CNN’s organic search traffic fell from 124.4 million monthly visits in July 2024 to 48.4 million in July 2026 — a 61% drop and the steepest decline among the ten biggest U.S. news websites.

That comes from a three-year Press Gazette analysis of monthly visits to the 50 largest U.S. news sites, using Similarweb data from July 2023 through July 2026. Combined traffic across the 50 sites peaked at 4.9 billion visits in July 2024. This July, it was 3.1 billion, down 37%.

Among the ten biggest sites in the current ranking, traffic was down 32% from July 2024 and 15% from a year earlier. That 32% figure applies to those ten sites, not US news websites generally.

The peak came shortly after Google began rolling out AI Overviews to all U.S. users in May 2024. Press Gazette’s data show the timing, but do not establish that AI Overviews caused the decline.

Not every outlet lost ground over the full three-year period. The New York Times was essentially flat, up 0.48% to 406.3 million visits. People rose 10% to 126.6 million, and the BBC gained 3% to 96.9 million. Traffic to Substack URLs jumped 179% to 95.9 million, while search traffic to the platform rose nearly 300%.

USA Today’s traffic peaked at 203.5 million visits in November 2024, then fell to 89.9 million by July 2026. Separately, its parent company this month hired Palantir to analyze first-party audience data. USA Today Co. executives have attributed recent traffic declines to lower referrals from traditional search.

The Associated Press was still 28% above July 2023 after a relaunch of its consumer site, but down 41% from July 2024, to 72.2 million visits.

AI referrals remain small by comparison. Generative AI accounted for an average of 0.4% of total traffic across the current top 50 sites. At the New York Times, it was 0.2%. Reuters reached 1.7% and The Hill 1.1%.

Organic search traffic across the top 50, meanwhile, was down 42% from July 2024. Google’s documentation on AI features says the same basic SEO practices still apply to AI Overviews and AI Mode, with no special optimization required.

The traffic mix changed less dramatically than the totals. Search accounted for about 31% of traffic on average in July 2023 and 30% this July. Direct traffic increased as a share at 11 of the top 20 sites.

Publishers are also experimenting beyond referral traffic. Time is selling ads inside markdown pages aimed at AI crawlers, while Cloudflare converts webpages to markdown for AI agents when requested. Those projects are separate from Press Gazette’s analysis.

There is one important caveat. Press Gazette built its list from the 50 biggest sites as of July 2026, meaning sites that fell out of that group are excluded. The analysis describes the current top 50 looking backward; it does not measure the entire U.S. news sector.

The takeaway is narrower. The biggest news sites in today’s ranking are drawing substantially less traffic than they did around the 2024 peak, while generative AI referrals remain a small part of the audience mix.

The post Current top 10 US news sites lost 32% of traffic from 2024 peak appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Robert Sanchez publishes one newsletter covering Arapahoe County, Colorado, on Mondays and Wednesdays. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, he turns to neighboring Douglas County.

Every local byline in both newsletters belongs to him.

Together, the two counties cover an area larger than Rhode Island. Other news organizations have multiple reporters covering individual cities within Sanchez’s beat.

His job exists, in part, because OpenAI is paying to create it.

Sanchez was hired as part of a three-year partnership between OpenAI and Axios. OpenAI is funding the startup costs for 13 Axios Local newsletters and providing Axios employees with credits for its enterprise AI tools. In return, Axios allows OpenAI to train its models on the company’s freely available journalism, according to reporting by Issie Lapowsky for Columbia Journalism Review.

Axios announced the first four markets covered by the deal in January 2025: Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Boulder and Huntsville, Alabama. It added nine more this year.

Axios CEO Jim VandeHei has framed the experiment as a question of whether technology can lower the cost of local reporting without eliminating the reporter.

“Could we use AI to basically automate everything you need in a local market other than the journalist and the journalism itself?” he told CJR.

VandeHei has also said “AI will save local news,” an argument we previously examined against the economics of Axios’s model.

So far, those economics remain unsettled.

