A report lands in your inbox. It's got survey data from 10,000 respondents, compelling case studies, expert quotes, and clear editorial angles. It looks publication-ready. That should be your first warning sign.

This week, we nearly published exactly that kind of story. It had everything: authoritative research, tragic cases, quotable experts. It was only during final edit that the red flags became impossible to ignore, and we killed it. What looked like research was actually sophisticated advocacy, and it almost worked.

Sophisticated advocacy organisations have evolved far beyond crude press releases. They now produce research that mimics independent analysis, package it with emotional hooks, and deliver it in formats designed to slip seamlessly into editorial workflows.

In our case, it was a recent report from Seismic Foundation - "On the Razor's Edge" - about public attitudes towards AI. At first glance, it has everything: 10,000-person survey across the US and Europe, high-profile lawsuit cases involving teen suicides and AI chatbots, quotable experts warning that public mood "teeters on a razor's edge."

The report claims that "public attitudes towards artificial intelligence are more polarised and fragile than ever" and that "it could only take one big AI moment for public mood to shift one way or the other." It features heartbreaking cases like Sewell Setzer III, a 14-year-old whose mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Character.AI, alleging the chatbot contributed to her son's suicide. It identifies five distinct groups "primed to shape the AI debate." It concludes by telling newsrooms they "must adopt a more cautious and considered approach within their reporting."

Compelling stuff. Except Seismic openly describes itself as using "media campaigns to raise public awareness around AI security and........

© journalism.co.uk