Los Angeles Times Introduces AI-Generated Opposing Viewpoints to Opinion Pieces

Don't like a columnist's opinion? Los Angeles Times offers an AI-generated opposing viewpoint

In a colorful commentary for the Los Angeles Times, Matt K. Lewis argued that callousness is a central feature of the second Trump administration, particularly its policies of deportation and bureaucratic cutbacks. "Once you normalize cruelty," Lewis concluded in the piece, "the hammer eventually swings for everyone. Even the ones who thought they were swinging it." Lewis' word wasn't the last, however. As they have with opinion pieces the past several weeks, Times online readers had the option to click on a button labeled "Insights," which judged the column politically as "center-left." Then it offers an AI-generated synopsis -- a CliffsNotes version of the column -- and a similarly-produced opposing viewpoint. One dissenting argument reads: "Restricting birthright citizenship and refugee admissions is framed as correcting alleged exploitation of immigration loopholes, with proponents arguing these steps protect American workers and resources." The feature symbolizes changes to opinion coverage ordered over the past six months by Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who's said he wants the famously liberal opinion pages to reflect different points of view. Critics accuse him of trying to curry favor with President Donald Trump. Soon-Shiong, a medical innovator who bought the Times in 2018, blocked his newspaper from endorsing Democrat Kamala Harris for president last fall and said he wanted to overhaul its editorial board, which is responsible for researching and writing Times editorials. "If you just have the one side, it's just going to be an echo chamber," Soon-Shiong told Fox News last fall. He said broadening the outlook is "going to be risky and it's going to be difficult. I'm going to take a lot of heat, which I already am, but I come from the position that it's really important that all voices be heard." Three of the six people who researched and wrote Times editorials, including editorials editor Mariel Garza, resigned in protest after the Harris non-endorsement. The other three have since left with the last holdout, Carla Hall, exiting after writing a last column that ran March 30 about homeless people she met while covering the issue. Soon-Shiong's decision caused a similar unrest with subscribers as happened when Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos decided the newspaper would not back a presidential candidate. The Times used to run unsigned editorials -- reflecting a newspaper's institutional opinion -- six days a week. The paper lists only two editorial board members, Soon-Shiong and executive editor Terry Tang. They're usually too busy to write editorials. Soon-Shiong has said he will appoint new board members, but it's unclear when. He also said he was seeking more conservative or moderate columnists to appear in the paper. Lewis, a self-described Reagan Republican who just began as a columnist, believes he's part of that effort. Soon-Shiong has also brought up CNN commentator Scott Jennings, a Republican consultant who has already contributed columns for a few years. Los Angeles Times spokeswoman Hillary Manning was asked recently about editorial policy, but reportedly lost her job in a round of layoffs before she could answer. There has been no reply to other attempts at seeking comment from Times management, including how readers are responding to "Insights." There were some initial questions about whether a "bias meter" as described by Soon-Shiong would apply to news articles as well as opinion pieces. But the publisher told Times reporter James Rainey in December it would only be included on commentary, as it has remained since "Insights" was introduced to readers on March 3. In practice, the idea feels like a gimmick, Garza, the former editorials editor, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think it could be offensive both to readers ... and the writers themselves who object to being categorized in simple and not necessarily helpful terms," she said. "The idea of having a bias meter just in and of itself is kind of an insult to intelligence and I've always thought that the readers of the opinion page were really smart." The online feature created problems instantly when it was applied to columnist Gustavo Arellano's piece about the little-noticed 100th anniversary of a Ku Klux Klan rally that drew more than 20,000 people to a park in Anaheim, California. One of the AI-generated "Insights" said that "local historical accounts occasionally frame the 1920s Klan as a product of 'white Protestant culture' responding to societal changes rather than an explicitly hate-driven movement." Another said that "critics argue that focusing on past Klan influence distracts from Anaheim's identity as a diverse city." Some at the Times believe an ensuing backlash -- Times defends Klan! -- was inaccurate and overblown. Still, the perspectives were removed. Often, "Insights" have the flat, bloodless tone of early AI. After contributor David Helvarg's column about potential cuts to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the opposing viewpoint noted that Trump supporters "say it aligns with broader efforts to shrink government and eliminate programs deemed nonessential." A better way to improve opinion offerings is to hire more journalists and put them to work, said Paul Thornton, former letters editor for the Times' opinion section. Media columnist Margaret Sullivan argued in The Guardian that Soon-Shiong talks about promoting viewpoint diversity but really wants to push the newspaper toward Trump. "His bias meter should -- quickly -- go the way of hot type, the manual typewriter and the dodo," Sullivan wrote. Soon-Shiong, in his interview with Rainey, dismissed claims that he was scared of Trump or trying to appease him. People need to respect different opinions, he said. "It's really important for us (to) heal the nation," he said. "We've got to stop being so polarized." One writer who doesn't mind "Insights" is Lewis -- with one caveat. "I like it," he said. "I didn't know what to expect but I was pretty pleasantly surprised. It does provide additional context for the reader. It provides counterpoints, but I think they're very fair counterpoints." Lewis, who once worked for Tucker Carlson's "Daily Caller," was amused to see "Insights" judge his most recent column as "center-left." He figured it was because he was critical of Trump. Instead, Lewis said it points to the relative meaninglessness of such labels. "I guess I'm a center-left columnist," he said. "At least for a week." ___