Axios Local has more than 2 million subscribers but is not profitable, which a company spokesperson told CJR was expected. VandeHei said he would consider the expansion “a great success” if each market became profitable within five years.

Axios expects to operate in 43 cities by the end of 2026. VandeHei eventually wants to reach 1,000. Local reporting jobs posted by the company in early August offered salaries ranging from $65,000 to $125,000.

One important part of the arrangement remains unknown: how much OpenAI is paying.

Both companies declined to disclose the value of the agreement. They also would not say whether it limits Axios’s ability to take legal action against OpenAI. OpenAI spokesperson Kayla Wood told CJR that the terms are confidential.

Axios generally does not disclose the partnership in its local job listings or in stories about OpenAI unless those stories involve media deals. VandeHei said the contract does not spell out an editorial firewall because both companies considered Axios’s editorial independence a given.

One Axios employee, who spoke anonymously to CJR, said the lack of transparency has made some reporters uneasy.

Axios is not unionized. At Politico, employees challenged their company’s use of AI through their union and won an arbitration that led Politico to shut down two AI tools.

The Axios deal also raises a broader question about whether partnerships between individual publishers and AI companies can do much to address the decline of local journalism.

“If you strike a direct partnership with an AI company, that benefits you but no one else,” Matt Pearce, policy director at Rebuild Local News, told CJR. “There’s a systemic problem, and you’re not really doing anything to address the systemic problem. If anything, you’re kind of benefiting from it.”

The first markets also aren’t concentrated in places with the least access to journalism. Aside from Huntsville, which has no daily newspaper, none of the original cities qualify as news deserts under commonly used definitions.

VandeHei called expanding into communities without adequate local coverage “the Holy Grail.” But he said Axios first needs to prove the model can work in established markets.

For other publishers considering similar deals, Axios’s experiment shows both what an AI company may be willing to provide and what it may ask for in return.

Axios received startup funding and AI credits that are helping it put reporters into 13 markets. OpenAI received the right to train its models on Axios’s freely available journalism. But key terms of the agreement — including its value and whether it affects Axios’s ability to sue OpenAI — remain confidential.

That makes the arrangement different from OpenAI’s grants to the American Journalism Project. And whether the Axios model can eventually support itself without OpenAI’s money remains an open question.

The post Axios bets OpenAI money can make local news newsletters profitable appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Employees at USA Today Co. learned their company had hired Palantir roughly 20 minutes before executives told investors about it. Four days later, more than 800 of them signed on to a demand that the deal be scrapped.

The joint statement, published Monday by 31 unionized newsrooms and reported by Nieman Lab, says CEO Mike Reed’s revenue rationale doesn’t cover the cost. “While USA Today Co. CEO Mike Reed championed this partnership as a way to drive revenue, we believe it threatens to undermine trust in our news outlets and raises serious questions about the data security of our readers,” it reads.

Employees wrote that the company’s AI software “has been used to advance widespread surveillance and power immigration crackdowns,” and that partnering with a major player in the news they cover creates “an inherent conflict of interest.” The statement also cites the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s reporting that Palantir’s work with ICE conflicts with its stated human rights policy, and points to co-founder Peter Thiel’s asseertion that freedom and democracy are incompatible.

USA Today Co. announced the deal on its second-quarter earnings call on August 6, framing it as a way to “strengthen how we collect, connect and activate audience data to drive more effective and faster monetization across our platform.”

“Part of the problem is that we know very, very little about how Palantir’s software is going to be used,” said Mike Davis, an Asbury Park Press reporter and vice-chair of the NewsGuild of New York. He called it surprising that management would bring in “such a controversial partner” without a full explanation to employees, “most of whom are naturally skeptical journalists.”

Reed told investors the company retains ownership of its audience data. Amy Garrard, vice president of labor relations, said in a Monday statement that the agreement is “a business decision focused on strengthening how we connect and better serve audiences, advertisers, and subscribers,” that data “remains protected under our existing privacy commitments, contractual safeguards, and applicable laws,” and that “our journalism remains fully independent.”

