In 2026, artificial intelligence (AI) has long been part of everyday working life. It manages supply chains, translates contracts, and diagnoses diseases faster than human experts. But in the newsroom of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), time seems to stand still. An article by Mario Voigt, the Minister-President of Thuringia, was deleted because he used a digital tool to write his text. This decision raises fundamental questions about authorship and the role of AI in journalism.
The FAZ presents the removal as a victory over sorcery, as if using AI in political communication were a scandal. Historically, politicians have never written their texts alone. Ghostwriters, aides, and PR consultants have held the pen for decades, while politicians lent their names. If an AI now takes on this role, the principle of authorship remains unchanged. Responsibility lies with the sender, regardless of whether a human or a machine wrote the text.
The situation becomes particularly absurd due to the software used, “Pangram,” which detects AI-generated texts. This software is known for its error-proneness and merely measures statistical word patterns. It is questionable whether such technology can serve as a benchmark for journalistic integrity. The FAZ has thus entangled itself in a digital witch hunt, pushing the discussion about the content of the deleted article into the background.
The content of Voigt’s article was socially relevant. It addressed the protection of children on social media and the need to make smartphones safer for young people. Instead of engaging with these important issues, the FAZ retreats into a formal meta-debate about the use of AI. This stance does not appear as a sign of quality journalism but rather as a desperate attempt to ignore the reality of the digital world.
The decision to delete Voigt’s article shows that the FAZ would rather remove a relevant text than question its own outdated principles. In 2026, it is no longer possible to ignore the reality of an AI-driven world. Mario Voigt simply did what any modern manager does: he used technology to work more efficiently.
The debate about AI and authorship is not just a question of technology but also a question of responsibility and content. If the FAZ continues to cling to its dogmatic principles, it will ultimately lose touch with reality. Journalism must evolve and embrace the possibilities of AI instead of demonizing it. Only then can it remain relevant and lead the important societal debates that are necessary.
Source: www.faz.net