The end of the op-ed: LA Times uses AI to counter its own views

As the LA Times unveils its AI Insights function on their opinion pieces, we look at how the feature undermines opinion journalism. Want to read a contrasting view on the insightful opinion piece you just found? Traditionally, you would have had to find another publication with a different political slant and search for an op-ed on the same topic. Those days might be numbered as a new feature on the Los Angeles Times website offers an immediate rebuttal to their journalists' work through an AI assistant. Is this the future of opinion journalism, or have we entered into a parallel universe where even rhetoric is fully supplanted by the machines? In the LA Times opinion section is an article by Joan C. Williams, a law professor at University of California College of the Law in San Francisco. In the piece, Williams argues that Democrats need to understand the cultural angle of politics if they are ever to understand Donald Trump's 2024 presidential election victory. "Democrats need to rival Trump's cultural competence at connecting with the working class, which will require changes from progressives," she writes, as she explains that the left is failing to see the human side of the right's arguments to a broad span of American voters. It's an insightful and well researched piece that speaks from Williams' academic perspective. Exactly the sort you'd expect from an opinion section. What's new is a little button labelled "Insights". Click that and you're whisked to the bottom of the page where the LA Times gives you an "AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view". In the Insights, you are told that Williams' piece "generally aligns with a centre left point of view" as well as a summary of her points. Most intriguingly, there's a section that gives you opposing views. There it points out that while Williams thinks Democrats should focusing on uniting cultural theories, strategists like James Carville "urge Democrats to avoid cultural distractions and concentrate exclusively on economic messaging while others reject the premise that cultural issues are irreconcilable, pointing to Biden-era successes in manufacturing and wage growth". On that last point, the AI argues that "conceding on issues like climate action or LGBTQ+ rights risks demoralizing the Democratic base and ceding ground to far-right narratives". This sounds like an interesting point but it's directly contrasted by Williams' own writing where she notes that on inclusive messaging, Democrats "didn't abandon their vision of full LGBTQ+ rights, but they did shift tactics to engage a wider range of people." Whether the AI has fully grasped Williams' argument or not is up for debate, but most significant is the shift away from giving opinion writers a sense of authority on their topic. For many, this is part of a move to placate Trump's administration by LA Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong. Soon-Shiong bought the paper in 2018 and last year decided it would not officially endorse Kamala Harris for president. "If you just have the one side, it's just going to be an echo chamber," the medical investor said. Going through the paper's opinion pieces today, the AI provides more opposing views. LA Times opinion columnist Jackie Calmes has a piece on the parallels between Hannah Arendt's view on Nazi Germany and the current Trump administration. AI Insights suggests Calmes' piece is "centre left" and notes that "Trump's actions, while norm-breaking, lack the systemic violence and ideological coherence of Hitler's regime". Similarly, LA Times journalist LZ Granderson has a "centre left" piece that criticised the Trump administration's removal of LGBTQ+ iconography and education from government bodies as a worrying shift towards un-American ideals of inclusion and openness. Contrasting this view, the AI suggests: "Conservative advocates, including groups behind Project 2025, contend that LGBTQ+ visibility policies promote "toxic normalization" and conflict with traditional family values." While the opinion writers of the LA Times are still largely left leaning, the new AI feature is designed to platform both sides of an argument. Exactly as Soon-Shiong wanted. Back when the owner blocked the Harris endorsement, three of the six people who researched and wrote their editorials, including editorials editor Mariel Garza, resigned in protest. The other three have since left, with the last holdout, Carla Hall, exiting after writing a last column that ran on 30 March about homeless people she met while covering the issue. Soon-Shiong's decision was mirrored by Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, who decided the newspaper would not back a presidential candidate. Last month, Ruth Marcus, who worked for the Washington Post since 1984, stood down after a row over the paper refusing to run an opinion piece that was critical of Bezos. She was the latest to leave the Post after Bezos announced that the paper's opinion columns would no longer be a free-for-all for individual author's thoughts. Instead, it would focus on two specific themes: "personal liberties and free markets". Between Soon-Shiong and Bezos, there is a clear move from the billionaire-owned US media landscape to cosy up to the Trump administration. It continues a pattern seen by the major tech and social media owners, including the Bezos-founded Amazon. Concerningly, it also highlights AI-obsessed owners' cynical attitude towards the work of journalists. "I think it could be offensive both to readers ... and the writers themselves who object to being categorized in simple and not necessarily helpful terms," Garza, the ex-editorials editor said. "The idea of having a bias meter just in and of itself is kind of an insult to intelligence and I've always thought that the readers of the opinion page were really smart."

