Sherae Honeycutt

The latest Reuters Institute Journalism and Technology Trends and Predictions 2026 report identifies a growing belief among media leaders that service journalism will become less important in the age of artificial intelligence.

The reasoning is understandable. If a resident wants to know how to apply for a permit, register to vote, pay a utility bill, or find information about a city program, an AI chatbot can often provide an answer faster than a traditional news article. News organizations, facing declining traffic and shrinking resources, are understandably looking for areas where they can provide something AI cannot.

The report suggests that future journalism should focus more heavily on original reporting, analysis, human stories, and investigations while scaling back service journalism and other content that can be easily replicated by AI.

I believe that conclusion risks misunderstanding the purpose of service journalism.

At its best, service journalism is not simply answering questions. It is helping people understand the systems that shape their lives.

A chatbot can tell a resident when a city council meeting begins. A journalist can explain why a controversial item is on the agenda, who supports it, who opposes it, and what the consequences may be for the community.

A chatbot can explain how to file a public records request. A journalist can investigate why records requests are delayed, compare practices across agencies, and help residents understand what transparency should look like in practice.

A chatbot can answer a question. Journalism can create understanding.

That distinction matters.

One of the assumptions behind the move away from service journalism is that information will simply be available when people need it. But information is only useful if people know to look for it.

Most residents do not wake up wondering about zoning regulations, tax incentives, public works projects, water infrastructure, municipal budgeting, or election administration. Yet these topics shape communities every day.

Good journalism introduces people to subjects they did not know they needed to understand.

If we rely entirely on search engines, chatbots, and answer engines to provide information, we create a reactive information ecosystem. Citizens receive answers only to the questions they already know how to ask.

Democracy requires something more proactive.

The role of journalism has never been simply to respond to curiosity. It has been to spark curiosity.

It helps people see connections between issues. It provides context before a crisis occurs. It identifies emerging problems before they become front-page scandals. It helps residents understand not only what happened, but why it happened and what might happen next.

This is especially important in local journalism.

At the local level, service journalism often becomes civic journalism. Explaining how a city budget works, how development incentives function, why utility rates change, or what authority a city council actually has are not merely customer-service exercises. They are foundational to informed citizenship.

The irony is that the same trend report that predicts a decline in service journalism also highlights growing concerns about misinformation, declining trust, and public confusion in an AI-dominated information environment. Those challenges do not suggest a need for less explanatory journalism. They suggest a need for more.

Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly become a valuable tool for helping people find information. News organizations should embrace those capabilities where appropriate.

But journalism should not surrender one of its most important responsibilities in the process.

The future of journalism should not be limited to answering questions.

It should continue helping people ask better ones.

Sherae