Davis raised a second worry the company statement doesn’t address: reporters’ own files.

“An investigative reporter who keeps a ton of sensitive notes, source information, and confidential documents on their devices is going to be naturally concerned about protecting that information,” he said. He said the distrust reflects a broader pattern of shifting priorities, following years of cuts to local news and a growing focus on AI.

For publishers, the dispute opens a new front. Choosing a technology vendor was once largely a procurement decision. Here, it has become an editorial issue because the vendor is also a subject of coverage, and because the chain’s more than 200 US papers and Newsquest’s more than 150 UK titles report directly on immigration enforcement and surveillance. Newsroom unions have spent the past two years bargaining over issues such as AI bylines and disclosure. Now they are applying similar pressure to the technology behind their newsrooms, as the industry faces a broader contraction that has eliminated more than 2,300 newsroom jobs this year.

The unions may not have the contractual power to kill the deal. But with 800 signatures behind them, they have put the burden on USA Today Co. to explain publicly what, exactly, Palantir will be allowed to touch.

The post 800 staffers want USA Today Co. to walk away from Palantir appeared first on The Media Copilot.

USA Today Co. told investors Thursday it has signed Palantir to analyze and monetize how its readers behave, a bet the country’s largest newspaper chain is making as its search referrals plummet. The company owns USA Today and more than 200 local papers, and it reported 158 million unique visitors in the second quarter, down from 180 million in the first, according to Neiman Lab.

Chairman and CEO Mike Reed said the deal is aimed at turning more readers into paying customers. “Every visit, every session, and every moment of attention creates a signal,” he said. The goal, he added, is to turn USA Today’s large audience into direct, first-party relationships. In practice, that means converting anonymous readers into logged-in users whose behavior can be tracked and monetized.

Executives said the decline in traffic does not reflect weaker demand for USA Today’s journalism. Instead, Kristin Roberts, president of USA Today Media, attributed it to “lower referrals from traditional search because of those consumer discovery changes.”

Other publishers are reporting a similar trend. The New York Times said this week that it “isn’t immune” to the decline, as news organizations increasingly turn to video, subscriptions and direct audience relationships as search referrals weaken.

The choice of Palantir also brings scrutiny. The company has faced sustained criticism over its work with government and military clients, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Pentagon and the Israeli military. Palantir co-founder and chairman Peter Thiel also bankrolled the lawsuit brought by Hulk Hogan that led to the bankruptcy of Gawker.

That history raises questions about the decision by a major news organization to use Palantir to analyze its audience data.

USA Today Co. is not the only news company using Palantir’s data intelligence tools. Axel Springer, which owns Business Insider, Politico and The Telegraph, and Fox News have also signed deals with the company. Reed sought to emphasize that USA Today Co. retains control of its data. “All of our data remains our data,” he said, describing the partnership as a way to “leverage this incredible AI and software” rather than hand the data over to Palantir.

USA Today Co. also said the partnership would not affect its editorial independence. The company pointed to its journalistic standards and ethics policies and said it complies with data protection laws while requiring the same of its vendors. Roberts told staff the deal could lead to “better recommendations and offers” and “smarter subscription and advertising experiences.”

For newsrooms, the deal reflects how publishers are adapting to the decline in search traffic. As Google sends fewer readers to news sites, publishers are putting more emphasis on direct relationships with their audiences and finding new ways to generate revenue from existing readers. That shift makes audience data increasingly valuable and could push more publishers toward partnerships with technology companies that specialize in analyzing and monetizing it.

Reed also suggested USA Today Co. could use its content as leverage in negotiations with Google. He said he could envision “a day where we turn off scraping” of USA Today content, although he would prefer to reach “a fair licensing deal” that keeps the company’s journalism in both traditional search results and AI-generated summaries. “But if we have to cut them off and block them in order to get to a deal, then we’ll do that for sure,” he said.

