When a journalist needs a reliable source, platforms like Help a Reporter Out (HARO) have traditionally provided a vetted pool of experts. After HARO’s 2024 shutdown and its 2025 revival under Featured, the company introduced AI‑detection tools to combat a surge of low‑quality, machine‑generated pitches.
AI‑Generated Pitches Under Scrutiny
Between June 2025 and July 2026, Featured processed 1,394,740 pitches in response to 42,392 journalist requests across its three platforms—Featured, HARO, and Connectively. Pangram Labs flagged 292,895 of those pitches, roughly 21%, as fully AI‑generated.
Journalists value earned credibility and time savings. A human‑written pitch still offers the nuance and authenticity that reporters need for accurate storytelling. The data confirms this preference: only one in ten AI‑generated pitches earned a spot in a published article, compared with about one in three human‑written pitches.
Opt‑Out Options and Journalist Preferences
Among more than 2,500 journalists surveyed, 35% actively selected an option to block AI‑generated pitches, even though the default setting allows them to appear. This indicates a strong desire within the reporting community to filter out content that may lack depth or factual rigor.
When journalists do receive AI‑generated submissions, the acceptance rate remains low. The disparity highlights the continued importance of human expertise in the news‑gathering process.
Impact on Source Accounts
Accounts that repeatedly submit AI‑generated pitches face higher scrutiny. Banned accounts are about 3.6 times more likely to have at least one fully AI‑flagged pitch than active accounts—24.7% versus 6.8%.
While HARO does not automatically ban users for submitting AI‑generated content, the platform uses AI flags as one factor in its internal monitoring system. Accounts that flood the platform with low‑quality, automated responses may be filtered out to preserve trust among journalists.
Why Some Turn to AI
Companies and individuals seeking earned media exposure sometimes employ AI‑driven public‑relations services to generate rapid responses to journalist requests. The goal is to increase the volume of press mentions, but the data suggests this strategy rarely succeeds on platforms that prioritize authenticity.
A notable example cited by the study involved a fabricated “Dr. Eleni Nicolaou,” an alleged art therapist whose entirely AI‑generated quotes appeared in more than 30 publications, including Vice, Forbes, and Glamour. The persona likely does not exist, underscoring the risk of misinformation when AI is used without verification.
Looking Ahead
Featured’s findings reinforce the value of human expertise in journalism and the need for robust verification tools. As AI continues to evolve, platforms like HARO are expected to refine their detection methods to ensure that journalists receive trustworthy, high‑quality sources.
Original reporting: KTVZ (Central Oregon) — read the source article.
