Fake experts, real pressure: what PR and journalism need to fix now

Trust in the media is under pressure and not just because of ‘fake experts’.

The recent investigation by Press Gazette into unverifiable and misleading expert commentary across major UK titles has rightly raised concern across both journalism and public relations. But as discussion at CIPR Wessex’s latest panel made clear, the issue runs deeper than isolated cases of poor practice. It reflects a system under strain.

The instinct, when faced with stories about fabricated experts, is to ask where the failure sits. Is it PR? Is it journalism? But the panel quickly moved beyond that framing. As Farzana Baduel, President of the CIPR, highlighted, the environment in which both professions operate has changed significantly. Newsrooms are under-resourced, the volume of information has increased dramatically and the pressure to produce content quickly has intensified. The result is a series of pressure points, not because standards have disappeared, but because they are being applied in a fundamentally different context.

Are standards enough to tackle fake experts?

In response to the Press Gazette findings, industry bodies including the CIPR and PRCA issued a joint call for stronger standards, reinforcing the importance of transparency, accountability and robust verification in how expert voices are sourced and represented. That position is supported by wider professional frameworks such as the Chartered Institute of Journalists' (CIOJ) code of conduct, alongside international work led by the Council of Europe to strengthen trust, transparency and freedom of expression in the media. But as the panel discussion made clear, standards alone are not enough. The real question is how they are applied under pressure, when time is limited, resources are stretched, and the volume of content continues to grow.

One of the clearest tensions discussed was between speed and accuracy. Journalists are expected to deliver more content, more quickly, often with fewer resources. At the same time, PR professionals are operating in an increasingly competitive environment where responsiveness and visibility matter more than ever. That combination creates risk. As BBC journalist, Adam Kirtley, noted, tools such as AI can accelerate research and support productivity, but they cannot verify the truth. “The human being must be the final arbiter,” he said. AI can help you move faster, but it cannot make the final decision on whether something is accurate. The responsibility for verification still sits with people.

The role of AI in misinformation

AI featured heavily in the discussion, not as the root of the problem but as an amplifier. Used well, it can support research, streamline workflows and reduce manual workload. Used poorly, it can scale misinformation quickly. For Kate Steele, former communications leader at Microsoft, this moment represents a significant opportunity for communications professionals, but only if approached with the right mindset. There is huge potential, but ethics must sit at the heart of how these tools are used. The challenge is not whether to use AI, but how to use it responsibly.

If the environment has changed, the way the industry signals credibility may also need to evolve. One idea that Gerald Bowie, president of the CIOJ, proposed was the introduction of a form of industry kitemark - a visible signal that an expert or PR professional has been properly vetted, with clear credentials and accountability behind them. For journalists working under time pressure, this could offer a quicker way to assess the reliability of sources. For PR professionals, it would raise the bar on due diligence and make professional standards more visible in practice.

Alongside this, there was a broader point about accreditation and continuous professional development. As Farzana Baduel noted, initiatives such as Chartered status and enhanced ethical training create clearer benchmarks for competence and accountability. In a landscape where anyone can position themselves as an expert, those signals of professionalism begin to matter more. They do not eliminate risk, but they introduce a level of consistency and discipline that becomes increasingly important in a high-volume, high-speed environment.

Maintaining trust

What emerged most clearly from the session is that this is not a one-sided issue. PR professionals shape the information entering the system. Journalists decide what makes it through. Both operate under increasing pressure and both have a role in maintaining trust. As Matt McKenna, managing director of McKenna Townsend, said, this represents a “once in a decade opportunity” for both professions to work together to address the challenge. Used correctly, tools such as AI can support that effort. But ultimately, trust will depend on behaviour - on how consistently standards are applied, how rigorously sources are verified, and how transparent the process becomes.

There is no single solution. But there is a clear direction of travel. Verification must become non-negotiable. Transparency must be prioritised. And both PR and journalism must continue to strengthen their relationship, recognising that trust is built or eroded collectively. The environment has changed. The way we protect trust must change with it.

PR consultant Lucy Rouse is the social media coordinator of CIPR Wessex.

More thought leadership

How sustainability claims have become a frontline risk for PR teams

Why effective photography is PR’s most valuable asset

The confidence gap in PR: why it's holding our industry back