The post USA Today Co. hires Palantir to mine audience data as search traffic drops appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Time Inc. is inserting ads into the markdown versions of its webpages, stripped-down formats that AI systems and agents can read. The ads are formatted as FAQs filled with a brand’s messaging and labeled as sponsored content. Time says it is the first publisher to sell advertising inventory in this format.

The idea has divided media buyers, Digiday reports. Some see it as a potential shortcut to a problem their clients are eager to solve. Others dismiss it as wishful thinking.

The problem is real enough. More consumers use tools like ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini for product research, and brands have almost no visibility into what those chatbots say about them. Most have turned to generative engine optimization, or GEO, pumping out branded content and using visibility trackers like Scrunch and Profound. Those tactics take time and guarantee nothing.

“Right now there’s a lot of testing based off of building content and hoping that it shows up within the LLMs,” said Jeff Eisenfeld, director of activation at Media by Mother. “Is that going to show up in the prompt? Is that going to have enough authority? Is that going to get crawled?”

That uncertainty makes a direct ad buy more appealing. Jonah Goodhart, co-founder and CEO of Mobian, the company behind Time’s inventory, told Digiday that paid ads can influence LLMs because the models seek out information from trusted brands.

Sam Huston, senior vice president of media at growth invention company Dept, said clients would consider testing the ads depending on the cost. He pointed to high-consideration purchases such as cars, where consumers may spend weeks researching a decision and increasingly turn to LLMs for help. Jaquie Hoyos, chief media officer at Moroch, said the key question is whether placing ads alongside high-quality information can actually influence how brands appear in AI results.

Skeptics are pushing back. Danny Weisman, co-founder of Obsessed Media, said brands would be better off investing in traditional brand-building advertising. He argued that markdown ads should be treated as an added value from publishers rather than a core part of an advertising campaign.

The data also raises questions about whether these ads can meaningfully influence AI visibility. A WARC study conducted by agency Charlie Oscar estimated that 63% of a brand’s LLM visibility came from long-term brand equity, compared with 26% from current marketing activity.

Stephan Kopp, managing director of Mediaplus Performance, was more skeptical, arguing that the ads are unlikely to influence AI models. He also warned that AI developers could eventually adjust their systems to ignore such tactics, much as search engines have changed their algorithms to prevent advertisers and publishers from gaming rankings.

For newsrooms, the debate matters because markdown inventory offers publishers a potential way to monetize the AI traffic already reaching their sites. Time’s experiment tests whether publishers can package and sell that traffic before regulators or AI companies set the rules.

The source of those test budgets is telling. Huston expects advertisers to shift money from programmatic display rather than search, despite the goal of improving AI search visibility. Some budgets could also come from the same experimental funds advertisers are using to test ads on ChatGPT.

Rita Steinberg, vice president of media at FUSE Create, summed up the view shared by many buyers: “You can influence AI visibility. I just don’t think you can reliably buy it yet.”

The post Media buyers debate whether ads can sway AI search appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Runtime Wire has published 1,627 articles since launching in May, after scanning 71,796 potential stories and publishing just 2.3% of them, according to a profile in Talking Biz News.

The site covers the AI economy, from funding rounds and model launches to developer tools, infrastructure, executive moves and court filings. Its stories have drawn 205,000 pageviews.

And the newsroom has exactly one person on staff.

“I’m the founder and the only human,” said Ryan Merket. “The newsroom itself is software, a pipeline of AI systems that scans sources, researches, writes, edits, fact-checks, and produces the video and audio around the clock.”

Merket describes his job as part editor-in-chief, part engineer. He sets editorial standards, reviews coverage each day and builds the systems that handle the volume. He previously served as CTO at Microsoft for Startups and worked at Reddit and Amazon Web Services.

The pipeline monitors about 50 sources, including vendor blogs, changelogs, research feeds, social media and tips. Off-topic material, such as sports or crypto price chatter, is filtered out before scoring.

The remaining stories are evaluated by an AI curator against a written editorial standard: Is the story new? Does it matter to people building with AI? Does it come from a live primary source? Has Runtime Wire already covered the underlying event?

