Sorry, the explainer is dead

Remember when we told journalists to write more explainers? Yeah, sorry about that.

We said the future of journalism was a broader take on news, one that was more focused on utility information to help readers navigate their lives. We said, more explainers, more news-you-can-use, more recipes!

Today, our readers query AI for all that stuff, whether it’s ChatGPT or the AI summaries at the top of a Google search. They like the AI answers well enough and they don’t click on article links, leading many publishers to predict a total loss of search referrals (and accompanying revenue) in the very near future.

But not all publishers. Some media brands are doing just fine, reporting flat or even growing traffic from search over the past two years. A super-loyal fan base helps, but so does the nature of the news they produce.

Here’s the type of content losing to AI: explainers, how-tos, evergreens, aggregated news, resource lists, hours of operation for government offices, recipes.

The winning content? Hyperlocal news, breaking news (as it happens), scoops, notable first-person narratives, and investigative journalism. AI can’t or won’t summarize this information because it’s too recent or too unique. And there’s good reason to believe the bots won’t figure out how to do it — maybe ever, but at least not in 2026.

Like many of you, I’ve been thinking a lot about how we human journalists fit in the AI-mediated future. My prediction is that we go back to the basics.