Key Takeaways

  • The Herald Sun used a labelled AI-generated illustration for political commentary involving the Victorian Premier.
  • Cartoonists warn that routine AI use could accelerate job losses in an already fragile freelance market.
  • News publishers are adopting sharply different policies on disclosure, editorial review, and permitted uses of synthetic images.

ABC News reported that the Herald Sun published an AI-generated illustration on Wednesday alongside an article about the Victorian Premier. The labelled image showed the premier with a pirate’s leg scraping barnacles from a ship decorated with former state leaders.

The publication is a specific example of a much broader operational shift. News Corp has used AI-generated illustrations for about two years, according to the ABC News report, while publishers across Australia are developing policies for synthetic writing, graphics, and images.

For media executives, the appeal is fairly clear. Generative tools can produce visual material quickly, fill space when budgets are tight, and reduce dependence on commissioned work. But that efficiency creates a difficult business question: when does AI assist editorial production, and when does it replace the people whose judgement gives that work value?

A veteran cartoonist described the spread of AI illustrations across newspapers and social media as a "punch in the gut." The cartoonist argued that generated cartoons tend to share a recognisable visual style and said the technology is taking work that might previously have gone to human illustrators.

The timing makes the concern sharper. The cartoonist, who has worked in the industry for more than 30 years, noted that cartooning had already been shrinking. This observation aligns with a 2024 Society of Authors report indicating that 26% of illustrators lost work and 37% saw income fall due to AI adoption by clients. The cartoonist was recently informed that a contract with Guardian Australia would not be renewed and expected to transition entirely to freelance work shortly after.

Editorial cartoons are not simply decorative assets; they combine reporting, political interpretation, satire, and visual authorship. A generated picture might reproduce the surface characteristics of caricature, yet assigning political meaning and taking responsibility for it are distinctly human tasks.

The deputy president of the Australian Cartoonists Association called newspaper use of generated illustrations damaging to the profession. The executive noted that adoption has grown steadily since public generative AI platforms emerged around 2022. The larger concern is whether the people commissioning creative work still prioritize the ethical issues surrounding it.

That debate extends well beyond one Australian masthead. iMEdD has examined the movement of editorial cartooning from traditional drawing toward AI and, in some cases, back again. PressRoom has also covered AI’s growing presence in illustration and journalism, reflecting an international argument about labour, authorship, and editorial accountability.

News Corp’s code of conduct requires digitally altered images, including AI-generated material, to be labelled. It also says AI-sourced images and graphics should receive the same editorial rigour as other content and be reviewed by an editor or relevant editorial manager before publication. That provides an approval mechanism, although labelling alone does not resolve questions about training data, artist compensation, or job substitution.

Other publishers have drawn their lines elsewhere. Nine Publishing, which publishes The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, says its guidelines prohibit AI-generated photorealistic images or illustrations unless the generated nature of the image is itself the point of the story. AI can still be used for graphics with editorial approval.

The ABC, meanwhile, has launched an AI writing trial that creates digital articles from radio bulletins. Its current guidance says audiences will be informed when AI use could materially affect their understanding of content. The acting news director wrote in an internal email that AI supports rather than replaces editorial thinking and that people remain involved at crucial stages.

A University of Melbourne academic warned that AI could become a pretext for job shedding and called for stronger union involvement. The academic also urged publishers to disclose which platforms they use and under what circumstances. That detail matters. Was an image generated from scratch, modified from commissioned work, or created using a model trained on artists without consent?

The Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance said editorial cartooning requires artistic ability, political knowledge, and journalistic judgement. Its position points to the central commercial risk for publishers: short-term production savings could weaken the skilled workforce, distinctive voices, and public trust on which news brands depend.

AI can assist artists and editorial teams, as the Australian Cartoonists Association acknowledged. The harder task is designing policies that preserve accountability and make augmentation more attractive than quiet substitution. The Herald Sun labelled its illustration, so readers were at least told what they were seeing. The next test is whether publishers become equally transparent about who loses the commission, who approves the message, and who answers when synthetic satire gets it wrong.