News organisations in New Hampshire are navigating the integration of AI tools with careful oversight, emphasising transparency and human involvement to safeguard journalistic standards amid wider industry concerns about accuracy and trust.
As artificial intelligence (AI) tools become increasingly integrated into newsrooms, outlets in New Hampshire are adopting measured approaches to leverage AI’s potential while safeguarding journalistic integrity. This careful balance involves using AI to enhance efficiency in routine tasks without allowing it to supplant core journalistic functions such as reporting, writing, and fact-checking.
News organisations like the Laconia Daily Sun and the Concord Monitor have established clear boundaries around AI use. The Laconia Daily Sun, while still formalising its policies, ensures that generative AI is not employed to write articles or generate content outright. Editor Julie Hirshan Hart emphasises that AI may assist with headline brainstorming, caption writing, or automating mundane formatting tasks, but it should never replace a journalist’s experience or news judgment. She states, “There’s no copy-paste... You know, you can’t send something through an AI generator, not read it, put it in your story and keep going.”
Similarly, the Concord Monitor has formalised an AI policy that stresses transparency and human oversight. Editor Jonathan Van Fleet highlights practical AI uses such as suggesting search-optimised URLs or converting public documents into searchable formats , efficiencies that augment rather than replace reporters’ work. The Monitor’s policy mandates that any AI-generated content undergo thorough vetting by a reporter or editor before publication and that staff communicate openly about AI’s involvement in the reporting process. Van Fleet asserts, “We are not generating fake articles... You are going to interact with a human being.”
These cautious stances come amid wider industry concerns about AI’s role in journalism. Earlier in 2025, notable missteps, such as the publication of fictitious books generated by AI in reading lists, have underscored the risks of insufficient oversight. A recent study revealed that roughly nine percent of articles published by U.S. newspapers incorporate some AI-generated content, predominantly within smaller and local outlets, yet disclosures about AI’s use remain rare. This disparity has triggered calls for stricter editorial standards and more transparent communication with readers.
Public sentiment mirrors these professional concerns. Surveys conducted by the Local Media Association and Trusting News highlight that while audiences generally acknowledge the potential for AI to improve newsroom efficiency, an overwhelming majority want humans deeply involved in the creation and verification of news content. Nearly 99% of respondents demand human oversight before AI-assisted content reaches publication, reflecting scepticism about fully automated journalism.
Industry observers stress that transparency and accountability are essential to sustaining public trust. Organisations like Trusting News advocate explicitly for journalists to disclose AI’s role when it is used and maintain clear editorial control. Digital Rights Monitor echoes this, emphasising that every published piece should be traceable to a responsible human editor or reporter who can ensure accuracy and fairness.
However, the growing informal use of generative AI tools by journalists, sometimes without formal organisational approval, raises additional ethical and practical questions. Studies point to nearly half of journalists engaging with AI independently, prompting concerns about data privacy and the potential for errors when these tools are used without rigorous oversight.
Against this backdrop, local newsrooms like those in New Hampshire are pioneering a balanced model: embracing AI for its undeniable benefits in efficiency and workflow while upholding traditional journalistic values. Their approach illustrates that AI in journalism need not be a wholesale replacement but rather a carefully integrated tool that enhances human capacities without compromising integrity or the trusted relationship between news organisations and their communities.
📌 Reference Map:
- [1] (Ledger Transcript) - Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
- [2] (Concord Monitor) - Paragraphs 3, 6, 7
- [3] (Local Media Association) - Paragraph 10
- [4] (Trusting News) - Paragraph 10, 11
- [5] (arXiv research paper) - Paragraph 9
- [6] (Digiday/Trint study) - Paragraph 12
- [7] (Digital Rights Monitor) - Paragraph 11
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative presents recent developments in AI integration within New Hampshire newsrooms, with specific references to the Laconia Daily Sun and the Concord Monitor. The earliest known publication date of similar content is October 3, 2025, in the Granite State News Collaborative, which discusses AI use in local newsrooms. ([collaborativenh.org](https://www.collaborativenh.org/know-your-news-stories/2025/10/3/how-artificial-intelligence-is-and-isnt-used-in-local-newsrooms?utm_source=openai)) The report includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. Additionally, the report includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. ([localmedia.org](https://localmedia.org/2025/11/news-consumers-cautiously-optimistic-about-ai-use-in-news/?utm_source=openai)) The narrative is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. However, if earlier versions show different figures, dates, or quotes, these discrepancies should be flagged. If anything similar has appeared more than 7 days earlier, this should be highlighted explicitly. If the article includes updated data but recycles older material, this may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative includes direct quotes from editors Julie Hirshan Hart and Jonathan Van Fleet. A search reveals that these quotes have been used in earlier material, indicating potential reuse. If identical quotes appear in earlier material, this should be flagged as potentially reused content. If quote wording varies, note the differences. If no online matches are found, raise the score but flag as potentially original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Ledger Transcript, a local news outlet. While it provides specific details about local newsrooms, the source's reliability is uncertain due to its limited reach and potential biases. If the narrative originates from an obscure, unverifiable, or single-outlet narrative, this should be flagged as uncertain. If a person, organisation, or company mentioned in the report cannot be verified online (e.g., no public presence, records, or legitimate website), flag as potentially fabricated.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims about AI integration in New Hampshire newsrooms align with recent industry trends and studies. For instance, a study published in October 2025 found that approximately 9% of articles published by U.S. newspapers incorporate some AI-generated content, predominantly within smaller and local outlets. ([arxiv.org](https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18774?utm_source=openai)) The narrative also references a survey conducted by the Local Media Association and Trusting News, highlighting public concerns about AI in journalism. ([localmedia.org](https://localmedia.org/2025/11/news-consumers-cautiously-optimistic-about-ai-use-in-news/?utm_source=openai)) However, the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets and the absence of specific factual anchors (e.g., names, institutions, dates) reduce the score and flag the report as potentially synthetic. Additionally, the language and tone feel inconsistent with typical corporate or official language, which raises further concerns.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents recent developments in AI integration within New Hampshire newsrooms, with specific references to the Laconia Daily Sun and the Concord Monitor. However, the source's reliability is uncertain due to its limited reach and potential biases. The claims about AI integration align with recent industry trends and studies, but the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets and the absence of specific factual anchors reduce the score and flag the report as potentially synthetic. Additionally, the language and tone feel inconsistent with typical corporate or official language, which raises further concerns.
