In this two-part series, journalism professor and former Wall Street Journal reporter Amy Merrick unpacks two influential trends reshaping the media landscape: source transparency and generative AI. From The Washington Post’s hotly debated “From the Source” pilot to the opportunities and risks of AI in journalism, the conversation examines how newsrooms are experimenting with new ways to build trust, efficiency and engagement in an era of rapid technological change. 

How the Washington Post’s “From the Source” Could Redefine Media Transparency: A Q&A with Chicago Journalism Educator Amy Merrick 

This is the first article in the series. 

News that The Washington Post is launching a new system that allows people quoted in some articles to add annotations after publication ignited a firestorm of debate across the media landscape. Commenters suggested the program could enable attacks on the reporting (or the reporter), amplify misinformation, allow sources to walk back quotes, or simply provide a platform for self-interested promotion. 

The goal of the “From the Source” system is to encourage readers to engage in on-site conversations rather than shifting to social media platforms. The initiative also comes as other pressures weigh on media outlets as they confront profound economic challenges to their business model—including the explosive growth of generative AI, with chatbots and GenAI search results tanking traffic to news sites from traditional search referrals.   

To unpack the implications of it all, we caught up with Amy Merrick, a senior professional lecturer at DePaul University’s College of Communication and former reporter for The Wall Street Journal. Merrick is a faculty adviser to the school’s 14 East magazine and its Society of Professional Journalists chapter. She includes discussions on the impact of AI as part of her syllabus and recently enrolled in a master’s program in computer science in order to understand what AI means for journalists and help her students get ready for what’s next. 

We talked with Merrick about the significance of the Post’s new offering and where she thinks AI and journalism are headed. What follows is the first part of that conversation, focused on “From the Source” and what the initiative could mean for both journalists and sources. In the comings weeks, stay tuned for the second part, which examines the fast-moving impacts that AI is having on journalism. 

Lisa Seidenberg: The online response to The New York Times’ story on “From the Source” was strong, to say the least. As a former journalist, what was your reaction, and do you agree with these concerns?   

Amy Merrick: The climate section at The Washington Post has been a space for experimentation before, so it doesn’t surprise me that they’re starting this pilot program there. The first thing I’d say is that established media companies really should be doing more of these pilot projects. They should be trying new things, testing ideas. We’re still seeing outstanding journalism happening across the US and around the world, but on the business and tech side, the media has fallen behind. That’s opened the door for tech companies to capture a lot of the growth and audience. 

These types of experiments should be encouraged. Honestly, I was surprised by how negative some of the early reactions were, especially since the program hasn’t even fully launched or had a chance to evolve. There’s a tendency in the media industry to shoot down new ideas before they’ve had a chance to prove themselves. 

Now, I don’t know if this pilot will be the one that’s a breakthrough, but I’m glad they’re trying something. And while I get the concerns around the annotations, I also see the potential. As a reporter, part of the job is to critically assess the information you’re given, put it into context, and bring different perspectives into conversation. If sources are then coming in to annotate or add further context, that could be valuable in the best-case scenario.  

LS: On the theme of adding meaningful value, do you think this system will add an opportunity for authorities to share a new point of view or enhance the story? 

AM: Yes, they’re allowing sources to offer valuable extra context that didn’t fit into the story itself, which is helpful.  

These days, not much is limited to just print, but back when it was, that was a bigger constraint. Even now, though, if you’re trying to keep a precise angle or focus, you can’t go in every direction at once.  

So, ideally, you’d have climate experts providing background or further explanation that didn’t make the final cut. It functions like a footnote or appendix, allowing readers who want to delve deeper to do so.  

If this idea catches on, it could become a new skill people develop, figuring out how to add something meaningful to articles after they’re published. It works like online comments, providing context instead of relying on hyperlinks that most readers don’t click. It’s a way to be more transparent and help readers better understand the sources. 

I did notice, however, that in some early examples, the annotations were mostly company press releases, and I’m not sure how useful those are in terms of adding meaningful value. 

LS: The goal of this is driving reader engagement. Do you think it will? 

AM: It’s too soon to say if this will drive more engagement, but people do like having conversations about stories and sharing their input. A well-moderated comment section can be such a pleasure. I read some newsletters on Substack where readers share thoughtful opinions, and platforms like Reddit, with its upvoting and downvoting features, can work well. 

I do think audiences expect to participate in conversations now, and trying new ways to do that is smart from a business perspective. More engagement typically means more time spent on the site or app, which can help with advertising, subscriptions, or donations. Journalists want their work to be read, too, so audience engagement is key. It used to be treated as an afterthought, but now places that do it well make it a core part of the process. 

LS: Will other outlets be watching how this works and deciding if they want to try it too? It may make sense for specialized or trade publications, like climate-focused ones. 

AM: Interestingly, they’re starting with climate, which is a pretty technical topic where readers want lots of detail. That’s a great place to experiment.  

However, if they expand into political stories, that could become complicated as politicians tend to stick to their messaging, and back-and-forth discussions about wording could be a headache. But they haven’t tried it yet, so we’ll have to see how it plays out.  

I think other outlets will be paying attention. For trade publications with a knowledgeable audience, this could be valuable. The Post is known for being experimental these days, so many people watch what it does closely. Of course, there has been a lot of scrutiny on them lately, with ownership issues and all, so they’re definitely in the spotlight. 

As Merrick explains, experimentation in journalism—especially in how media organizations engage sources and audiences—deserves room to evolve. While “From the Source” raises valid questions, it also presents an opportunity for newsrooms and communicators to rethink transparency and audience trust. 

In the second part of our Q&A, Merrick shares why she’s diving headfirst into AI and how she sees it reshaping newsrooms—from transcription tools to editorial ethics and everything in between. 

At Greentarget, we help organizations navigate this changing landscape with communications strategies rooted in credibility, authority and earned engagement. Want to understand how changes in journalism affect your content and communications strategy? Let’s talk.