Books by Bots: Librarians grapple with AI-generated material in collections; American Libraries, September 2, 2025

Reema Saleh  , American Libraries; Books by Bots: Librarians grapple with AI-generated material in collections

"How to Spot AI-Generated Books

Once an AI-generated book has made it to your library, it will likely give itself away with telltale signs such as jumbled, repetitive, or contradicting sentences; glaring grammatical errors or false statements; or digital art that looks too smooth around the corners.

Of course, if you can get a digital sneak-peek inside a book before ordering, all the better. But if not, how can you head off AI content so it never arrives on your desk? The following tips can help.

• Look into who the author is and how “real” they seem, says Robin Bradford, a collection development librarian at a public library in Washington. An author with no digital footprint is a red flag, especially if they are credited with a slew of titles each year. Also a red flag: a book with no author listed at all.
• Exercise caution regarding self-published books, small presses, or platforms such as Amazon, which filters out less AI-generated content than other vendors do.
• Think about whether the book is capitalizing on the chance that a reader will confuse it with another, more popular book, says Jane Stimpson, a library instruction and educational technology consultant for the Massachusetts Library System. Does it have a cover similar to that of an existing bestseller? Just as animated Disney movies get imitated by low-budget knockoffs, popular titles get imitated by AI-generated books.
• Check if there is mention of AI use in the Library of Congress record associated with the book, says Sarah Manning, a collection development librarian at Boise (Idaho) Public Library (BPL). If the book has been registered with the US Copyright Office, its record may mention AI."

‘Public health is in trouble,’ says high-ranking CDC leader who resigned in protest; PBS News, August 28, 2025

Amna Nawaz, Aznar Merchant , PBS News; ‘Public health is in trouble,’ says high-ranking CDC leader who resigned in protest

"Amna Nawaz:

• So let's just start with your decision. Why did you feel the need to resign?

• Dr. Debra Houry:

  It was such a tough decision. I love the CDC. The work we do is so important.

  But I had just felt we had reached a tipping point when it came to our science and our data and being able to do the work we needed to do. I was concerned about the future of CDC and my ability to be a leader at the CDC and to do what was needed to be done on the inside. I thought my voice and the voice of my colleagues that also resigned with me would be more powerful on the outside.

• Amna Nawaz:

  What does reaching that tipping point, as you put it, mean to you?

  You saw Dr. Monarez's lawyers reference the unscientific and reckless directives. What does that mean to you?

  • Dr. Debra Houry:

    Yes, so we have an immunization committee meeting coming up in a few weeks. And many of us, myself included, were concerned about some of the recommendations might walk back vaccines in our country.

    To me, that's one of the tipping points. I think another tipping point is just the loss of Dr. Monarez. We hadn't had a CDC director for several months. When she came on board, she brought scientific rigor and some new ideas around public comment and how to really make sure data drove the decisions.

    When she had done some of these changes, she was brought to the secretary's office for discussion. And, at that point, I became concerned that she wouldn't be able to implement changes that were needed at CDC, and without that leadership, it would just leave us vulnerable again. And I thought that was the point to say, enough is enough and to really raise that Bat Signal that public health and CDC is in trouble.

    
    

    • Amna Nawaz:

      You have also said previously that her firing makes it easier for Secretary Kennedy's appointees to change vaccine recommendations. You just mentioned fearing a walk-back in some of those vaccine policies.

      What does that mean specifically? What could we see ahead?

    • Dr. Debra Houry:

      So, if we don't have a CDC director, and if there's not an acting CDC director, then the secretary would sign recommendations like he did for the last ACIP, or vaccine committee, meeting.

      So things like the COVID vaccine or hepatitis B vaccine, they could choose to change ages on it or the populations that have access to it. I'm just concerned about changing vaccine access in our country and that we need to focus more on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, shared decision-making around vaccines, and not talking about misinformation around vaccines.

      
      

      • Amna Nawaz:

        And changes to things like the hepatitis B vaccine, are those conversations you were a part of during your time there? Those are being discussed?

      • Dr. Debra Houry:

        So I know that the work groups have been asked to look at hepatitis B. They're in the middle of pulling a systematic review together right now.

        So I would imagine that means they will be discussed. My concern is, we have pulled evidence reviews together before for the ACIP meetings, that we had one that was pulled down and not discussed. I think it's really important when we do work at CDC for our data, our science and our evidence reviews to be publicly posted, so the public can also review them and understand.

        And, to me, that is transparency and something we were trying to move towards, particularly with the secretary's commitment to radical transparency. That would mean having publicly available data and documents."

Thirteen Journalists on How They Are Rethinking Ethics; Columbia Journalism Review, August 21, 2025

JULIE GERSTEIN AND MARGARET SULLIVAN, Columbia Journalism Review; Thirteen Journalists on How They Are Rethinking Ethics

"Seek truth. Own up to mistakes. Consider all sides of a story. Prioritize accuracy, minimize harm, be transparent, avoid conflicts of interest. These are the core ethics many working journalists today learned in school or during their first years on the job.  

This summer, the two of us—Margaret Sullivan and Julie Gerstein, of the Craig Newmark Center for Journalism Ethics and Security at Columbia University—have been exploring, in a series of pieces with CJR, whether those ethics are sufficient for journalists in the modern moment. Whether, in the face of artificial intelligence, “fake news,” eroding protections for sources, and the weakening of their business model, journalists should adjust their core tenets. 

As part of our research, we asked working journalists and academic journalism ethicists to share their thoughts on themes including disinformation, objectivity, AI, nonprofit news business models, and dealing with sources. 

In some areas, we heard calls for change. “Traditional journalistic norms and conventions for covering politics and politicians were not created for a president like Donald Trump,” said Rod Hicks, executive editor of the St. Louis American and formerly the director of ethics and diversity at the Society of Professional Journalists. Stephen J. Adler, director of the Ethics and Journalism Initiative at the NYU Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute and chair of the steering committee of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, argued that “the media isn’t doing its job in correctly balancing the news value of a leak versus. the news value of who made the leak and why.” 

But other journalists spoke out in favor of renewed allegiance to old values. “Limiting the use of unnamed sources to matters of public interest wherever we can helps us ensure we don’t dilute the credibility that makes our coverage worth reading,” pointed out Elena Cherney, senior editor at the Wall Street Journal and leader of the newsroom’s Standards & Ethics team. And even as business models have changed, Matthew Watkins, editor in chief of the nonprofit Texas Tribune, argues, “the need to protect journalism from the potential corrupting influence of money is as old as the profession itself.” 

Their comments highlight the value of open, honest conversation among thoughtful leaders in an industry seeking a path forward."

Trump’s answer to numbers he doesn’t like: Change them or throw them away; The Washington Post, August 14, 2025

Cat Zakrzewski

, 

David Ovalle

, 

Scott Dance

 and 

Laura Meckler

, The Washington Post; Trump’s answer to numbers he doesn’t like: Change them or throw them away

"President Donald Trump presented inaccurate crime statistics to justify a federal takeover of D.C. police. He announced plans for the census to stop counting undocumented immigrants. And he ordered the firing of the official in charge of compiling basic statistics about the U.S. economy after a weak jobs report.

This month marked an escalation in Trump’s war on data, as he repeatedly tries to undermine statistics that threaten his agenda and distorts figures to bolster his policies. The latest instances come on top of actions the administration has taken across federal health, climate and education agencies to erase or overhaul data collection to align with the administration’s agenda and worldview.

The president’s manipulation of government data threatens to erode public trust in facts that leaders of both parties have long relied on to guide policy decisions. A breakdown in official government statistics could also create economic instability, restrain lifesaving health care and limit forecasts of natural disasters. Trump has routinely spread misinformation since the start of his political career, but his efforts in his second term to bend data to support his agenda have invited comparisons to information control in autocratic countries."

Scientists decry Trump energy chief’s plan to ‘update’ climate reports: ‘Exactly what Stalin did’; The Guardian, August 7, 2025

Mark Oliver , The Guardian; Scientists decry Trump energy chief’s plan to ‘update’ climate reports: ‘Exactly what Stalin did’

"The US energy secretary, Chris Wright, is facing growing criticism from scientists who say their “worst fears” were realized when Wright revealed that the Trump administration would “update” the US’s premier climate crisis reports.

Wright, a former oil and gas executive, told CNN’s Kaitlin Collins earlier this week that the administration was reviewing national climate assessment reports published by past governments.

Produced by scientists and peer-reviewed, there have been five national climate assessment (NCA) reports since 2000 and they are considered the gold standard report of global heating and its impacts on human health, agriculture, water supplies and air pollution.

“We’re reviewing them, and we will come out with updated reports on those and with comments on those reports,” said Wright, who is one of the main supporters of the administration’s “drill, baby, drill” agenda to boost fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of the climate crisis.

Wright was speaking days after his agency, the Department of Energy, produced a report claiming concern over the climate crisis was overblown. That energy department report was slammed by scientists for being a “farce” full of misinformation."

Zuckerberg fired the fact-checkers. We tested their replacement.; The Washington Post, August 4, 2025

 Geoffrey A. Fowler, The Washington Post; Zuckerberg fired the fact-checkers. We tested their replacement

"Zuckerberg fired professional fact-checkers, leaving users to fight falsehoods with community notes. As the main line of defense against hoaxes and deliberate liars exploiting our attention, community notes appear — so far — nowhere near up to the task."

HOW FOX NEWS IS HIDING THE GOP’S BRUTAL MEDICAID CUTS; Media Matter, June 26, 2025

WRITTEN BY MATT GERTZ, RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM TYLER MONROE, Media Matters; How Fox News is hiding the GOP’s brutal Medicaid cuts

Network mentions of “Biden” are outpacing “Medicaid” 10-to-1 

"Fox News has mentioned Medicaid, the vital federal health insurance program that President Donald Trump and his Republican allies are seeking to slash, significantly less often than CNN or MSNBC have, and one-tenth as frequently as it has referenced former President Joe Biden and his family, according to a Media Matters review of the first five months of the Trump administration.

Media Matters identified 1,390 mentions of the word “Medicaid” on Fox’s original programming from January 20 through June 21, based on searches of the Kinetiq database of closed-captioning transcripts. By contrast, using the same method, we found that the network mentioned “Biden” 13,289 times during that period.

Notably, Jesse Watters’ prime-time show mentioned “Biden” 1,096 times compared to only 20 mentions of “Medicaid,” a ratio of 55-to-1. The broadcast referenced “Biden” more times than any other show on the network — including those that air for two or three hours each weekday — and “Medicaid” less often than any other weekday show with the exception of Gutfeld!, which is nominally a comedy program, and Fox News @ Night."

Cassidy, in Break With Kennedy, Calls for Vaccine Meeting Delay; The New York Times, June 24, 2025

Sheryl Gay Stolberg , The New York Times; Cassidy, in Break With Kennedy, Calls for Vaccine Meeting Delay

"The chairman of the Senate health committee, in his first significant break with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has called for a delay in this week’s meeting of a panel of vaccine advisers, saying the group Mr. Kennedy appointed lacks the experience and diversity of opinion necessary to ensure public faith in its recommendations.

The chairman, Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, made his comments in a social media post on Monday night. Mr. Cassidy, a physician and a strong proponent of vaccines, voted reluctantly to confirm Mr. Kennedy after announcing that the secretary had agreed to consult with him on significant matters and not to disband the advisory committee. The senator has carefully parsed his words about Mr. Kennedy.

“Although the appointees to ACIP have scientific credentials, many do not have significant experience studying microbiology, epidemiology or immunology,” Mr. Cassidy wrote, using the acronym for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“In particular,” Mr. Cassidy added, “some lack experience studying new technologies such as mRNA vaccines, and may even have a preconceived bias against them.”"

Carla Hayden on her time as a pioneering librarian of Congress and getting fired by Trump; PBS News, June 20, 2025

Geoff Bennett , PBS News; Carla Hayden on her time as a pioneering librarian of Congress and getting fired by Trump

"Geoff Bennett: What effect do you believe censorship has on our democracy?

• Dr. Carla Hayden:

  As Alberto Manguel said, as centuries of dictators, tyrants, slave owners and other illicit holders of power have known, an illiterate crowd is the easiest to rule. And if you cannot restrict a people from learning to read, you must limit its scope.

