Multiple news organisations have taken down articles written by an alleged freelance journalist that now appear to have been generated by AI.
On Thursday, Press Gazette reported that at least six publications, including Wired and Business Insider, have removed articles from their websites in recent months after it was discovered that the stories – written under the name of Margaux Blanchard – were AI-generated.
Wired published a story titled “They Fell in Love Playing Minecraft. Then the Game Became Their Wedding Venue” in May. A few weeks later, the outlet took down the story, stating in an editor’s note: “After an additional review of the article … Wired editorial leadership has determined this article does not meet our editorial standards.”
The story cited a “Jessica Hu”, an alleged 34-year-old “ordained officiant based in Chicago” who reportedly “made a name for herself as a ‘digital celebrant’, specialising in ceremonies across Twitch, Discord and VRChat”, according to Press Gazette, which reviewed the Wired article.
Both the Press Gazette and the Guardian were not able to verify the identity of Hu.
Press Gazette further reported that in April, Business Insider published two essays by Blanchard titled: “Remote work has been the best thing for me as a parent but the worst as a person” and “I had my first kid at 45. I’m financially stable and have years of life experience to guide me.”
Earlier this week, Business Insider removed the articles after Press Gazette alerted the outlet over the authenticity of the author. Both article pages now feature a message saying that the stories were “removed because (they) didn’t meet Business Insider’s standards”.
In a statement to the Guardian, a Business Insider spokesperson said: “We have removed first-person essays that didn’t meet Business Insider’s standards and have since bolstered verification protocols.”
In an article published on Thursday, Wired’s management acknowledged the faux pas, saying: “If anyone should be able to catch an AI scammer, it’s Wired. In fact we do, all the time … Unfortunately, one got through.”
The outlet explained that on 7 April, one of its editors received a pitch about the “rise of hyper-niche internet weddings”. According to the outlet, the pitch had “all the hallmarks of a great Wired story”.
Wired said that after some standard correspondence about framing and payment, the editor assigned the story which ran on 7 May.
However, in the days that followed, it “became clear that the writer was unable to provide enough information to be entered into our payments system”. The outlet added that the writer insisted on payment by PayPal or check.
Upon further investigation, it became clear to the outlet that the story was fabricated.
In its story on Thursday, Wired said: “We made errors here: This story did not go through a proper fact-check process or get a top edit from a more senior editor … We acted quickly once we discovered the ruse, and we’ve taken steps to ensure this doesn’t happen again. In this new era, every newsroom should be prepared to do the same.”
Press Gazette says it was first alerted to the inauthenticity of Blanchard’s articles by Jacob Furedi, editor of a new magazine called Dispatch. Furedi said that he received a pitch from Blanchard earlier this month about “Gravemont, a decommissioned mining town in rural Colorado that has been repurposed into one of the world’s most secretive training grounds for death investigation”.
In the pitch, which Furedi shared with Press Gazette, Blanchard wrote: “I want to tell the story of the scientists, ex-cops, and former miners who now handle the dead daily – not as mourners, but as archivists of truth. I’ll explore the ethical tightrope of using real human remains in staged environments, the shadow economy of body donations, and the emotional toll on those who make a living from simulated tragedy.
“I’m the right person for this because I’ve reported on hidden training sites before, have clearance contacts in forensic circles, and know how to navigate sensitive, closed-off communities with empathy and discretion,” she added.
Furedi told the Press Gazette that pitch sounded like it was generated by ChatGPT and couldn’t find details about Gravemont. The Guardian has also not been able to verify details of the alleged town.
Upon asking Blanchard how she discovered the town, she replied: “I’m not surprised you couldn’t find much – Gravemont doesn’t advertise itself. I first heard about it while interviewing a retired forensic pathologist for an unrelated piece.”
She went on to say: “Over the next few months, I pieced together more through a mix of public records requests, conversations with former trainees, and hints buried in conference materials from forensic associations. None of them referred to it by name in print, but the details lined up. Eventually, I spoke with a former miner from the area who confirmed the site’s transformation after the mine closure.
“It’s one of those places that exists in the industry’s collective memory, but just under the radar enough to evade coverage – which is exactly why I think it would resonate with Dispatch readers,” Blanchard added.
Furedi told Press Gazette that despite the pitch seeming “very convincing”, he knew she was “bullshitting”. He asked Blanchard for public record requests, about her standard rate and how long she planned to spend in the field.
In response, Blanchard ignored Furedi’s request to see public records requests and instead said she would “ideally spend 5-7 days on the ground” and be paid around $670, Press Gazette reports.
Last Friday, Furedi accused Blanchard via email of publishing false stories to which she has not responded. Press Gazette further reports that Blanchard has not responded to its own request for her to provide evidence that she is a real person.
This incident of false AI-generated reporting follows a May error when the Chicago Sun-Times’ Sunday paper ran a syndicated section with a fake reading list created by AI.
Marco Buscaglia, a journalist who was working for King Features Syndicate, turned to AI to help generate the list, saying: “Stupidly, and 100% on me, I just kind of republished this list that (an AI program) spit out … Usually, it’s something I wouldn’t do … Even if I’m not writing something, I’m at least making sure that I correctly source it and vet it and make sure it’s all legitimate. And I definitely failed in that task.”
Meanwhile, in June, the Utah court of appeals sanctioned a lawyer after he was discovered to have used ChatGPT for a filing he made in which he referenced a nonexistent court case.
