When OpenAI pulled back its latest ChatGPT releaseone that apparently turned the helpful chatbot into a total suck-upthe company took the welcome step of explaining exactly what happened in a pair of blog posts. The response was a notable move and really pulled back the curtain on how much of what these systems do is shaped by language choices most people never see. A tweak in phrasing, a shift in tone, and suddenly the model behaves differently.
For journalists, this shouldnt be surprising. Many editorial meetings are spent agonizing over framing, tone, and headline language. But what is surprisingand maybe even a little disorientingis that the same editorial sensitivity now needs to be applied not just to headlines and pull quotes, but to algorithms, prompts, and workflows that live in the guts of newsroom technology.
Before we connect the dots to newsroom AI, a quick recap: OpenAIs latest update to GPT-4o involved an extensive process for testing the outputs, and it scored well on the factors the testers could measure: accuracy, safety, and helpfulness, among others. However, some evaluators doing more qualitative testing said the model felt off, but without more to go on, OpenAI released it anyway.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
Within a day, it was clear the evaluators vibe-checks were onto something. Apparently the release had substantially increased sycophancy, or the models tendency to flatter and support the user, regardless of whether it was ultimately helpful. In its post announcing the rollback, OpenAI said it would refine ChatGPTs system promptthe invisible language that serves as kind of an umbrella instruction for every query and conversation with the public chatbot.
Lost in translation
The first thing that strikes you about this: Were talking about changes to language, not code. In reaction to the recall, a former OpenAI employee posted on X about a conversation he had with a senior colleague at the company about how the change of a single word in the system prompt induced ChatGPT to behave in different ways. And the only way to know this was to make the change and try it out.
If youre familiar with AI and prompting, this isnt a shock. But on a fundamental level, it kind of is. Im not saying the new release of GPT-4o was entirely about changing language in the system prompt, but the system prompt is a crucial elementaltering it was the only temporary fix OpenAI could implement before engaging in the careful process of rolling back the release.
For anyone in communications or journalism, this should be somewhat reassuring. Were in the business of words, after all. And words are no longer just the way we communicate about technologytheyre a crucial part of how these systems work.
An editorial and product hybrid
OpenAIs ordeal has two important takeaways for how the media deals with AI: First, that editorial staff have a vital role to play in building the AI systems that govern their operations. (Outside frontier labs, tool building often amounts to prompt engineering paired with automations.) And second, transparency is the path to preserving user trust.
On the first point, the way AI directly affects content, and the need for good prompting to do that well, has a consequence for how media companies are organized: Editorial and product teams are becoming more like each other. The more journalists incorporate AI into their process, the more they end up creating their own tools. Think custom GPTs for writing assistance, NotebookLM knowledge bases for analyzing documents, or even browser extensions for fact-checking on the fly.
On the product side, the idea that media technology today isnt just presenting content, but remixing and sometimes creating it is a massive change. To ensure those outputs adhere to journalistic principles, it doesnt just make sense to have writers and editors be a part of that processits necessary.
What results, then, is a journalist-product manager hybrid. These kinds of roles arent entirely new, but theyre generally senior leadership roles with words like newsroom innovation in the title. What AI does is encourage each side to adopt the skills of the other all the way down. Every reporter adopts a product mindset. Every product manager prioritizes brevity and accuracy.
Audience trust starts with transparency
The audience is the silent partner in this relationship, and OpenAIs incident also serves as an example of how to best include themthrough radical transparency. Its hard to think of a way OpenAI could have better restored trust with its users other than its decision to fully explain how the problems got by its review process, and what its doing to improve.
While its unusual among the major AI labs (can you imagine xAI or DeepSeek writing a similar note?), this isnt out of character for OpenAI. Sam Altman often shares on his X account announcements and behind-the-scenes observations from his vantage point as CEO, and while those are probably more calculated than they seem, theyve earned the company a certain amount of respect.
This approach provides a road map for how to publicly communicate about AI strategy, especially for the media. Typically, when a publication creates an AI media policy, the focus is on disclosures and guidelines. Those are great first steps, but without a clearer window into the specific process, indicators such as This article is AI assisted arent that helpful, and audiences will be inclined to assume the worst when something goes wrong.
Better to be transparent from the start. When CNET used AI writers in the early days of generative AI to disastrous results, it published a long explanation of what went wrong, but it didnt come until well after it had been called out. If the publication had been out front with what it was doingnot just saying it was using AI, but explaining how it was building, using, and evaluating itthings might have turned out differently.
Journalists can shape AIand should
In its second post about the sycophancy fiasco, OpenAI revealed that a big part of its concern was the surprising number of people who now use ChatGPT for personal advice, an activity that wasnt that significant a year ago. That growth is a testament to how fast the technology is improving and taking hold in various aspects of our lives. While its only just beginning to alter the media ecosystem, it could quickly become more deeply embedded than we had predicted.
Building AI systems that people trust starts with the people building them. By leveraging the natural talents of journalists on product teams, those systems will have the best chance of success. But when they screw upand they willpreserving that trust will depend on how clear the window is on how they were built. Best to start polishing it now.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/03\/mediacopilot-logo-ss.png","headline":"Media CoPilot","description":"Want more about how AI is changing media? Never miss an update from Pete Pachal by signing up for Media CoPilot. To learn more visit mediacopilot.substack.com","substackDomain":"https:\/\/mediacopilot.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