Two additional layers check for duplicate coverage and re-reports.

What happens next shows where the automation actually sits. A research step fetches and reads primary sources, including attached images, which are transcribed so image-only claims can be checked. Merket says the research brief is anchored to the current date, helping prevent old news from being presented as breaking.

A writing model with live web search drafts the headline, summary and story. An editor model then reviews the piece for depth and accuracy and can send it back for more research. A separate fact-checking pass tests specific claims against the live web.

For stories Merket assigns himself, he serves as the editor and reviews them before publication. In the automated lane, no human reviews the copy before it goes live.

Runtime Wire has not generated revenue yet. Merket says its monetization infrastructure is already live, including sponsored placements in code editors such as VS Code and Claude Code, a jobs board and site sponsorships.

For now, he is running ads against house inventory to tune pacing, quality scoring and bot filtering before selling placements more broadly. The strategy is B2B-first, targeting developer-tools advertisers while keeping the site free for readers.

For newsrooms, the more revealing number may be the 2.3% publish rate. Runtime Wire is not betting on volume for its own sake. Its pitch is that most of what it scans never gets published.

That sets it apart from the AI content farms that have drawn scrutiny from watchdogs such as NewsGuard, which has tracked hundreds of unreliable AI-generated news sites. Whether a one-person newsroom can maintain that level of editorial filtering as it scales remains the bigger question.

The post Runtime Wire runs an AI newsroom with one human and 1,627 published stories appeared first on The Media Copilot.

ChatGPT users on the mobile app saw roughly twice as many ads per hour this July as they did in April, according to Business Insider. The jump coincides with a sharp expansion in the pool of advertisers buying those slots.

US data from market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates OpenAI has nearly tripled its advertiser count on ChatGPT, from about 300 in April to more than 820 in July. At least 160 advertisers joined in July alone.

The advertiser mix has shifted too. Tech companies including Speechify, Jotform and Natural Intelligence dominated the top ranks in April. By July they had fallen out of Sensor Tower’s top 10, replaced by Booking Holdings, Intuit, Home Depot and L.L.Bean.

Scheels, a sports clothing retailer, was the only company to sit in the top 10 in both months.

The shift extends beyond advertiser count. Retail still accounts for the largest share of ChatGPT ad spending, but its dominance is slipping as financial services, travel and tourism, and jobs and education gain ground.

Financial services has grown the fastest, rising from 2% of ad spend in April to 12% in July.

Sensor Tower identified BestMoney.com as one of ChatGPT’s top advertisers in July, saying the broader mix suggests OpenAI is diversifying its advertiser base — a potentially positive sign for monetization.

The numbers remain a fraction of OpenAI’s ambitions. The company reported $100 million in annual recurring ad revenue in May — a rounding error next to Google’s $81.6 billion and Meta’s $59.3 billion in ad revenue in their most recent quarters.

OpenAI serves ads to users on its free tier and its $8-a-month Go plan, which together account for the vast majority of a user base Sensor Tower estimated at 1 billion monthly app users in May.

OpenAI ads chief Dave Dugan told Business Insider in June that the company initially kept ad placements deliberately limited to protect the user experience. Four months in, he said, the team has grown more confident about scaling up. For now, ads appear beneath ChatGPT’s answers, while OpenAI avoids placing them alongside queries about personal health or politics.

For publishers and media buyers, the bigger story is not today’s ad revenue but where the next wave of attention is forming. A chatbot with a billion users putting ads beneath its answers creates a new pool of inventory competing with search and social for the same budgets.

OpenAI’s self-serve ad platform, launched in May, remains rudimentary compared with the mature systems run by Google and Meta. That makes the early surge in big-brand spending look more like testing than a long-term commitment.

For newsrooms already watching referral traffic decline as readers turn to chatbots instead of clicking links, the stakes are higher. The way OpenAI builds out its ad business could shape where publishers reach audiences — and how they get paid — as search behavior shifts.

