News-USA Today Identified Using Fabricated EFF Staffers in AI-Generated Content
News-USA Today has been found publishing articles that attribute quotes to fictitious Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) employees. The website has used several fabricated names, including a purported Executive Director named Jared Cohen, in news stories over the last two months, according to reports from the EFF.
The pattern of misinformation involves the creation of entirely non-existent personas to serve as “experts” on digital rights and technology policy. These fabricated identities are used to provide authority to articles that the EFF states misrepresent the organization’s actual positions and expertise.
Which names were used in the fabricated reports?
The EFF identified a specific group of individuals who have been cited as experts in articles published on News-USA Today. These individuals—Sarah Chen, Javier Morales, Caitlin Chin, Emma Rodriguez, and Mikko Kopponen—do not exist within the organization. According to the EFF, these names have appeared in multiple articles over a 60-day period.
The fabrication extended to the highest levels of the organization’s leadership. On June 9, the site published a story featuring quotes from a “Jared Cohen,” identified as the Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF has confirmed that no such person holds that position or is affiliated with the organization.
The EFF noted that while it encourages the wide distribution of its content under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY), it does not consent to the creation of false identities or the invention of quotations to represent its staff. The organization stated that these false quotations damage the trust established between the EFF, the public, and other reputable media outlets.
How does News-USA Today differ from USA Today?
The name of the site has caused significant confusion among readers. News-USA Today is an independent publisher that describes its mission as delivering “timely, factual reporting grounded in verifiable sources and public documents.” Its site claims a goal of making complex topics understandable without losing accuracy and maintaining a clear separation between news and opinion.
However, the EFF has clarified that News-USA Today should not be confused with the established news organization USA Today. While USA Today regularly and accurately quotes legitimate experts from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, News-USA Today has been identified as a source of fabricated content. Attempts to contact the individuals listed on the News-USA Today website went unanswered by the publication.
Why are news outlets using AI to generate content?
The incident at News-USA Today reflects a growing trend in the digital media landscape where companies use artificial intelligence to produce news content. Industry analysis suggests that media organizations, ranging from small blogs to larger entities, are increasingly turning to AI-generated text because it is significantly less expensive than paying professional journalists’ salaries.
This shift toward automated content often leads to “hallucinations,” a phenomenon where large language models generate information that sounds authoritative but is factually incorrect. In the context of journalism, these hallucinations can manifest as the invention of people, dates, statistics, or direct quotes. While the cost of production decreases, the risk of reputational damage increases, as news outlets may inadvertently spread misinformation to their audiences.
The EFF highlighted that this issue is not isolated to a single site. The use of AI to generate “slagheap” content—low-quality, high-volume articles designed for search engine visibility—has become a widespread challenge for maintaining media integrity. When these automated systems are not strictly supervised by human editors, they can create a cycle of misinformation that is difficult to correct once it enters the digital ecosystem.
How does fabricated expertise impact digital trust?
The use of fake experts poses a dual threat to the information ecosystem. First, it misleads readers into believing they are receiving expert analysis on critical issues like privacy, surveillance, and digital rights. Second, it weaponizes the reputation of legitimate organizations like the EFF to lend a veneer of credibility to unverified claims.
When a site attributes a quote to a non-existent expert, it undermines the foundational journalistic principle of attribution. For organizations like the EFF, which work to influence policy and public opinion, the invention of quotes can misrepresent their legal and technical stances, potentially influencing public discourse in inaccurate directions.
This trend also places an increased burden on the consumer. Rather than relying on the gatekeeping functions of traditional newsrooms, readers must now perform their own due diligence to distinguish between verified reporting and AI-generated fabrications. This shift is occurring as the industry adjusts to a “new normal” where the tools for creating content have outpaced the tools for verifying it.
Essential Steps for Verifying Digital News
- Cross-reference names: If an article quotes an expert, search for that person’s official profile on their organization’s website.
- Check the source’s mission: Compare the site’s stated goals of “accuracy” and “verifiable sources” against its actual output.
- Look for primary documentation: Reliable news should link to or reference official court filings, government reports, or direct company statements.
- Use established fact-checking tools: Consult non-profit organizations that specialize in debunking misinformation.
What resources can readers use to identify fake news?
To combat the rise of automated misinformation, several non-profit journalism organizations have developed guides to help the public discern accurate reporting from “fake news.” ProPublica has published resources designed to help readers evaluate the credibility of digital content, and FactCheck.org provides tools for verifying claims made in the media.
The EFF has also emphasized that while the burden of verification currently falls on the public, understanding the mechanics of how AI generates content can help readers remain skeptical of highly polished but unverified claims. Developing these digital literacy skills is becoming a necessary component of consuming modern news.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation continues to monitor for instances of misrepresentation and identity theft regarding its staff and official positions. Organizations are expected to update their verification protocols as AI-generated misinformation becomes more sophisticated.
For more information on digital rights and privacy protections, readers can monitor official updates from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Do you have concerns about the accuracy of news sites you encounter? Share this article and join the conversation in the comments below.