In the third week of May, 2025, the Chicago Sun-Times published a summer guide article that raised readers’ eyebrows. It included a summer reading list of 15 books — 10 of which were AI hallucinations. The kicker is that it doesn’t seem like a second set of eyes ever crossed the piece before it went live.
How could a respected publication with seasoned editorial professionals let something like this slip through? And, what can marketers learn from this mishap?
How Did the AI-Generated Summer Guide Come To Be?
The Chicago Sun-Times faced backlash after publishing a summer reading list that included numerous fictitious books attributed to real authors. The list appeared in the May 18th “Heat Index: Your Guide to the Best of Summer” special section produced by third-party King Features, a content syndication service owned by Hearst, not by the Sun-Times’ editorial team.
The reading list featured 15 books, 10 entirely fabricated titles and synopses. Hours after the piece went live and readers started asking questions, freelance writer Marco Buscaglia admitted to not fact-checking the AI-generated content. Beyond the reading list, other articles in the supplement contained fabricated quotes and references to non-existent experts and publications. A piece on hammock culture cited a “Dr. Jennifer Campos” from the University of Colorado, who isn’t real.
But Marco can’t take the full weight of this fall. Yes, everyone using AI in their work should take accountability and always, always review outputs before submitting or publishing work. Beyond that, there are rare instances where you’d want to use AI copy verbatim; an editorial professional with a keen eye should always review and reword for maximum impact.
What Happened After?
The Sun-Times responded by removing the digital version of the supplement, issuing an apology and stating that subscribers would not be charged for that edition. King Features terminated its relationship with the writer, citing a violation of its policy against using AI-generated content without disclosure.
Marketers: Learn From This Mistake
There are a million-and-one lessons in this Sun-Times blunder, but a handful stand out as particularly valuable for marketers who ought to avoid making the same mistake:
Lesson #1: Editorial Integrity Matters in Brand Content
High editorial standards — including thorough review processes — aren’t reserved for traditional journalism and its many formats; they’re essential for branded marketing content, too. Thought leadership and blog posts that present accurate information with quality sourcing and voice consistency establish trust in readers and with search engines.
These days, mistakes (even mostly innocent ones) can go viral and tarnish an otherwise respectable reputation that’s difficult and/or expensive to amend.
Lesson #2: Syndicated Content Doesn’t Absolve Responsibility
Even though the problematic content wasn’t created by the Sun-Times team directly, backlash hit every party involved, including the Sun-Times brand. Outsourced or syndicated content still reflects on your business, positive or negative. Always vet third-party providers rigorously and outline clear content standards, like AI disclosures. Having an AI policy is a great start, but make sure to also talk through your standards with freelancers or other outsourced talent in person or on a call so everyone is on the same page.
Lesson #3: Trust Is Fragile; Transparency Is Critical
Consumers aren’t naive, and their trust can erode quickly when transparency lapses. Missed editorial review processes here led to the unintentional publication of fake book recommendations and quotes, which undermined the Sun-Times’ credibility.
Transparency in content creation is always non-negotiable — but especially so when AI is involved. To preserve trust, brands should disclose AI usage upfront and have stringent human oversight phases to avoid publishing misinformation.
All that to say: Speed should never come at the expense of trust. Marketers must balance efficiency with integrity.
Lesson #4: AI is a Tool, Not a Substitute for Human Judgment
The freelance writer used ChatGPT and Claude to generate the misleading book list without verification. This underscores a growing concern about over-reliance on AI without editorial safeguards. Yes, AI can boost productivity, but marketers must treat it as an assistant, not an author. Always have a fact-checking process and keep human editors in the loop at all times.
Actions You Can Take Right Now To Avoid (or Address) An AI Misstep
You’ll already be familiar with some or many of these actions. Still, headlines like this are a great reminder to refresh yourself on AI best practices to avoid a similar situation:
- Keep editorial responsibility in-house. Even when using freelancers or vendors, final content review should always fall on your brand.
- Monitor brand content regularly post-publication. We’re all human — mistakes happen and sometimes slip through the cracks. Setting up alerts or regular audits can help you catch and correct errors quickly once content goes live.
- Include a manual approval step in publishing workflows. This should go without saying, but AI-generated content should not auto-publish. AI content without human review and editing is miles away from the unique and valuable asset your audience deserves.
- Have a crisis communication plan for AI errors. As AI becomes more ubiquitous, it’s essential to have a PR plan in place to know exactly how you’ll respond publicly if something goes wrong.
Final Thoughts
It’s easy to point fingers at one person or organization, but the truth is that this misfortune was the result of systemic gaps, not solely individual oversight.
While the final responsibility rightly rests with the publisher, this incident reveals a broader blunder across the entire content chain — from the freelance writer who generated AI-driven material without fact-checking, to the syndication partner that distributed it without adequate editorial controls, to the publisher that trusted the process without a final review. Each touchpoint had an opportunity to catch the errors, but either through policy, training or diligence, it didn’t happen.
Within every organization currently using or considering using AI, there’s a growing need for modernized editorial workflows and stronger AI literacy across all roles in the content ecosystem, as well as shared accountability for when mistakes happen. The future of brand trust depends not just on avoiding mistakes but on building smarter systems that aim to prevent them from happening in the first place.
