Sydney academic used AI to write SMH opinion piece urging students to avoid using tech to ‘cut corners’
The Guardian
Overall Assessment
The Guardian reports on an academic’s use of AI to write an anti-AI opinion piece, which was later removed by the Sydney Morning Herald. It presents multiple perspectives — institutional, editorial, and industry-wide — with clear sourcing and context. The tone remains factual, though the headline highlights the irony inherent in the situation.
"In response to questions from Guardian Australia, the university said Ellis had used AI in writing the column."
Editorializing
Headline & Lead 90/100
The headline effectively captures a key irony in the story — an academic warning against AI misuse while using AI to write the warning — without sensationalism. The lead clearly summarizes the core event: the publication and removal of the article, and the university’s response. Language remains factual and focused.
✕ Headline / Body Mismatch: The headline uses irony to highlight the contradiction between the content of the opinion piece and how it was produced, which is central to the news value of the story. It accurately reflects the body and avoids exaggeration.
"Sydney academic used AI to write SMH opinion piece urging students to avoid using tech to ‘cut corners’"
Language & Tone 97/100
The article maintains a high degree of neutrality, avoiding charged language, emotional appeals, or judgmental framing. It reports facts and attributed statements without inserting opinion.
✕ Editorializing: The article avoids editorializing or moral condemnation, instead reporting actions and statements from institutions and editors. The tone remains detached and informative.
"In response to questions from Guardian Australia, the university said Ellis had used AI in writing the column."
✕ Editorializing: The use of direct quotes from both the university and the Herald allows the parties to speak for themselves, minimizing reporter judgment.
"“Clearly this is unacceptable and we are investigating further.”"
✕ Loaded Labels: No loaded language is used to describe the professor; she is identified by title and role, not by pejorative implication.
"Western Sydney University’s pro vice-chancellor for quality and integrity, Prof Cath Ellis"
Balance 93/100
Multiple stakeholders are represented: the university, the media outlet, and broader industry precedents. Attribution is clear and direct, with named sources and institutional policies cited. The balance between defense and criticism is maintained.
✓ Proper Attribution: The article fairly presents the university’s defense of the professor’s AI use, quoting a spokesperson and explaining their rationale, giving institutional perspective.
"“The University believes the AI use in this case was appropriate.”"
✓ Proper Attribution: It includes the editorial response from the Sydney Morning Herald, quoting editor Jordan Baker directly, providing accountability from the publishing side.
"“The Herald was not informed of the use of AI in the compilation of the article by either the author or Western Sydney University,” Baker said."
✓ Comprehensive Sourcing: The article cites multiple external examples (Crikey, NYT) to show this is not an isolated case, improving source diversity and credibility.
"Also in March, a freelance journalist admitted to using AI for a book review that echoed elements of one published in the Guardian, leading the New York Times to cut ties with him."
Story Angle 88/100
The story is framed around policy, disclosure, and appropriate use rather than hypocrisy or scandal. It emphasizes institutional standards and evolving norms in media and academia, avoiding oversimplification.
✕ Framing by Emphasis: The story is framed around institutional accountability and policy compliance rather than personal scandal, focusing on editorial standards and appropriate AI use. This avoids moralizing and centers systemic norms.
"The Herald was not informed of the use of AI in the compilation of the article by either the author or Western Sydney University"
✕ Narrative Framing: The article avoids reducing the issue to a simple conflict between 'pro-AI' and 'anti-AI' camps, instead showing nuance in how AI can be used — summarizing one’s own work vs. generating new content.
"Prof. Ellis uploaded 40,000 words of her own original materials into a Copilot Large Language Model (LLM). The model summarised her extensive base of knowledge, providing prompts"
Completeness 95/100
The article situates the incident within wider industry practices and policies, including comparative cases and corporate guidelines. It acknowledges the evolving standards around AI use in media, enhancing public understanding of why this case matters beyond the individual.
✓ Contextualisation: The article provides context about broader industry trends, referencing prior incidents at Crikey and the New York Times, which helps situate this event within a larger pattern of AI misuse in journalism.
"Crikey removed a series of articles from one writer in March after it was revealed the author had used AI to assist with the proofing of the copy."
✓ Contextualisation: The piece includes relevant policy context from Nine, clarifying what is and is not permitted in AI use, which adds necessary institutional framing.
"The editorial policy for Nine, parent company of the Sydney Morning Herald, allows writers to use AI for initial research and prompt ideas but states: “AI will not be used to write stories for publication.”"
AI use in writing is framed as ethically questionable and deceptive when undisclosed
The article emphasizes the contradiction between advocating against AI misuse while using it covertly, and highlights institutional rejection (Herald calling it 'unacceptable') and detection by AI tools, implying ethical breach.
"Clearly this is unacceptable and we are investigating further."
Media institutions are portrayed as struggling to maintain editorial integrity amid rising AI use
The article cites multiple cases (Crikey, New York Times) where media outlets failed to detect or allowed undisclosed AI use, suggesting systemic vulnerability in editorial standards.
"Crikey removed a series of articles from one writer in March after it was revealed the author had used AI to assist with the proofing of the copy."
Academics are portrayed as potentially hypocritical and compromised in upholding intellectual integrity
The central irony — a senior academic using AI to write a piece warning against AI misuse — undermines trust in academic leadership and ethical consistency.
"A top Sydney academic used AI to write an opinion piece that urged students to “do the work” and not cut corners by using such technology"
Big Tech's AI tools are implicitly framed as adversarial to academic and journalistic integrity
The use of Copilot (a Microsoft product) and AI detectors like Pangram are central to the incident, with AI tools enabling undetectable content generation that challenges traditional authorship norms.
"The model summarised her extensive base of knowledge, providing prompts"
Press freedom is subtly framed as being constrained by opaque AI policies and institutional gatekeeping
The article notes the lack of transparency from Nine and the removal of the piece without public prior notice, raising questions about editorial accountability and openness.
"Nine did not respond to questions from Guardian Australia."
The Guardian reports on an academic’s use of AI to write an anti-AI opinion piece, which was later removed by the Sydney Morning Herald. It presents multiple perspectives — institutional, editorial, and industry-wide — with clear sourcing and context. The tone remains factual, though the headline highlights the irony inherent in the situation.
This article is part of an event covered by 2 sources.
View all coverage: "Sydney Morning Herald removes opinion piece after author’s use of AI to write article comes to light"A professor at Western Sydney University used generative AI to draft an opinion article for the Sydney Morning Herald advising students not to outsource their thinking to AI. The university confirmed AI was used to summarize her prior work, calling it appropriate. The Herald removed the piece for violating editorial policy requiring disclosure of AI use in writing.
The Guardian — Business - Tech
Based on the last 60 days of articles
The Guardian
