The Washington Post is ramping up opinion content with AI — and insiders aren’t thrilled.
The Post’s new project, “Ripple,” aims to expand opinion pieces outside its paywall. It will include content from partners like Substack. The controversial twist? An AI editor called Ember will coach “nonprofessional writers” to submit op-eds.
This detail raised alarm from a former senior Post editor who worked on the early Ripple brainstorm. The editor warned Ember will flood the paper with predictable, generic writing – the kind editors usually filter out. 
The core problem: AI is a “predictability machine” that chooses the most likely next word in sentences. It’s bad at surprise and originality, key elements for opinion writing. The former editor doubts Ember’s AI-generated content will maintain journalistic quality.
They argue AI has value for tasks like data tagging or research but shouldn’t replace editorial judgment on key opinion pieces.
Jeff Bezos, who owns the Post, said in 2013:
“The values of The Post do not need changing.
The paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners.”
But last year, Bezos blocked an editorial board endorsement of Kamala Harris citing bias concerns, only to later praise Donald Trump’s comeback, shaking trust.
Ex-Post editor Lydia Polgreen also criticized AI-opinions on X:
“When I was editor of HuffPost we shut down our contributor platform because it was bad for our journalism and it did not contribute significant traffic or revenue.”
The Ripple project and Ember AI risk turning the Post into a social blogging platform rather than a quality newsroom.
The Post once announced plans to add 41 new editors in 2021. Those ambitions now seem sidelined for scaling opinion volume via AI coaching.
The former editor warns:
“If that’s really Bezos’s dream for the nation’s readers, he should pursue it separate from the Post, rather than risk undermining the editorial tradition that has made the paper great.”
The Washington Post is betting on AI-driven opinion expansion. Newsroom insiders and media vets are sounding the alarm.
