The fake PR problem business journalists can no longer ignore

There are few things more irritating to a journalist than a bad press release. You know the type. Seventeen paragraphs of corporate waffle, three mentions of “exciting”, a quote from the chief executive which nobody would ever say in real life and a photograph that looks like it was taken in a hotel lobby in 2008. You delete it and move on.

But something rather more sinister is now landing in journalists’ inboxes, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to simply dismiss it as another example of bad PR.

On Thursday, I received a press release attacking a very well-respected Nottingham institution. It was potentially a story, which meant I did what I would normally do when something lands in my inbox that makes a potentially serious allegation: I started checking it.

The person who sent it had no email signature and no phone number. The PR company named in the email, Beacon PR, appeared to have no website. Its client was seemingly based in the US and the client’s website raised more questions than answers.

So I replied to the person who had sent the release and asked for a phone number because I wanted to talk through the allegations and check some of the discrepancies I had found.

Nothing.

No reply. Not even the courtesy of an explanation.

That might sound like a small thing, but it isn’t. I receive around 500 emails a day. Most are ignored, not because I don’t care about businesses or PR people, but because there are only so many hours in a day and journalists have become the human equivalent of a spam filter.

Now we are apparently expected to establish whether the people and companies behind the emails actually exist before we can even decide whether the email is worth reading.

Maybe there is an entirely innocent explanation. Maybe Beacon PR is legitimate, its client is legitimate and I simply stumbled across a badly constructed pitch. But that is precisely the problem. I should not have to conduct a mini-investigation before deciding whether an unsolicited press release is worth reading.

And I am far from alone in thinking the problem is getting worse.

Jess Morgan

Jess Morgan, CEO of Carnsight Communications, says the problem has spread far beyond the fake expert.

“This is certainly a Brave New World for the industry. We’re increasingly hearing of case studies (people featured in the media) that don’t actually exist, experts that have been completely fabricated, fake PR pros and even journalists who aren’t real, all enabled by AI.

“The premise is that companies can get media coverage by using AI to create people to be profiled, to pitch or to write stories (all with AI headshots, too). And unfortunately, it’s been playing out.

“This is nothing short of disastrous.”

That is quite an escalation from the usual complaints about a badly targeted press release.

But Morgan says the wider media environment makes the issue particularly serious.

“It’s no secret that the media industry is under pressure – there are fewer journalists, fewer publications and seemingly more companies chasing coverage. Plus, trust in the media is at near historic lows – UK trust in the news has fallen to around 30% this year.

“What we need is systems and processes that bolster trust and transparency, not tech-enabled attacks on them.”

That distinction between producing a press release and doing PR properly is important.

AI has not invented dishonesty. There have always been people prepared to embellish a client’s credentials, manufacture a quote or send journalists something dressed up as news when it is really advertising.

What AI has done is make the process faster, cheaper and much more convincing.

Martin Stone, managing director of TANK, has spent more than 20 years in PR and worked as a broadcast journalist before that. He says the technology has changed the economics of fakery.

“The rise of AI tools has made it incredibly easy for anyone to produce a convincing-looking press release, and unfortunately, it’s also making it easier to fabricate a credible-sounding spokesperson or even an entire brand.

“Having worked in PR for over 20 years, and as a broadcast journalist before that, I know that PR is about much more than producing a well-crafted press release – good PR hinges on real human relationships.

“For the industry as a whole, the rise in fake press releases and experts undermines trust in legitimate agencies, our craft, and risks damaging the relationships and trust we’ve spent years building with journalists.”

That last point matters.

AI did not invent dishonesty. People have been making things up since the invention of the press release. But AI has dramatically reduced the time, effort and expertise required to make something invented look convincing.

Lauren Shelley

Lauren Shelley, senior digital PR executive at Marketing Signals, believes links are a major part of the problem.

“I think most of it comes down to links, to be honest. A quote in a national or trade title will typically link back to a website, which then helps the site rank in Google. Expert commentary is probably the quickest way to earn those links, which means people have decided it’s quicker and easier to make up an expert than spend time finding a real one.

“Sadly, AI has meant that people can do this at scale and within minutes. You’re able to generate a name, a headshot, a job title and some fairly generic commentary within minutes. This can then be shared with relevant requests or blasted to every journalist in a database relatively quickly.”

That is a particularly unpleasant development for journalists because the old warning signs are becoming less useful.

A professional website used to mean something. A photograph used to mean something. A LinkedIn profile used to provide at least some reassurance. A plausible biography and a company email address gave you somewhere to start.

Now, all of those things can be manufactured.

James Crawford

James Crawford, managing director of PR Agency One, is blunt about what happens when the line is crossed.

“Inventing a spokesperson is just another part of the ‘enshittification’ of everything that was once good. It is deception, basically. If your managing director does not want to be quoted, find another qualified person. You do not get to invent a randomer and find a stock photo.

