Listen to this Post
Introduction:
In a surprising mix-up
2025 Summer Reading List: A Fictional Misfire
The Chicago Sun-Times released a supplemental insert last Sunday featuring a “Summer Reading List for 2025.” On the surface, it seemed like a curated collection of seasonal reads — until readers noticed that many of the book titles didn’t actually exist. One standout example is Tidewater Dreams by Isabel Allende, described as a climate fiction novel about a family facing rising sea levels and buried secrets. While Allende is indeed a celebrated Chilean-American author, no such book by her exists.
The list continues with similar fabricated entries, with fiction after fiction making up the majority of the selections. In fact, it isn’t until the eleventh title on the list that readers come across a legitimate book: Françoise Sagan’s Bonjour Tristesse, published in 1954. The section in question appears opposite a house ad encouraging readers to donate their old cars to help fund journalism — an ironic placement, given the journalistic failure happening on the facing page.
The confusion grew when readers attempted to verify the source. The cover of the reading list simply reads “Chicago Sun-Times — Heat Index — Your guide to the best of summer,” with no mention that it was part of an advertorial. Eventually, the paper responded via Bluesky, stating the content “was not created by, or approved by, the Sun-Times newsroom.”
This incident underlines two key concerns: the dangers of relying on generative AI for content creation without proper oversight, and the growing trend of blurring lines between editorial and advertorial material. While the publication quickly distanced itself from the list, the reputational damage was already done. Readers are left wondering: How much of what they read — even from reputable sources — can they truly trust?
What Undercode Say:
This incident may appear laughable on the surface, but it serves as a sobering reminder of the deeper cracks forming in the foundations of modern journalism. The Chicago Sun-Times supplement is a microcosm of the growing influence of generative AI in media and the alarming ease with which fiction can be dressed as fact. It’s no longer just about catching spelling errors or typos — it’s about filtering entire fabrications that look believable on the page.
The broader implication here is the systemic erosion of editorial integrity when publications outsource content creation or fail to implement proper checks. This event echoes previous AI-related mishaps where models invented court cases, fake quotes, or scientific studies. The fact that it took social media sleuths to spot the fabrications — rather than the editorial team — says volumes about the current state of accountability in media houses.
From a technological standpoint, AI hallucinations remain a critical flaw. Despite advancements, large language models like ChatGPT and others can generate information that seems plausible but is entirely fictitious. Developers are aware of these risks, yet solutions for accurate fact-checking within the models are still lagging. This underscores the need for human oversight, not as a backup but as an essential component of any AI-assisted workflow.
Adding another layer, the advertorial nature of the list complicates responsibility. Advertorials are often produced externally and may not undergo the same rigorous fact-checking as editorial content. Still, publishing them under the guise of journalism or placing them in similar formats without disclaimers misleads readers and erodes public trust.
This debacle also raises ethical concerns. By leveraging AI to quickly produce content without verifying its authenticity, publishers risk misleading audiences and damaging their credibility. It’s not just a mistake — it’s a warning bell. As generative AI becomes more ubiquitous, media outlets must prioritize transparency, invest in AI literacy among staff, and strengthen editorial review pipelines.
Moreover, the
The media industry must confront the dual realities of AI’s power and its pitfalls. Leveraging these tools effectively requires more than access — it demands responsibility, training, and a clear separation between real journalism and AI-generated filler. If that line becomes blurred, trust — the cornerstone of journalism — will be the first casualty.
Fact Checker Results:
🔍 Most books listed in the supplement were fabricated titles.
🧠 Isabel Allende never wrote Tidewater Dreams.
📚 Only a few real titles, like Bonjour Tristesse, were included correctly.
Prediction:
Given the public backlash and increasing scrutiny over AI use in media, it’s likely that newsrooms will begin implementing stricter editorial guidelines when AI tools are involved. Expect clearer disclaimers on advertorial content, more transparency in content sourcing, and potentially even a renewed push for human-only editorial sections to preserve trust. As reader awareness grows, so will their demand for clarity and accuracy — and media outlets that fail to deliver may find themselves on the wrong side of public trust.
References:
Reported By: axioscom_1747755396
Extra Source Hub:
https://www.quora.com
Wikipedia
Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
