AI is great at headlines, but not judgment. Here’s the line.

In today’s digital newsrooms, artificial intelligence is already writing headlines. And in many cases, it’s doing a fine job. From A/B testing subject lines in email newsletters to auto-generating SEO-optimised titles based on story summaries, AI-powered tools can produce click-worthy results in seconds.

But while AI might be brilliant at optimisation, it’s still terrible at discernment. It doesn’t understand tone. It doesn’t know what might be libellous, misleading, insensitive, or just plain tone-deaf. It can’t weigh reputational risk, moral nuance, or cultural context.

That’s why the line for publishers is clear: let AI propose headlines—but let humans approve them. Because what AI can generate, only editorial judgment can truly validate.

What AI gets right

Let’s be fair—AI has plenty to offer when it comes to headline writing. Tools like ChatGPT, Jasper, and native CMS integrations can quickly generate variations based on different tones, audiences, or keyword goals. They can:

• Suggest multiple headline formats in seconds

• Incorporate SEO best practices automatically

• Help overcome writer’s block in high-volume workflows

• Optimise for click-throughs on email and social

These tools are especially useful in newsletter or content marketing contexts, where volume is high and turnaround times are tight. Many publishers now routinely A/B test subject lines and use AI suggestions as a baseline for further refinement.

Used well, this creates efficiency, saves time, and introduces new creative options that editorial teams can shape and improve.

But AI doesn’t know your audience—or your standards

The problem is that AI doesn’t know you. It doesn’t know your publication’s tone, your audience’s expectations, or your editorial standards. It doesn’t know when to dial something back—or when a headline crosses a line.

It won’t flinch at sensationalism. It has no internal alarm bell for cultural insensitivity. And it doesn’t understand the stakes involved when publishing on sensitive topics like race, politics, tragedy, or trauma.

What AI lacks—crucially—is judgment. Editorial judgment is what tells a seasoned editor that a technically correct but emotionally tone-deaf headline isn’t right. It’s what stops you from using a clever pun on a story about someone’s death. It’s what makes a subeditor rewrite a headline that subtly implies blame where there is none.

AI doesn’t have this filter. It doesn’t know where the edge is, much less when it’s stepping over it.

Headlines aren’t just traffic tools—they’re trust signals

Too often, headlines are treated as purely functional: maximise clicks, drive traffic, hit targets. But headlines also carry symbolic weight. They frame the story. They set expectations. They shape how the reader understands the subject before a single word is read.

In an era where trust is fragile and misinformation spreads fast, headlines matter more than ever. A misleading headline—whether written by a bot or a human—can erode credibility, damage relationships, and invite backlash.

That’s why publishers must resist the temptation to automate editorial judgment. Optimisation is useful, but it’s not the same as judgment. And when everything is optimised but nothing is considered, brands lose their moral compass.

A healthy partnership: creativity meets curation

The most effective way to use AI in headline workflows is as a creative assistant, not a decision-maker. Let AI produce headline options—but make sure a human editor reviews, refines, and ultimately approves the final choice.

Better still, AI-generated options can be used to challenge human assumptions. Sometimes, the machine will propose something bolder, clearer, or more reader-friendly than the original. That’s useful. But it still needs human judgment to say: yes, but not like that.

Many newsrooms now operate with this hybrid model. Editors feed summaries or story outlines into AI tools to generate headline suggestions, then adapt or reject them as needed. The efficiency is real—but so is the editorial oversight.

Know where the line is—and why it matters

Publishers can and should embrace AI for what it does well: speed, iteration, and headline testing. But judgment—the ability to understand audience impact, brand tone, and moral nuance—remains squarely human.

That’s the line.

Cross it, and you risk reducing editorial work to mere optimisation. Hold it, and you unlock a partnership where AI supports judgment rather than replacing it.

And in that balance lies the future of smart, responsible publishing.