Sandra Sully on mistrust, AI and the coming election
Sandra Sully encountered her first major test in discerning ‘fake news’ on September 11, 2001. She was already more than a decade into her news career when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the world changed.
“It was about accepting what was happening was real,” Sully recalls. “I mean, this was long before AI, obviously, but it was so surreal we were quite concerned about the fact that could it have been some bizarre hoax.”
Sully and the Channel 10 team “quickly established that it was, in fact, real, and the world’s media had frozen in fear and shock – and we just kind of went with it.”
Sandra Sully
In 2001, the idea of doubting breaking news was relatively novel, and audio and video were almost unimpeachable. Now distrusting what one sees, reads, and hears in news is widespread and what Sully calls “an uncomfortable truth for many journalists”.
“We, as a world, have woken up in a place where algorithms dictate what you see and what you believe.”
Sully joined Ten in 1990 as a Canberra bureau reporter. She says she now spends a lot of time reminding people “to try to validate credible news services and news sources – and that their role as a citizen in a robust democracy is to actually find and chase good journalism, because it’s in their own best interests.”
She points to the looming federal election as a test case for the public’s ability — or lack thereof — to see through AI fakery.
“We’re all going to be challenged by AI but equally we have to, I think, not be frightened of it,” she says. “It is a frightening space,” she admits, “for the new world order we’re all entering into – I think the federal election campaign will flesh that out to a whole other degree. This will see so much misinformation and poor communication and people utilising it for negative and bad outcomes – but our job is to work that out and reveal it.
“Challenge taken and accepted. The job we do is yet to be determined.”
While most people “now realise algorithms determine what they see based on their scrolling interests”, she feels that determining the credibility of what they see is often an afterthought for the busy internet user. “But, it is really important to find those credible news sources.”
Sully credits Australian free-to-air commercial networks and the ABC “for consistently putting the shoulder to the wheel and trying to get it right”. She admits mistakes are made, but “nine days out of 10, that’s where you’ll find a pretty balanced report on the events of the day.”
She rails against the idea that news bulletins are meant to explain the issues and context behind the headlines, rather than just report. She says the key to countering this is “helping people understand that news by nature is a snapshot and captures the events of the day” and “how you differentiate between news and editorial – and why those op-ed pages are separate from the front pages of the paper.”
Another misconception hurting the overall quality of Australian journalism is the assumption that news should be free.
Sully says the current state of news shows “why it’s important to pay for quality journalism” and notes the disconnect between the reluctance to support journalism, and that “people don’t really squirm — despite being in a cost of living crisis — about the cost of coffees every day, or their beloved breakfast du jour.”
Sully reporting live, on September 11, 2001.
“People have taken it for granted [news is] something they’ve been given for free their whole life, without ever understanding the complexities of the industry and how it works. This means that, with all of these other news sources peppering their platforms, they’re only now just starting to determine and work out that not everything they’re being fed is factual or true.
“It’s going to be a long education process. It shouldn’t come from a patronising or condescending position. And I think we’ve now landed in a place where the community, on particular issues, is so polarised that there’s no middle ground. And that’s very disconcerting and alarming and awkward to try to say, ‘Look, everyone has a valid point of view. You don’t have to agree with it.'”
Sully said she aims to counter this by presenting “various points of view from different news sources” when sharing articles, often published by direct competitors – although she concedes this approach often sees her “smashed by trolls” who are aghast to see her sharing viewpoints published in the Guardian or the AFR.
“When you go to tweet an article, it almost implies they’re my thoughts,” she says of the blowback. “Whereas I’m really just retweeting a story that I think presents an interesting point of view. It’s not my point of view, but I think when you’re considering a topic and trying to find your truth or where you will land on a debate, it is worthwhile considering all points of view.”
Last May, Sandra Sully was shocked to learn that a true crime podcast used artificial intelligence to mimic her instantly recognisable voice in a fake news bulletin. She spoke to Mumbrella shortly after the incident, declaring it “alarming and unsettling”, as well as a reminder that, if you get your news from social media, “you don’t know who’s saying what, [or] for what reason.”
More than six months later, Sully still sees this AI breach as chilling.
“It’s a portent of where we are, and where we’re going, and it’s another classic example of how important it is to trust the source,” she says. “We’re going to be increasingly confronted and confounded with the question: ‘Is that real?'”
Despite the gloom, Sully is optimistic about the future of news reporting, although she admits she is a glass half-full type.
“People have been spelling the demise of free-to-air news, for example, for a very long time,” she explains. “Obviously, that model is highly challenged. But there is always a hunger for what’s happening in the world around us. And it is really important. People have an enormous appetite to find out what’s happening in their world and in their community. What that looks like — and how it’s transported over the next 12 months to two years to two decades — is going to change dramatically.”
At the end of the day, the golden rule for journalism is simple – make sure you get your facts straight. Accuracy first, speed second.
“You shouldn’t go live until you’re certain,” she says. “It doesn’t matter what your deadline is.”
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
Got a tip?
Nathan Jolly is the Features Editor at Mumbrella. He joined the team in July, 2023.
Linkedin
Have your say