Unionized writers and staffers at USA Today Co. staged a coordinated lunchtime walkout Wednesday to protest the company's continued push into artificial intelligence, the latest escalation in a long-running conflict over how the media giant uses generative AI in its newsrooms.
The walkout follows USA Today Co.'s recent partnership with Palantir, a data analytics firm, to monetize products through AI. The company, formerly known as Gannett, has pressed forward with AI initiatives despite the embarrassing launch of its AI writing program, which drew widespread criticism last year.
Workers who participated in the walkout shared their reasons on social media under the banner "No slop in our shop." They called on the company to establish guardrails for AI usage and to commit to keeping generative AI out of newsroom workflows.
A pattern of AI friction
The dispute is not new. USA Today Co. drew criticism from its writers' union last year after posting a job listing for an AI sports editor. The company's earlier attempts at AI-generated articles, particularly in sports coverage, produced content that was widely mocked for being inaccurate and poorly written.
Despite those failures, the company has pressed ahead with its AI investments, which union members say threatens both the quality of journalism and their livelihoods. The Palantir deal, in particular, appears to have prompted this week's action.
For writers watching this unfold, the dispute raises practical questions about how to work alongside AI tools without being replaced by them. AI for Writers resources can help journalists understand where AI assistance is useful and where it falls short, so they can make informed decisions about their own workflows.
Why sports writing matters
The stakes are especially visible in sports coverage, where USA Today Co previously attempted to use AI to produce stories. Those efforts were widely panned by readers and critics for missing the nuance and context that make sports reporting valuable.
Sports journalism depends on being present at games, interviewing athletes, and conveying the emotion of competition. AI can generate a box score summary, but it cannot capture the noise of a crowd or the look on a losing team's face. The union's pushback reflects a belief that those elements are essential to the product.
For writers who work in any field where AI tools are being adopted, the situation presents a practical question: which parts of the job require human judgment, and which parts can be automated? AI Learning Path for Technical Writers provides structured guidance for writers who want to learn where AI tools can help and where they should remain in control.
Why this matters for writers
If a major newsroom like USA Today Co is willing to push AI forward despite public backlash and union opposition, other media companies may follow. Writers should pay attention to the specific demands union members made - guardrails, no generative AI in newsrooms, and a clear commitment to human oversight.
These are not abstract concerns. The outcome of this dispute will likely shape how other newsrooms approach AI adoption, and it will test whether employers are willing to invest in their human writers or cut costs with automated output. Writers in any industry, not just journalism, should have a clear boundary line for what they will and will not accept from their employers.
Your membership also unlocks:
