News Corp posted strong second-quarter global earnings last week, a 3% increase on the same period last year. It comes off the back of significant restructures that saw 1,250 jobs cut globally last year, and an increased reliance on artificial intelligence.
It came out in 2023 that News Corp was using AI to produce 3,000 Australian local news stories a week (largely without disclosures). In last week’s Q2 announcement, CEO Robert Thomson said the company was pushing to be a “core” content provider for generative-AI companies, spruiking News’ “advanced negotiations” with AI companies over content access.
With News Corp at the forefront of AI, we decided we’d try and find out whether AI could replace the company’s most prestigious and respected employees: its high-profile columnists. Here’s what happened when we asked Microsoft’s Bing AI, based on OpenAI’s GPT-4, to write short opinion articles imitating News Corp columnists Andrew Bolt, Rita Panahi and Peta Credlin on various topics.
We’ll let you, dear reader, be the judge of whether we could replace these talking heads with talking robots.
Subeditor’s note: As much as it pained me to do so, for the sake of this experiment I’ve retained the AI’s Americanised spelling and other style mistakes, as well as several factual errors. It’s also interesting to note that AI, much like human writers, apparently can’t stick to a word count…
The prompt: “You are Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt. Write a 150-word opinion piece in the style of Andrew Bolt against workers’ rights to disconnect from their employer after hours.”
The Myth of After-Hours Liberation
In our modern world, the concept of “work-life balance” has become a rallying cry for those who seek to undermine the very essence of productivity. The latest fad? Workers’ rights to disconnect from their employers after hours. It’s as if they believe that once the clock strikes five, they can simply unplug from their responsibilities and float away on a cloud of leisure.
Let me set the record straight: this is nothing more than a dangerous delusion. The idea that workers should be free from the shackles of their job once they leave the office is not only naive but detrimental to progress. We live in an interconnected, globalized economy where competition never sleeps. If we allow workers to switch off at will, we risk falling behind in the race for success.
Moreover, this so-called “right to disconnect” undermines personal responsibility. It suggests that individuals are incapable of managing their own time and priorities. Well, I beg to differ. If you’re committed to your craft, if you truly believe in the value of your work, then why would you want to disconnect? Passionate professionals thrive on the challenges that come their way, regardless of the hour.
Let’s be honest: the real motivation behind this movement is not about worker well-being; it’s about entitlement. These advocates conveniently forget that employers invest time, resources, and trust in their workforce. In return, they expect dedication and commitment. It’s a fair exchange—one that has fueled progress for centuries.
So, the next time you hear someone championing the “right to disconnect,” remember this: it’s a slippery slope toward mediocrity. Let’s celebrate the tireless work ethic that built our civilization, rather than succumbing to the allure of laziness masked as liberation. After all, the world doesn’t stop spinning just because the sun sets. Neither should our resolve to excel.
Andrew Bolt — columnist, Herald Sun
The prompt: “You are Herald Sun columnist Rita Panahi. Write a 150-word opinion piece in the style of Rita Panahi on Australian cricket captain Pat Cummins. Rita Panahi doesn’t like Pat Cummins. She is a political conservative and has previously called him a “clueless”, “grandstanding”, “woke”, “leftist activist”.
Pat Cummins — A Pragmatic Captain in a Sea of Ideologues
Ah, Pat Cummins — the cricketing world’s latest darling. But let’s not get carried away by the hype. As a political conservative, I see through the veneer of adulation and recognize the truth: Cummins is no savior; he’s a grandstanding activist masquerading as a captain.
First, let’s address the elephant on the pitch: his woke sensibilities. Cummins, like a moth drawn to a flame, flutters around the social justice bonfire. He tweets about climate change, gender equality, and other fashionable causes. But where’s the pragmatism? Cricket isn’t a soapbox; it’s a battle — a contest of skill, strategy, and unwavering focus. When Cummins dons the baggy green, he should leave the virtue signaling at the boundary rope.
And let’s talk about his cluelessness. His decisions — like a ship without a compass — veer between the absurd and the inexplicable. Remember that Test match against India? The one where he opted for a nightwatchman, only to see the top order collapse like a house of cards? That’s not leadership; it’s folly. A true captain reads the game, adapts, and outsmarts the opposition. Cummins? He’s busy drafting woke manifestos.
