Public Statement from Journalist Audrey Korte: AI-Incident at the Wisconsin State Journal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Public Statement from Journalist Audrey Korte: AI-Incident at the Wisconsin State Journal

---

Sept. 8, 2025

Madison, WI — Many weeks after the biggest mistake of my career, I’m finally ready to speak publicly on the issue. I’ve taken time to gather my thoughts, investigate the problem, and document my actions in full. I want to own my part, offer a sincere apology, and explain what happened. 

As a reporter at the Wisconsin State Journal, I submitted a story that contained multiple factual inaccuracies and a fictitious source created by AI. I used the AI program installed earlier this year by the company on employee computers, intending to tighten up the writing, check AP Style, spelling, and grammar. What was submitted, however, was not correct. I was terminated for the mistake.

I take responsibility for what I turned in and for failing to catch the errors during my read-throughs.

I did not understand that AI could introduce fictitious or inaccurate information. But it did. I should never have used AI that I was untrained in, especially in a moment of crisis. 

My responsibility was to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the article before submission. I am sincerely sorry for the errors.

Context matters. 

And thus far it has been missing from the conversations, reporting and rumors swirling around this incident. 

• My boss and their boss were not in the newsroom that day. Multiple reporters were on vacation. I was filling in for others covering topics I was not familiar with in a newsroom I just arrived at, in a city I do not know yet.

• I started my work with the company in May, remotely, and arrived in Madison on June 7. I was let go July 17. Training and supervision lacked clarity and organization. 

• Twice I was given inaccurate information about the documents I was writing about by a city employee. That impacted the reporting. I was assured there were two proposals I needed to cover by this person. There were three.  

• I turned the piece into an editor. It was posted within minutes.

• That week I was dealing with severe insomnia—an ongoing battle and documented health condition since being diagnosed with late-stage Lyme disease. I had slept just 6.5 hours between Monday and Friday, when the article was submitted.

That level of sleep deprivation is, I believe, how I misjudged the final draft. It’s the only way I can understand how I mistook AI rewrites for my own work.

I had read about 170 pages on the subject I was reporting—quickly, under deadline pressure. I didn’t realize the AI tool could alter facts I provided and I wasn’t looking for this type of error when I was reading it later. 

I was checking tone, transitions, structure—not verifying whether facts had changed in my last read through. I believed the content was correct. It sounded right after immersing myself in the topic. 

I’m not placing blame or making excuses. I also won’t undersell how badly the article turned out.

• AI introduced fictional elements: a speaker who doesn’t exist, from a non-existent business, on a street that isn’t real, with a quote that was fabricated. 

• It also changed a number of important details about the proposals I was covering, turning the real reporting into junk. A substantial amount of the information was wrong.

• After a deep dive into everything I did in the days leading up to publication, I am convinced the AI presented this quote as an example of something that would strengthen the article. I am happy to explain this further.

• I’ve since learned about what is called an “AI hallucination”—a term I hadn’t heard before, but it fits.

I believed the AI program was working only from the information I had provided—not pulling from the broader online universe. I just wanted cleaner and more concise writing. 

I was out of my depth. I see that now. I own it.

So how did I miss a quote from someone I never interviewed? That’s the question I would ask next.

I had pulled quotes from earlier newsroom reporting— written before I arrived in Madison in June, setting them aside to add color to the article. 

I remember thinking I was lucky to have found such a perfect quote as I reviewed the final draft. I was certain it came from earlier coverage. I was wrong. The real quote did not get included and the fake one did. I assume AI replaced the real one. 

I did not invent anything.

It’s a shock to me now, but the reality is I didn’t recognize the differences between the final article, greatly changed by AI, and my own writing. That’s what happens when you’re running on too little sleep, too much anxiety, and pushing to meet a deadline.

The story was removed days later when the errors were uncovered. 

Initially, we were just trying to locate the quote. I spent half a day searching, convinced I’d find the man who’d been quoted and the publication it came from. When that became impossible, the larger issues came into focus. 

I was honest throughout the day and eager to understand what happened for everyone’s sake.

After that, things got tougher.

• I was terminated without the opportunity to give a full account or take ownership. 

• I had prepared a full account, pages and pages of documentation, a sincere apology, and a plan to prevent future errors to bring to the staff the morning after this was discovered. I also had a list of questions including about the confusion over what company policy on AI-use was. I was called at 8 a.m. that day and terminated so these were never part of the conversation.

• I was never allowed to explain what happened to supervisors, colleagues or readers. To my knowledge colleagues still do not know what happened to me or the article.

 

• I was ready to face the consequences but hoped to turn this embarrassment into meaningful reporting—on AI, workplace health, accommodations for invisible disabilities, and more. I wanted to redeem myself.

I’ve since developed a more rigorous personal editorial process, including manual fact-checking and slowing down under pressure. It’s made me a more thoughtful and resilient communicator.

I believe it’s important to gather all the facts and allow an employee to explain their actions, motivations, and any assumptions or misinformation they may have acted on, especially when accused of cardinal industry sins. In this case, that didn’t happen. I was never afforded the chance. 

I have been denied what I consider my right to correct the record. The newsroom refused to properly investigate one of its biggest embarrassments or report accurately and fully on what happened. 

The decision to end my employment was made quickly and without a formal or thoughtful review of what happened to one of the newspaper’s best performers. 

I have twice offered to answer its questions and let its reporters have full access to all that I know about what occurred so it could report this and be both transparent and accurate. 

A lawyer for the company declined.

I’ve reflected deeply. It was painful, but I am using this as a turning point. What matters now is moving forward with honesty and integrity—and upholding the principles of journalism in all that I undertake.

Audrey E. Korte 

Storyteller, Journalist, Blogger