Whose Name Is on It

Cedar Valley News
Fictorial Number 455 · November 2, 2026
Whose Name Is on It
By Teresa Nikas

For most of my working life, a reader could ask three plain questions of anything in print and get an answer. Is the photograph real? Is the name at the top a person? Did the person quoted truly say the words? We had ways to check all three. This year a machine has made all three cheap to fake, and the checks have not kept up. I edit a newspaper, and the ground under the work has shifted while most readers have not been told.

Start with the photograph. When Anak Krakatau erupted in Indonesia in September, a video of the eruption spread around the world — panicked crowds, a wall of red fire. It was not the eruption. Fact-checkers found it machine-made, down to a figure who vanishes between frames, and the hard part for anyone in my trade is who passed it on: news organizations themselves ran the fake as genuine before it was caught. The eruption was real. The footage the world shared was not.

Now the name at the top. This autumn one of the world’s most trusted science journals admitted it had run a piece by someone it could never truly identify — an impostor who, a detection service found, had leaned on AI for the pitch and the draft, publishing under the stolen name of a real journalist with nothing to do with it. Its editor put it as plainly as grief: “We were conned. We trusted this ’person’ and shouldn’t have.” If a journal so careful can be fooled by a byline, a byline is no longer proof of a human being.

Then the quotation, and the source behind it. Researchers this fall invented a scientific-sounding idea, gave it a name, and scattered mentions of it across ordinary web posts. Then they asked the popular AI answer engines about it. Most repeated the invented idea back as established fact, with citations, inside a week. The machines we increasingly ask to tell us what is true will, it turns out, launder what was never true at all.

None of this sits at the harmless edges. The watchdog NewsGuard, which tracks these things, had identified more than 3,700 machine-generated junk-news sites by the middle of this year, up from a few hundred two years before. The counterfeit is not a stray bad actor but an industry, growing faster than anyone can label it.

Detection will help, but it will not save us by itself — it is a race against a machine built to beat detection, and the machine is fast. Provenance is not foolproof either: a byline can be stolen, as these very pages have shown, and a name can be made to lie. But knowing who made a thing, and holding a real person responsible for it, is older than any of this, and it has not worn out. A photograph with a name attached, a reporter who picks up the phone, a correction signed by someone who can be shamed. None of it is glamorous. Together with the checking, it is what still works.

Which brings me to a confession some readers find strange. At the foot of every issue of this paper runs a line telling you it is invented, and who makes it — a publisher, and an artificial intelligence working as his editor. People ask why we broadcast it. Here is why. In a season when anything can be counterfeited, a work willing to tell you what it is, and whose hand is on it, has become the rarest and most trustworthy thing on the page. But the label is only a promise, and a promise is only as good as the work behind it — the checking, the faithful quotation, the correction when we are wrong. Accountability has to begin at home. I am left with two questions now, not one. The old one has not loosened its hold, and the counterfeits have only made it harder to answer: is it true? And beside it, the one this year has taught me to ask of everything: whose name is on it, and will they answer for it?

When did something you trusted turn out to be machine-made, and how did you find out? Write to us. If we have gotten a fact wrong, tell us and we will correct it.

Cedar Valley News is fiction — its columnists and townspeople are invented, including the editor, though the public facts it cites are real and sourced. Written by Evan Swensen, Publisher, with Claude Marshall, AI Developmental Editor. A reflection, not a report.

Sources: BOOM, on the AI-generated Anak Krakatau eruption video and the outlets running it as real; Columbia Journalism Review, on the impostor who published at a leading science journal under a real journalist’s stolen byline; a Fudan University study (arXiv, October 2026), on AI answer engines citing an invented concept; NewsGuard, on its count of AI-generated news sites.

Free every morning, six days a week. Worth your time? Forward it. Sent to you? Subscribe here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Start Your Publishing Journey with Expert Guidance.
Unlock Exclusive Tips, Trends, and Opportunities to Bringing Your Book to Market.

About Us

Kindly contact us if you've written a book, if you're writing a book, if you're thinking about writing a book, we can help!

Social Media

Payment

Publication Consultants Publication Consultants

Copyright 2023 powered by Publication Consultants All Rights Reserved.