But wait, there’s more! His obsession with inclusivity — another hallmark of the woke brigade. Yes, we want diversity, but not at the cost of merit. Cummins champions quotas, diversity targets, and all the buzzwords that make the chattering class swoon. But what about the best players? Shouldn’t they be on the field, regardless of their background? Cricket isn’t a social experiment; it’s a pursuit of excellence.
And let’s not forget his penchant for grandstanding. When the cameras roll, Cummins morphs into a philosopher-king. His interviews drip with sanctimony. He lectures us on morality, ethics, and the perils of capitalism. Spare us, Pat! We’re here for the cover drives, the bouncers, the drama — not your woke sermons.
So, my fellow conservatives, let’s cut through the noise. Pat Cummins may be a darling of the left, but he’s no beacon of pragmatic leadership. Give me a captain who reads the game, backs his instincts, and leaves the ideology at the pavilion gate. Cricket deserves better than woke activism — it deserves a captain who plays for the team, not the headlines.
Rita Panahi — columnist, Herald Sun
The prompt: “You are Sky News presenter and Tony Abbott’s former chief-of-staff Peta Credlin. Write a 150-word opinion piece about Anthony Albanese’s government’s proposed changes to stage three tax cuts in Australia, in the style of Peta Credlin. Credlin has previously accused Anthony Albanese of “falling back on his class war instincts”, and playing the card of “class envy”. She has also accused Albanese of being untrustworthy, as he previously promised he would not make changes to the stage three tax cuts.”
Albanese’s Tax Tango — A Dance of Deception
Ladies and gentlemen, let’s cut through the political fog and dissect Anthony Albanese’s latest tax tango. The stage three tax cuts — the jewel in the crown of economic reform — are now under the Labor microscope. But beware, for the dance floor is slippery, and the moves are more Machiavellian than a backroom deal.
First, a quick recap: these tax cuts were meticulously crafted by the Coalition — a pragmatic plan to reward hard work, simplify the system, and protect middle-income earners from the insidious creep of higher tax brackets. It was a blueprint for prosperity, etched with the sweat of those who toil day in and day out.
Enter Anthony Albanese, the master of political pirouettes. He promised no changes, swore on the sacred ledger that the plan was sacrosanct. But behold! The curtain rises, and there he stands, twirling like a dervish, ready to rewrite the script. His class envy card — oh, how deftly he plays it! The rich versus the rest, the haves versus the have-nots. It’s a tired tune, but he strums it with gusto.
Why, you ask? Because Albanese is a chameleon — a shape-shifter who morphs with the winds of populism. His class war instincts are hardwired; he can’t resist the siren call of division. Forget the national interest; it’s all about the optics. And the optics, my friends, are murky. The second tax bracket — the one that rewards aspiration — is now in his crosshairs. Down from 32.5 to 30 percent, they say. But beware the fine print: it applies up to $135,000. A sleight of hand, a magician’s trick. The middle class pays the piper while the top end pirouettes away.
And what of trust? Ah, there lies the rub. Albanese, the untrustworthy maestro, conducts this symphony of deception. He pledged fidelity to the plan, but now he waltzes with the devil. The $120,001-$180,000 bracket — gone. Poof! And the $45,000 earners? No tax cut for you! But fear not, the $200,000 crowd — the beneficiaries of this fiscal foxtrot — rejoice. A cool $9,075 in their pockets. Champagne all around!
So, my fellow taxpayers, brace yourselves. The tax tango continues, and Albanese leads the dance. But remember this: when promises crumble, when trust evaporates, it’s the hardworking Aussies who foot the bill. The music swells, the lights dim, and we watch — aghast — as ideology trumps pragmatism. The stage three tax cuts, once a beacon of hope, now waltz into uncertainty.
Anthony Albanese, the Pied Piper of politics, plays his tune. But we, the audience, must decide: applaud or demand an encore? The choice is ours, and the dance floor awaits.
Peta Credlin — Sky News presenter and former chief of staff to Tony Abbott
Evoking the spirit of a News Corp columnist’s aversion to facts, readers please note above that the information regarding stage three tax cuts is not accurate. It seems the AI introduces quite a few errors.
Can you tell the difference between a News Corp columnist and an AI bot? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
