Reckless Disregard in the Age of AI: What Verification Now Requires
By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Media Law, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer
AI is now embedded in the modern newsroom. Not as a headline, not as a novelty, but as infrastructure. It drafts outlines, summarizes complex reporting, surfaces background details, and accelerates prep for live conversations. For media creators operating under relentless deadlines, that efficiency is not theoretical. It is practical and daily.
That reality raises a quiet but consequential legal question. When AI contributes to your research, what does verification now require?
Professional hosts are not reading raw chatbot answers on air and calling it journalism. That caricature misses the real issue. What is actually happening is subtler and far more common.
AI now sits inside research workflows. Producers use it for background. Hosts use it to summarize reporting. Teams use it to outline controversies or draft rundowns. Most of the time, it works. Sometimes, however, it invents.
When that invention involves a real person and a serious allegation, the legal analysis looks familiar.
For public figures, defamation requires proof of actual malice – knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. For private figures, negligence is usually enough. In both cases, the focus is not on the tool. It is on the content creator’s conduct.
AI does not change the elements. It changes the context in which reasonableness is judged.
Courts have long held that repeating a defamatory statement can create liability, even if someone else said it first. If you rely on a blog, and that blog relied on AI, and the allegation is false, the question becomes whether your reliance was reasonable.
Was the source reputable? Was the claim inherently improbable? Were there obvious red flags? Was contradictory information readily available?
AI’s reputation for “hallucinating” facts now forms part of that backdrop. Widespread awareness that these systems can fabricate citations, merge identities, or invent accusations becomes relevant when a court evaluates your verification choices.
This does not mean using AI indicates reckless disregard. It means using AI does not excuse skipping verification when the stakes are high.
The more specific and damaging the claim, the greater the duty to confirm it through independent, reliable sources. Not another prompt. Not a circular reference to the same unverified blog. Rather, a primary record, official statement, or established reporting.
Documentation matters. If challenged, being able to show that you checked multiple sources before broadcast can be decisive.
None of this is new doctrine. What is new is how seamlessly AI blends into ordinary research habits. That integration makes it easier to forget that the legal question is still about human judgment.
The law will not ask whether your workflow was efficient. It will ask whether your conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.
In the age of AI, verification is not a courtesy. It is risk management.
Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonMediaLaw.com or read more at TALKERS.com.
to television and radio programming. After the back-and-forth between The Late Show’s Stephen Colbert and CBS attorneys over the interview with U.S. Senate candidate U.S. Rep. James Talarico that did not air on CBS television but was pushed out on the show’s social media accounts instead, broadcasters – including news/talk radio programmers and hosts – may be confused about how the equal time rule is being applied.
FCC has no lawful authority to pressure broadcasters for political purposes or to create a climate that chills free expression. CBS is fully protected under the First Amendment to determine what interviews it airs, which makes its decision to yield to political pressure all the more disappointing. It is no secret that Paramount, CBS’s parent company, has regulatory matters before the government, but corporate interests cannot justify retreating from airing newsworthy content. The FCC is powerless to impose restrictions on protected speech, and any attempt to intimidate broadcasters into self-censorship undermines both press freedom and public trust. I once again urge broadcasters and their parent companies to stand firm against these unlawful pressures and continue exercising their constitutional right to speak freely and without government interference.”
Republican or Democrat. Often, Democratic candidates balk at being interviewed by conservative hosts for fear they will not get a “friendly” interview as their Republican opponent might have. Regardless, the law is about equal time, and the matter late night shows are dealing with is assuming they qualify for the “bona fide news” exemption that excuses them from the equal time rule. Chairman Carr’s position is there is no blanket exemption; it is taken on a case-by-case basis.
conservative star of Northern Georgia’s most powerful and influential news/talk outlet is also an author, columnist, former U.S. Congressional candidate, and ubiquitous media presence. She is the recipient of numerous local, regional, and national awards including being named the TALKERS “Woman of the Year” in 2024. Zoller tells TALKERS, “Thankfully, I was at church when this happened. Thank you to my church and the fantastic paramedics at the Hall County Fire Department and the team at Northeast Georgia Health System. I’m going home with a lot of work to do. Thankfully, we live in the community I’m in. There are too many people to thank. You know who you are, thank you! I will see you, hear you soon.” Zoller can be reached via email at 
TALKERS magazine, the leading trade publication serving America’s professional broadcast talk radio and associated digital communities since 1990, is pleased to participate as the presenting sponsor of the forthcoming Intercollegiate Broadcasting System (IBS) conference for the second consecutive year.