A Singapore study suggests AI in newsrooms might diminish journalists’ research, interviewing, and independent thinking habits. However, it might increase the importance of verification, editing, storytelling, and original ideas. The findings are based on interviews with 14 journalists and editors. They warn against over-reliance but do not prove that AI directly causes professional deskilling in newsrooms.

Thekabarnews.com—Artificial intelligence (AI) could help journalists work faster. It may weaken some of the reporting skills on which credible journalism depends. This conclusion is according to a new study examining AI’s growing role in newsrooms.

Shangyuan Wu is a senior lecturer and media researcher at the National University of Singapore. He published the study in Journalism Practice on June 3, 2026. Titled “Is Artificial Intelligence Causing Journalists to ‘Deskill’?” the research explores which abilities journalists may lose. Moreover, it examines which skills they must strengthen as AI handles more editorial tasks.

Wu conducted in-depth interviews with 14 journalists and editors in Singapore. The participants included print, broadcast, and online publications. They also included wire services, according to a review by Nieman Journalism Lab published July 8.

Interviewees said generative AI could threaten skills such as research, note-taking, writing, analysis, interviewing, and independent thinking.

AI assistants can quickly generate background reports, suggest interview questions, and browse online sources. They diminish the incentive for reporters to dig up original documents or talk directly to knowledgeable people.

Some participants saw the technology as a tool of efficiency, like search engines and automated transcription software.

From that angle, artificial intelligence can automate routine work. However, it does not take away from journalists’ responsibility to verify information and do original reporting.

The findings therefore portray a tension between “deskilling,” where professional capacities deteriorate, and “upskilling.” In the latter, journalists develop stronger capacities to supervise and improve AI-assisted work.

Wu’s research finds the following skills are growing in value: fact-checking, editing, discernment, storytelling, ethical AI use, interpersonal communication, prompt writing, and original idea generation.

These skills are important because generative AI can produce inaccurate, biased, incomplete, or formulaic content. International survey data from the European Broadcasting Union and BBC backs up that concern.

Professional journalists reviewed over 3,000 responses that four AI assistants generated in 14 languages. They found major problems in 45 percent of them. Twenty percent had major accuracy problems, and 31 percent suffered from sourcing issues.

The use of AI in journalism has become widespread. Some 56 percent of 1,004 UK journalists surveyed in a separate poll by the Reuters Institute said they used AI professionally at least once a week.

One participant in Wu’s study noted the continuing value of human creativity.

“AI is able to give you what’s out there, but it cannot give you that innovation or creativity. Humans are still the ones who have to ‘push the boundaries,’” the journalist said.

The qualitative study describes experiences and perceptions of a small group in Singapore. It does not quantify journalists’ skills over time, nor does it prove that AI is directly responsible for skills loss.

The findings serve as a warning. Newsrooms must combine AI training with robust verification standards, human supervision, and ongoing investment in original reporting.