Don't like a columnist's opinion? Los Angeles Times offers an AI-generated opposing viewpoint

In a colorful commentary for the Los Angeles Times, Matt K. Lewis argued that callousness is a central feature of the second Trump administration, particularly its policies of deportation and bureaucratic cutbacks. "Once you normalize cruelty," Lewis concluded in the piece, "the hammer eventually swings for everyone. Even the ones who thought they were swinging it." Lewis' word wasn't the last, however. As they have with opinion pieces the past several weeks, Times online readers had the option to click on a button labeled "Insights," which judged the column politically as "center-left." Then it offers an AI-generated synopsis -- a CliffsNotes version of the column -- and a similarly-produced opposing viewpoint. One dissenting argument reads: "Restricting birthright citizenship and refugee admissions is framed as correcting alleged exploitation of immigration loopholes, with proponents arguing these steps protect American workers and resources." The feature symbolizes changes to opinion coverage ordered over the past six months by Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who's said he wants the famously liberal opinion pages to reflect different points of view. Critics accuse him of trying to curry favor with President Donald Trump. Publisher says he doesn't want an "echo chamber" Soon-Shiong, a medical innovator who bought the Times in 2018, blocked his newspaper from endorsing Democrat Kamala Harris for president last fall and said he wanted to overhaul its editorial board, which is responsible for researching and writing Times editorials. "If you just have the one side, it's just going to be an echo chamber," Soon-Shiong told Fox News last fall. He said broadening the outlook is "going to be risky and it's going to be difficult. I'm going to take a lot of heat, which I already am, but I come from the position that it's really important that all voices be heard." Three of the six people who researched and wrote Times editorials, including editorials editor Mariel Garza, resigned in protest after the Harris non-endorsement. The other three have since left with the last holdout, Carla Hall, exiting after writing a last column that ran March 30 about homeless people she met while covering the issue. Soon-Shiong's decision caused a similar unrest with subscribers as happened when Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos decided the newspaper would not back a presidential candidate. The Times used to run unsigned editorials -- reflecting a newspaper's institutional opinion -- six days a week. The paper lists only two editorial board members, Soon-Shiong and executive editor Terry Tang. They're usually too busy to write editorials. Soon-Shiong has said he will appoint new board members, but it's unclear when. He also said he was seeking more conservative or moderate columnists to appear in the paper. Lewis, a self-described Reagan Republican who just began as a columnist, believes he's part of that effort. Soon-Shiong has also brought up CNN commentator Scott Jennings, a Republican consultant who has already contributed columns for a few years. Los Angeles Times spokeswoman Hillary Manning was asked recently about editorial policy, but reportedly lost her job in a round of layoffs before she could answer. There has been no reply to other attempts at seeking comment from Times management, including how readers are responding to "Insights." There were some initial questions about whether a "bias meter" as described by Soon-Shiong would apply to news articles as well as opinion pieces. But the publisher told Times reporter James Rainey in December it would only be included on commentary, as it has remained since "Insights" was introduced to readers on March 3. A gimmick that insults the intelligence of readers? In practice, the idea feels like a gimmick, Garza, the former editorials editor, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I think it could be offensive both to readers ... and the writers themselves who object to being categorized in simple and not necessarily helpful terms," she said. "The idea of having a bias meter just in and of itself is kind of an insult to intelligence and I've always thought that the readers of the opinion page were really smart." The online feature created problems instantly when it was applied to columnist Gustavo Arellano's piece about the little-noticed 100th anniversary of a Ku Klux Klan rally that drew more than 20,000 people to a park in Anaheim, California. One of the AI-generated "Insights" said that "local historical accounts occasionally frame the 1920s Klan as a product of 'white Protestant culture' responding to societal changes rather than an explicitly hate-driven movement." Another said that "critics argue that focusing on past Klan influence distracts from Anaheim's identity as a diverse city." Some at the Times believe an ensuing backlash -- Times defends Klan! -- was inaccurate and overblown. Still, the perspectives were removed. Often, "Insights" have the flat, bloodless tone of early AI. After contributor David Helvarg's column about potential cuts to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the opposing viewpoint noted that Trump supporters "say it aligns with broader efforts to shrink government and eliminate programs deemed nonessential." A better way to improve opinion offerings is to hire more journalists and put them to work, said Paul Thornton, former letters editor for the Times' opinion section. Media columnist Margaret Sullivan argued in The Guardian that Soon-Shiong talks about promoting viewpoint diversity but really wants to push the newspaper toward Trump. "His bias meter should -- quickly -- go the way of hot type, the manual typewriter and the dodo," Sullivan wrote. Soon-Shiong, in his interview with Rainey, dismissed claims that he was scared of Trump or trying to appease him. People need to respect different opinions, he said. "It's really important for us (to) heal the nation," he said. "We've got to stop being so polarized." A writer amused by the label attached to him One writer who doesn't mind "Insights" is Lewis -- with one caveat. "I like it," he said. "I didn't know what to expect but I was pretty pleasantly surprised. It does provide additional context for the reader. It provides counterpoints, but I think they're very fair counterpoints." Lewis, who once worked for Tucker Carlson's "Daily Caller," was amused to see "Insights" judge his most recent column as "center-left." He figured it was because he was critical of Trump. Instead, Lewis said it points to the relative meaninglessness of such labels. "I guess I'm a center-left columnist," he said. "At least for a week." ___ David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social