  And that is the danger of making sure that people don't have access.

• Geoff Bennett:

  She says she will keep advocating for her beliefs and feels bolstered by support from elected officials on both sides of the aisle, as well as from people across the country.

  She shared that her 93-year-old mother has been cataloging the notes and messages she's received. A former president of the American Library Association, Hayden is set to address some of its 50,000 members at their annual meeting. This year's agenda, she says, takes on new urgency.

• Dr. Carla Hayden:

  How to help communities support their libraries, how to deal with personal attacks that libraries are having, even death threats in some communities for libraries.

  So this convening of librarians that are in schools, universities, public libraries will be really our rally. We have been called feisty fighters for freedom."

How the right spread ‘brutal and cruel’ misinformation after Minnesota lawmaker killings; The Guardian, June 17, 2025

Rachel Leingang and Joseph Gedeon, The Guardian; How the right spread ‘brutal and cruel’ misinformation after Minnesota lawmaker killings

[Kip Currier: The money quote from this Guardian article: 

"Lee didn’t say much, according to Smith, and seemed surprised to be confronted."

 Bullies often are surprised when people stand up to them and call them out.]

[Excerpt]

"Tina Smith, a Minnesota senator confronted Mike Lee, a Utah senator, on Monday to tell him directly that his social media posts fueled ongoing misinformation about a shooting that killed her friend.

Lee’s posts, which advanced conspiracies that a Minnesota assassin was a “Marxist” and blamed the state’s governor for Melissa Hortman’s death, were among many threads of false or speculative claims swirling online after the killings.

Smith told Lee his posts were “brutal and cruel,” according to CNN. “He should think about the implications of what he’s saying and doing. It just further fuels this hatred and misinformation,” she said. She wanted him to hear from her directly how painful it was to see his words after the brutality her state endured. Lee didn’t say much, according to Smith, and seemed surprised to be confronted...

Elon Musk, a frequent poster of unverified rightwing claims, amplified the narrative to his 200 million followers, quote-tweeting claims that “the left” killed Hortman and saying “the far left is murderously violent”...

Boelter’s own recorded sermons expose his extremist views. Preaching in Congo in 2023, he is recorded as saying: “The churches are so messed up, they don’t know abortion is wrong.” He ranted against LGBTQ people as “confused,” claiming “the enemy has gotten so far into their mind and their soul”. His alleged hit list included abortion providers and pro-choice advocates."

Suspected Minnesota Shooter Is Not a Left-Wing Democrat; NewsGuard's Reality Check, June 17, 2025

Chiara Vercellone , NewsGuard's Reality Check; Suspected Minnesota Shooter Is Not a Left-Wing Democrat

"What happened: Conservatives are baselessly claiming that Vance Boelter, the man who allegedly shot two Democratic lawmakers and their spouses in Minnesota, is a registered Democrat. Others have inaccurately described him as a “leftist.”

Context: In the early hours of June 14, Boelter, posing as a law enforcement officer, allegedly fatally shot Democratic Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and seriously wounded Democratic State Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, at their respective homes, authorities said.

A closer look: Within hours, conservative social media accounts began claiming that Boelter, who was taken into custody on June 15, was a member of the Democratic Party and a leftist, in an apparent attempt to cast Democrats and liberals as violent and to deflect any claims that he was a conservative.

• Conservative commentator Ann Vandersteel, a self-described “citizen journalist” who has more than 360,000 followers on X, posted: “The man who just assassinated Democrat Rep. Melissa Hortman is also HIMSELF A DEMOCRAT.” The post garnered 45,500 views and 1,100 likes in two days.

• Anonymous conservative X account @amuse posted on June 16: “His Democrat roommate insists (without evidence) that Boelter, a registered Democrat, is a huge Trump supporter.” The post received 44,800 views and 1,000 likes in less than one day.

Others, including X owner Elon Musk and Republican Sen. Mike Lee, claimed that Boelter is “far left” and a “Marxis[t].”

Actually: Friends of Boelter, voting records, government officials, and an alleged manifesto that authorities said was found in Boelter’s vehicle show that he was not a Democrat or liberal and may have voted for Donald Trump."