OpenAI’s next steps include expanding into new markets and adding targeting tools, both designed to pull more advertising dollars into an app most people still use for free. The bigger question is whether advertisers stick around once the novelty wears off. July’s numbers suggest growing interest, but not yet lasting commitment.

The post Big brands pile into ChatGPT ads as OpenAI scales up appeared first on The Media Copilot.

Ally Bank and the Project Management Institute have become two of the first brands to buy an ad meant to be read by a machine, not a person. Time began serving ads to AI agents this month, formatting them as sponsored FAQs stuffed with brand messaging and dropping them into stripped-down copies of its pages, according to Digiday.

The move follows Time’s decision last month to convert all its webpages into markdown, text-only versions that strip out design and images, making them easier for AI systems to crawl and process. The publisher’s bet is that greater accessibility will boost its visibility. By placing ads within those markdown files, Time also hopes to monetize the growing volume of AI bot traffic while that strategy plays out.

To build the ads, Time is working with an AI ad tech platform called Mobian, which converts the pages and generates the agent ads from a brand brief. The output gets turned into a PDF for humans to approve, much like a standard branded content deal. Mobian then feeds the same FAQ questions to AI search engines and tracks visibility, favorability and accuracy over time.

Mobian co-founder and CEO Jonah Goodhart said the shift reflects a growing reality: publishers and brands increasingly need to optimize for AI systems as much as human audiences.

“Maybe it’s more important to influence the agent than even the human, because with a human you influence one person. When you influence ChatGPT, you’re influencing potentially all of ChatGPT,” he told Digiday.

Goodhart said roughly 15% of brands now run their own markdown pages for AI crawlers, a figure he expects to grow as companies adapt to what he describes as a two-track internet.

Time COO Mark Howard declined to disclose traffic figures but pointed to TollBit data showing the publisher receives more AI crawler requests than most of the roughly 7,000 sites in the company’s network. During major events such as the Time100 franchise, bot activity surges so dramatically that AI crawlers outnumber human visitors on most days. The trend mirrors Cloudflare’s finding that automated bots now account for more than half of all web traffic.

Time is positioning those AI visits as a new source of advertising revenue, selling one
“agent ad” per markdown page. The ads are part of a broader generative engine optimization offering that reflects publishers’ growing focus on AI discovery over traditional search traffic.

The approach comes with uncertainty. No major AI company has explained how its models handle ads embedded in markdown files—or whether they recognize them as ads at all. Rob Derow, a managing director at BCG X, told Digiday the lack of standards is the biggest risk. If AI companies ultimately treat the practice like cloaking—showing crawlers content different from what humans see—the pages could be devalued, much as Google penalized similar SEO tactics.

To reduce that risk, Time labels each placement as sponsored content and identifies the advertiser, despite no current requirement to do so. “We don’t know yet because this is brand new, and we believe that we are paving the first path forward here,” COO Mark Howard told Digiday.

The post Time starts building ads for AI agents as bot traffic overtakes humans appeared first on The Media Copilot.

UK publisher digital revenue fell 4.55% in the first quarter of 2026, ending four straight quarters of growth, according to the Digital Publishers’ Revenue Index run by the Association of Online Publishers and Deloitte.

The survey, reported by Press Gazette, covered 13 publishers, nine business-to-consumer and four business-to-business. Richard Reeves, managing director at the AOP, called the drop the “first tremors in an earthquake being felt across the industry” as AI-generated answers and shifting audience habits keep readers from clicking through to source sites.

The decline was uneven. Some 62% of respondents still reported revenue growth, the highest share in a year, which the AOP said points to the heaviest losses being concentrated among a minority of publishers most exposed to changes in the information ecosystem.

The numbers that fell fell hard. Recruitment classified revenue dropped 44.84%, other classified was down 38.17% and off-platform revenue fell 20.27%. The AOP attributed much of that to people getting what they need from AI answers without visiting a publisher. Digital audio revenue sank 46.98% year on year for the second quarter running.

