no one can be forced into silence again. If what is promised at this stage becomes reality, then the UK will be leading the world in protecting not only workers but the integrity of the law.”
Louise Haigh, a former cabinet minister, said: “Victims of harassment and discrimination have been forced to suffer in silence for too long. Today’s announcement will mean that bad employers can no longer hide behind legal practices that cover up their wrongdoing and prevent victims from getting justice.”
Legislative changes have already been made in Ireland, Canada and the US so that NDAs cannot prohibit disclosure of sexual harassment, discrimination or bullying without it being the expressed wish of the employee.
A landmark survey of sexual harassment at work has found that one in four women have suffered work-related sexual assault.
Britain’s largest trade union, Unite, polled approximately 300,000 female members on whether they had experienced sexual harassment at work, travelling to work or from a colleague in or out of work hours.
Of the 6,615 respondents, 25% said they had been sexually assaulted and 43% had been inappropriately touched. More than 3,000 said they had been the recipient of sexually offensive jokes and/or experienced unwanted flirting, gesturing or sexual remarks.
And 28% had been shared or shown pornographic images by a manager, colleague or third party, while 8% had been a victim of sexual coercion – when a person pressures, tricks, threatens or manipulates someone into engaging in sexual activity without genuine consent – at work.
While the perpetrator in the bulk of these incidents was a member of public in the workplace, such as a patient or a passenger, 3% said they had been sexually assaulted by a manager and 6% by a colleague.
Business
Trump steps up trade wars with 25% tariffs on Japan and South Korea | Trump tariffs
Donald Trump unveiled plans to step up his trade wars on Monday, announcing Japan and South Korea will soon face US tariffs of 25% in a significant escalation of his controversial economic strategy.
The US president, who indicated that he would notify as many as as 15 countries of new, higher rates on Monday, posted copies of letters addressed to the leaders of Japan and South Korea on social media. Trump said the rates were set to go into effect 1 August.
The letters were largely identical and informed the leaders that there will be no tariffs if their countries “decide to build or manufacture product within the United States”.
Trump also threatened higher tariffs if the countries place additional tariffs on US exports. “If for any reason you decide to raise your tariffs, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added onto that 25% we charge,” he wrote.
Trump initially announced a slate of so-called reciprocal tariffs in April, on what the White House dubbed “liberation day”, with some countries facing rates as high as 50%
While he paused those tariffs for 90 days amid market turmoil, this reprieve is due to expire on Wednesday 9 July.
Trump officials initially suggested they would strike dozens of deals with key economies during the pause, but have since indicated that they would use an extension to continue talks.
The treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, said last month the administration was aiming to wrap up negotiations by Labor Day on 1 September.
The US has so far settled deals with three countries: the UK, China and Vietnam, and Bessent said there were over a dozen countries the US is still trying to negotiate with.
The new August deadline for countries without a deal amounts to a further three-week reprieve, but also triggers fresh uncertainty for importers because of the lack of clarity around the tariffs.
As the July deadline has approached, Trump’s officials have been racing to broker deals. Over the weekend, one European diplomat said the US may have to “show muscle if the deal is not good enough”.
The White House also reached an impasse in negotiations with Japan, despite initial optimism. Trump on Friday said it is “much easier to send a letter” and that the offers are “take it or leave it”.
On Wall Street, the benchmark S&P 500 sank by almost 0.9% after Trump posted his first letters.
Though the US stock market has largely recovered from the uncertainty around Trump’s trade war, the US dollar still remains weakened after months of trade fights. At the beginning of this year, the dollar had its worst six months in over 50 years, falling 10.8% since the start of 2025.
Business
Goods from Japan and South Korea hit with 25% levy
The US plans to impose a 25% tax on products entering the country from South Korea and Japan on 1 August, President Donald Trump has said.
He announced the tariffs in a post on social media, sharing letters he said had been sent to leaders of the two countries.
The White House has said it expects to send similar messages to dozens of countries in coming days as the 90-day pause it placed on some of its most aggressive tariffs is set to expire.
The first two letters suggest that Trump remains committed to his initial push for tariffs, with little change from the rates announced in April.
At that time, he said he was looking to hit goods from Japan with duties of 24% and charge a 25% on products made in South Korea.
Those tariffs were included in a bigger “Liberation Day” announcement, which imposed tariffs on goods from countries around the world.
After outcry and turmoil on financial markets following the initial tariffs announcement, Trump suspended some of the import taxes to allow for talks. That deadline is set to expire on 9 July.
On Monday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he expected “a busy couple of days”.
“We’ve had a lot of people change their tune in terms of negotiations. So my mailbox was full last night with a lot of new offers, a lot of new proposals,” he told US business broadcaster CNBC.
-
Funding & Business7 days ago
Kayak and Expedia race to build AI travel agents that turn social posts into itineraries
-
Jobs & Careers7 days ago
Mumbai-based Perplexity Alternative Has 60k+ Users Without Funding
-
Mergers & Acquisitions7 days ago
Donald Trump suggests US government review subsidies to Elon Musk’s companies
-
Funding & Business6 days ago
Rethinking Venture Capital’s Talent Pipeline
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Why Agentic AI Isn’t Pure Hype (And What Skeptics Aren’t Seeing Yet)
-
Funding & Business4 days ago
Sakana AI’s TreeQuest: Deploy multi-model teams that outperform individual LLMs by 30%
-
Funding & Business7 days ago
From chatbots to collaborators: How AI agents are reshaping enterprise work
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Astrophel Aerospace Raises ₹6.84 Crore to Build Reusable Launch Vehicle
-
Funding & Business6 days ago
Europe’s Most Ambitious Startups Aren’t Becoming Global; They’re Starting That Way
-
Jobs & Careers4 days ago
Ilya Sutskever Takes Over as CEO of Safe Superintelligence After Daniel Gross’s Exit