These aren't hypotheticals — they're the questions journalists and producers actually ask me in workshops, newsrooms, and hallway conversations across the country. If your question isn't here, send it to me. It'll probably end up on this page.
Do I have to disclose that AI helped write my script?
That's your station's call, not mine — disclosure policies vary widely and they're evolving fast. But here's the framework I teach: disclosure follows authorship, not assistance. If a tool restructured your sentences the way a copy editor would, that's assistance. If a tool generated content you didn't source and verify yourself, that's a different animal — and you shouldn't be airing it anyway. Know your station's policy, and if it doesn't have one, be the person who asks for one. That conversation is overdue at most stations.
Can I use AI-generated copy verbatim on air?
You can — after you've read it, verified every fact against your source material, and decided it meets your standard. What you can't do is skip that step. The tool drafts; the journalist publishes. If you're airing copy nobody read, the problem isn't the AI. It's the workflow — and it was a problem before AI existed.
What's the difference between AI assistance and AI journalism?
Everything. AI assistance is a tool reformatting your reporting — your facts, your sources, your judgment — the way spellcheck and editing software always have. AI journalism would be a machine deciding what's true and publishing it. SmartRundown is built exclusively for the first one. The reporting is still yours. It has to be.
My news director hasn't approved AI tools. What do I do?
Don't sneak it — ask. I mean that, and not just as a liability line: a journalist quietly running station scripts through an unapproved tool is exactly the story that sets AI adoption back a decade in your shop when it comes out. And it always comes out. The good news is "can we talk about an AI policy?" is a much easier conversation than you think, especially when you arrive with specifics instead of hype.
How do I pitch this to my EP or news director?
Lead with the problem, not the technology. Your EP doesn't care about AI — they care that digital deadlines are eating broadcast prep and the late show's copy is getting thin. Show them one before/after: a wire story and its two-minute rewrite. Then address their real fear head-on: nothing airs without a journalist reading it, same as always. If it helps, point them at the Training Hub — the responsible-use guidance is built for exactly this conversation, and they can hear it from someone who's been in the chair for thirty years, not a vendor.
How does this fit into my existing show prep?
It replaces the worst part and leaves the rest alone. You still pull wire, still make story judgments, still build the rundown in your station's system. What changes is the middle step — instead of hand-massaging each story into broadcast copy, you run it through the tool and spend your time editing instead of retyping. Most producers tell me it slots into their existing routine on day one, because it's not a new workflow. It's the old workflow with the slowest step removed.
How fast is it actually?
Seconds per script for the rewrite itself — the honest total is rewrite plus your read-through, which is the step you're not allowed to skip. Call it a minute or two per story, all in. Against the fifteen or twenty minutes of doing it by hand, that's most of an hour back across a typical show.
Can I use it in the field?
It runs in your browser, so any device with a connection works. It's built and optimized for the desk today — an MMJ with a phone and raw notes can get air-ready copy from the scene, though the experience is best on a laptop or tablet. A dedicated mobile experience is on the roadmap.
Will the AI make things up?
Here's the straight answer, because you'd smell a dodge: AI language models can hallucinate — anyone who tells you theirs never does is selling something. SmartRundown is built to minimize that risk by design: the tools rewrite what you give them rather than generating from scratch, which removes most of the opportunity to invent. But "minimized" isn't "impossible," and that's exactly why the verification step exists. Trust the tool to draft. Trust yourself to check. Read It Before You Air It →
How do I fact-check AI output?
Same way you'd check a rookie's script, just faster: read the output against your source material and confirm four things — every name, number, date, and place matches; the attribution survived; every qualifier ("alleged," "preliminary," "police say") is still attached; and nothing appears that you didn't put in. If a detail surprises you, that's your flag — you didn't provide it, so it doesn't belong. Under a minute for a normal script.
What does [NEEDS SOURCE] mean in the Digital Article Creator?
It means the tool is doing exactly what it should: flagging a spot where the web version wants a fact your broadcast script didn't fully support — a claim that needs attribution, a number that needs a citation. Instead of quietly guessing, it stops and asks you. Treat every flag as a required stop: source it or cut it before you publish. That flag is a feature, not a flaw.
What's free?
Everything. All six tools — including the Digital Article Creator, Social/Push Alerts, and the Training Hub — are free while we're in early access. No credit card required.
Do I need an account?
Script Simplifier, VOSOT Generator, and Tease Writer work without an account. The Digital Article Creator, Social/Push Alerts, and Training Hub ask you to sign in — free, takes thirty seconds.
Will it stay free forever?
Early access is free. Paid plans are coming — but early users will get plenty of notice before anything changes, and the free tier will always include the core writing tools.
Have a question that's not here? Reach out directly →