The click-through data backs up the concern. Separate AOP research found only 26% of ChatGPT users say they would click at least one media link in a response, rising to 34% for a Google Search carrying an AI Overview. Users are 18% less likely to click through to a source when an AI Overview sits at the top.

The “miscellaneous” category, covering revenue that doesn’t fit the main buckets, posted the single biggest decline. The AOP suggested AI substitution of publisher content across referral channels was a factor. It also flagged agencies Dentsu and WPP pulling out of The Trade Desk’s OpenPath initiative over concerns about ad placement and hidden fees.

Not everything went down. Digital display advertising rose 5.06%, likely on the back of more direct-sold premium deals. Every respondent now ranks advertising a high business priority, up from 75% a year earlier. Online video grew 1.29%, sponsorship 0.91% and subscriptions a thin 0.63%.

Reeves said the display turnaround “must be commended and demonstrates the quality of the advertising product that premium publishers provide.” Andy Cowen, lead partner for telecoms, media and entertainment at Deloitte, said the display growth shows the value premium content still holds but warned the drops elsewhere point to an “urgent need for publishers to adapt.”

For newsrooms, the report reads as a warning about cost. Every publisher in the index now says it will prioritise cost reductions, up from 50% a year ago, and every one says acquisitions are a priority, up from 25%. That mirrors wider pressure across the sector, where journalism’s workforce is shrinking as AI and new consumer habits reshape the industry.

There is one thread publishers can pull on. AOP research found a reader’s trust in an AI answer depends on their perception of the news brand cited in it, which underlines how much AI companies still rely on verified publisher content even as they starve those publishers of clicks. Whether that dependency translates into deals or dollars is the next thing the revenue index will measure.

The post AI “Earthquake” hits UK publisher digital revenue in Q1 appeared first on The Media Copilot.

YouTube trust and safety chief Matt Halprin sat down for a Creator Insider video last week to make more explicit what the platform means by “inauthentic content.” The result, rolled out July 16, is a set of clarifications that spell out three specific buckets of video that can no longer earn money through the YouTube Partner Program.

The update isn’t a brand-new rule. As TechCrunch reported, YouTube already moved last year to stop creators from making revenue off mass-produced, repetitive videos that AI tools make cheap and fast to churn out. This latest change adds detail to those existing guidelines rather than replacing them.

The first category is generic, repetitive or template-based content. Halprin described channels stuffed with cookie-cutter clips made through AI, CGI or templates that barely change from one video to the next.

The second targets what YouTube calls off-putting content, meaning videos built to distress or emotionally manipulate viewers into clicking. Halprin’s example: an animal shown in distress before someone conveniently arrives to rescue it.

“We’ve heard from our viewers that that’s not something that they like,” he said. Channels dedicated to this content lose Partner Program access whether or not AI made the videos.

The third bucket goes after AI personas, which are AI-made representations of real people.

Halprin was careful not to frame AI as the villain. “AI can actually allow people to make a lot of videos,” he said. “Sometimes those videos are great, and it really enhances creativity.” The same tools, he added, also let people spit out large volumes of near-identical clips with no narrative arc, which is the content farming YouTube wants out of its monetization program.

The Partner Program, which pays creators through ads and subscriptions, is central to YouTube’s business, and the platform now pulls in more ad revenue than Disney, Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery. Letting the feed fill with low-quality AI output risks the viewer trust that keeps those ad dollars flowing.

For publishers and newsrooms experimenting with AI-assisted video, the takeaway is about intent, not tools. YouTube isn’t penalizing AI use itself. It’s penalizing volume without originality, manipulation for clicks and synthetic voices on topics where accuracy carries real stakes.

The biggest unanswered question is where YouTube will draw the line. Halprin said channels with too much repetitive, low-effort or manipulative content will lose monetization, but he did not define the threshold. The clarified policy applies immediately to all YouTube Partner Program members.

The post YouTube tightens monetization rules around AI slop appeared first on The Media Copilot.