“This problem predates AI. Parts of the search engine optimisation market have treated media coverage as a way to acquire links and influence search rankings or Wikipedia. When the link becomes more important than the truth of the story, the incentives are turned upside down.”

Crawford also makes an important distinction. This is not an indictment of every SEO agency or PR professional. There are plenty of people doing perfectly legitimate work.

But, he says, AI has taken an existing problem and made it much easier to scale.

“AI makes this easier to manufacture and distribute at an industrial scale. Plausible biographies, super polished quotes and convincing press releases are increasingly cheap to produce.

“I take issue with presenting these spammy operators as representative of the PR profession. Calling yourself a PR agency does not make misinformation and fabricated clients, invented credentials or industrialised spam professional communications.”

The consequences are now being felt by legitimate PR agencies.

Megan Dooley

Megan Dooley, head of PR at TAL Agency, says journalists are increasingly demanding proof that the people behind the quotes are real.

“I used to be able to send my Q&A responses or replies straight over email and that would be that – but the number of journalists who are now asking me to do camera-on calls (not even over the phone) for me to provide answers for their articles has definitely shot up. And I can understand why completely.

“This is no longer the case of rogue agencies churning out content, but a real structural problem within the industry.”

She points to the commercial incentive behind it.

“Even now in 2026, volume of coverage is still the metric that is most highly regarded by (uneducated) agencies and their clients, as opposed to the quality and reference of what you’re achieving.

“And a fake spokesperson – who doesn’t require sign-off or to contribute – has the ability to pitch campaigns and comments out at a speed and scale that no real person can match.”

That creates what Dooley describes as a “trust deficit”.

“The currency of good PR has always been trust. And an industry that lets fake spokespeople – and clients eager for this approach – run amok is burning through a stockpile that it just can’t refill.

“For agencies out there that are doing it properly, it’s infuriating to watch from the sidelines.”

Vicky Ryce, managing director of Let’s Talk Communications, puts the problem in even simpler terms.

“It’s depressing that journalists now have to check whether the person sending them a press release actually exists. They already have enough to do.”

She recently spoke to students at Bournemouth University about careers in PR and says the industry risks teaching the next generation the wrong lessons.

“I emphasised the importance of understanding people, building relationships and earning trust. Fabricated spokespeople and imaginary clients undermine everything we should be encouraging that next generation to value.”

Ryce also makes the distinction that matters most. AI itself is not the problem. Responsibility still rests with the human using it.

“AI can be useful, but the person sending the material remains responsible for its accuracy. A spokesperson must be real, appropriately qualified and available to answer questions.

“Agencies should be clear about whom they represent and able to substantiate their claims. Clients should ask how coverage is being achieved, rather than simply counting mentions.”

Martin Stone

That is where this stops being an amusing irritation for journalists and becomes a genuine business issue.

A fabricated expert might generate a handful of links. A fake client might produce a dozen pieces of coverage. A synthetic campaign might look fantastic on a spreadsheet.

But every time one is exposed, it makes the next legitimate pitch harder to trust.

Nick Owens, founder of Magnify PR, describes fake experts as “one of the biggest threats facing the PR industry right now”.

“National newspapers, online and in print, have published quotes from so-called specialists who simply do not exist. Some have appeared across multiple titles before anyone thought to check whether they were real. Every one of those stories chips away at public trust in journalism, and in PR.

“That is a failure on both sides. Agencies have a duty never to put fabricated voices in front of journalists, and newsrooms under pressure to fill pages have not always asked the questions they should.”

That last admission is important. Journalists are not blameless.

We are under pressure to publish quickly. We have overflowing inboxes. We have fewer resources than we used to. We sometimes trust that a professional-looking pitch has passed some basic test before it reaches us.

But perhaps that assumption is no longer safe.

Maxine Ambrose

Maxine Ambrose, joint managing partner at Ambrose Communications, believes journalists are already paying the price.

“Indiscriminate use of AI means that journalists tell us they have overloaded inboxes, and yet another fact-checking task, because they can no longer assume that the sender nor the company they represent are genuine.”

She argues that AI should be used to improve work rather than simply multiply it.

“AI should never just be about doing more, but about creating greater value and quality. When it does not achieve those, ask whether it is being used for the right purposes.”

That seems like a fairly good test for all of us.

The technology is not going away. Nor should it. There are plenty of useful applications for AI in business, journalism and communications.

But if the result of using it is that journalists have to check whether the PR agency exists, whether the company exists, whether the spokesperson exists and whether the quote was actually said by anybody, then the efficiency argument starts to look rather less impressive.

Crawford says there is still a simple answer.

“An introduction must come with accountability: a real sender, a verifiable client and someone prepared to answer difficult questions. It doesn’t take long to check that I am real.”

Exactly.

So, to whoever sent me that press release on Thursday: give me a real name, a real client, a real spokesperson and a telephone number.

I have around 500 emails waiting.

I really don’t have time to investigate whether you exist.