--- title: "AI-Powered News Site Accidentally Accuses District Attorney of Murder" description: "An article generated by the AI-powered local news network Hoodline mistakenly accused the San Mateo District Attorney of murder." date: "2024-10-18" modified: "2024-10-18" authors: - name: "Maggie Harrison Dupré" job_title: "Senior Staff Writer" link: "https://futurism.com/authors/mharrison" url: "https://futurism.com/ai-accuses-district-attorney-of-murder" categories: - "Artificial Intelligence" tags: - "ai" - "ai journalism" - "ai-generated content" --- # AI-Powered News Site Accidentally Accuses District Attorney of Murder ![An article generated by the AI-powered local news network Hoodline mistakenly accused the San Mateo District Attorney of murder.]() *\Image: Getty / Futurism\* A controversial AI-powered local news site really stepped in it this week — by accidentally accusing a regional district attorney of murder. As [*Techdirt* first reported](), an [article appeared]() on *Hoodline San Jose* — one of the media network's many local news sites that span the US — earlier this month with a gruesome headline: "SAN MATEO COUNTY DA CHARGED WITH MURDER AMID ONGOING SEARCH FOR VICTIM'S REMAINS." That's bleak stuff, not to mention a crime that probably would have made national news. But there's an important reason why it *didn't* hit national airwaves: there was a murder, but the DA didn't commit it. They just charged the guy who allegedly did. As *Techdirt* found, *Hoodline*'s AI seems to have taken an X-formerly-Twitter post from the San Mateo DA office's official account, in which the office shared a run-of-the-mill press release about a local man — who was *not* the DA — finally being charged *by the DA's office* for the awful crime and garbled it so badly that it said the DA himself committed the grisly murder. We're all [innocent]() [until]() [accused by AI]() [of crimes](). After *Techdirt* called *Hoodline* out for the cataclysmic error, a word soup of an [editor's note]() appeared at the top of the article. It attributed the flub to a simple "typo" that "unfortunately changed the meaning" of its content, "thereby creating ambiguity about the fact that the DA and the accused are two different people." Mistakes happen in journalism. But as far as journalistic errors go, boldly accusing the wrong person of murder — let alone levying such an accusation at a high-ranking local official — is *pretty* high up there in terms of seriousness. Add that *Hoodline*, which is currently owned by a murky media outfit called Impress3, is openly using AI to find and cough up synthetic "news," and it's the latest [significant blunder]() by a media organization or a paid third-party provider attempting to [use AI]() to cheaply [churn out content](). The error also calls into question *Hoodline*'s florid promises that its editorial content is crafted with a meaningful level of human oversight. "We view journalism as a creative science and an art that necessitates a human touch," [reads]() the company's AI disclaimer. "In our pursuit of delivering informative and captivating content, we integrate artificial intelligence (AI) to support and enhance our editorial processes." The article was attributed to the byline Eileen Vargas, one of the website's many fake, AI-generated reporter personas. As [*Nieman Lab* reported]() earlier this year, *Hoodline*'s vast lineup of made-up journalists has drawn wide scrutiny for feigning racial diversity in an industry that, in reality, is overwhelmingly white and male. There might be some implications for Google — an AI company[ reportedly testing AI news products]() itself — as well. According to *Techdirt*'s Mike Masnick, he discovered the false AI accusation when the *Hoodline* piece cropped up in his Google News tab. And again, though journalists make mistakes, Google's algorithm platforming erroneous accusations of murder put forth by an explicitly AI-powered news network raises a different set of eyebrows. How much leash should an AI news site with clearly low editorial standards be given? And can we trust news-sorting algorithms to sift through the rising tide of algorithm-generated content? What we can say for sure is this: mistakes like these, which a human reporter working under a sound editorial process would be very unlikely to make, are likely to become more and more common as publishers give control over to cheap and barely-supervised AI systems. **More on AI and media:** [*Meet AdVon, the AI-Powered Content Monster Infecting the Media Industry*]() ## Author At Futurism, I've reported extensively on the rise of AI as a cultural and business force shaping the media industry, and more broadly how those dynamics are changing how we all consume and share information and relate to one another. I'm also fascinated by public health policy and ethics, the role of emerging tech in politics and governance — and the powerful people and forces at those intersections — climate change, and the environment. My investigation on Sports Illustrated's use of AI-generated authors with fictional biographies won a 2024 Mirror Award for "Best Story on Media Coverage of Artificial Intelligence in Journalism and the Media" from Syracuse University's SI Newhouse School, I contributed to Niemen Lab's 2025 Predictions for Journalism series, and I've discussed my work for Futurism during appearances on NPR, CNN, the BBC, the CBC, and more. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and attended the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where I played Division I field hockey for the Minutewomen as a midfielder. Since then, I've lived in New Orleans, Louisiana and Manhattan, New York. I spend my free time running, reading, perusing archival fashion, and searching for the world’s best negroni. I also have a debonair tuxedo cat, Westley, who's named after "The Princess Bride." ### Author social links [Bluesky]()