Revealing the struggles facing Italian journalism today is more than an exposé—it’s a necessary act of care. By making these challenges visible, we can search for European-wide solutions or create new ones. Perhaps even with the help of artificial intelligence. Rather than seeing this technology as an adversary or rejecting it outright, we might consider “hiring” it as a junior assistant—a tool to help bring quality back to journalism.
Over 500 Italian journalists took part in a mental health survey — the most extensive and in-depth study of its kind conducted in the country to date [source: Irpi]. Its timing is not incidental. The industry has long needed such a mirror, and the reflection is complex. Why “complex”? Because it’s not just about psychological well-being. The findings point to a web of contributing factors—economic, political, human, and yes, technological. All of these could become ingredients for a new, restorative formula. It’s a situation worth exploring—and journalists are doing just that, starting by turning the lens inward and asking themselves a simple but profound question: How do you feel?
TAKEAWAYS
Underpaid and Overwhelmed: The Italian Landscape
The Irpi survey shows that the main stressors for Italian journalists are job precarity and inadequate compensation—compounded by an unspoken expectation to always be online and available. Among the most common issues reported: 87% cite stress, 73% anxiety, and 68% feelings of inadequacy. Over 40% experience burnout, mood swings, or internet/social media addiction. Depression was explicitly mentioned by one in three respondents.
The survey sample skews young: 46% are aged 18–35, 31% between 35–45, 14% between 45–55, 6% between 55–65, and 2% over 65. Notably, 65% identify as freelancers.
Alice Facchini, the journalist who led the study, said the idea came after seeing Solomon’s toolkit on mental health in Greek newsrooms.
“What struck me most,” she explains, “was how deeply mental health impacts the quality of the information we produce.”
The numbers paint a stark picture: in Italy, six out of ten journalists earn less than €35,000 a year. Nearly half of freelancers make under €5,000 annually, and 80% do not exceed €20,000 (source: INGPI, Employment Dynamics in the Journalism Sector, via La Via Libera).
According to Alessandra Costante of the National Federation of the Italian Press (FNSI),
“Italian journalism isn’t just getting older and poorer—it’s becoming more precarious. And precariousness is the greatest threat to freedom of information and Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The Greek Model: Survival through Solidarity
In Greece, the lack of data on journalists’ mental health spurred Solomon to take action. Journalist and director Iliana Papangeli describes how their toolkit emerged from first-hand experience.
“We developed it during the COVID-19 pandemic, while also running an independent newsroom, covering migration and refugee crises, managing team stress, and struggling for funding—it felt like an endless race,” she recalls.
They knew they weren’t alone. Conversations about mental health were already happening within their team and among colleagues. Freelancers, in particular, lacked any institutional safety net. But even in larger media organizations, Papangeli found that tools and policies to protect mental health were still absent.
“Mental health in journalism isn’t an individual issue—it’s systemic. It’s tied to working conditions, financial insecurity, press freedom, and the urgent need to transform newsroom culture. We need human-centered management that dismantles toxic norms and fosters sustainable, respectful environments.”
Three years after its publication, Solomon’s charter remains active, and the conversation has grown—reaching European conferences and workshops.
As journalist Aristea Protonotariou puts it:
“Mental health is one of our core values. We’re now trying to spread this mindset to other small newsrooms and freelancers—by sharing our practices, speaking at events, and supporting a healthier journalism ecosystem.”
AI in the Newsroom: Friend or Foe?
What about AI? In some corners, it’s feared as a threat to jobs and journalistic identity. In others, it’s welcomed as a helpful tool.
According to Solomon’s experience, AI tools are currently more of an operational support than a cause for concern. The same sentiment was echoed by four journalists we interviewed across Europe (France, Spain, Czech Republic) and the Philippines.
AI, they say, can improve workflow, but the impact depends on the journalist’s level of familiarity with the tools. There’s widespread agreement that AI must be handled with care and transparency.
A Tool with Limits—and Potential
An intern. A junior colleague. “An assistant that gives us powers we didn’t have before and allows us to do so much more.” Artificial intelligence, with all its caveats and contingencies, has become an active and integrated presence in the world of journalism—long before the generative AI boom. Each technological leap expands the spectrum of possible applications, while simultaneously amplifying both risks and opportunities.
From the interviews conducted, several common uses stood out: retrieving and transcribing information, navigating lengthy reports, and identifying key cues for interviews. AI is also used to enhance the structure and fluency of texts written in non-native languages. However, there’s a shared ethical boundary: never to write content from scratch.
“That’s a matter of principle,” says Caroline Harrap, a French freelance journalist contributing to both international and British media outlets, often on topics like travel, culture, and sustainability. Her stance is echoed across all other voices in the conversation.
Even among those with a longstanding familiarity with AI—like Laurens Vreekamp, founder of the Future Journalism Today Academy, or Irene Larraz, who leads the Spanish media innovation lab Newtral—there is a clear line. These professionals have been “collaborating” with AI since their university years, but with discernment and limits.
“We’ve used AI in our newsroom as a fact-checking support tool for quite some time,” explains Larraz. “We started by automating detection tasks, and now we also use it to analyze how news spreads. We’ve even developed a chatbot that people can ask to verify whether something is true or false. Looking ahead, we hope to monitor platforms like Telegram to better anticipate and prevent misinformation.”
For Harrap, AI simplifies parts of her workflow—idea generation, contact research, and even publication preparation.
“It makes my working life easier,” she admits, “but it never replaces the final decision-making. That’s still our job, as journalists.”
Interpretation, too, remains a human task, though AI can make it more manageable and efficient. This is particularly true for journalists like Ronald Rodrigues, who focuses on migrant rights. As a freelancer and multimedia editor for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Rodrigues values the speed and precision with which AI can translate local and regional languages—not only saving time, but also enabling broader narrative inclusion.
When we step outside the European context, the impact of AI becomes even more pronounced. In places where writing and language training are less accessible, AI can be the deciding factor in whether diverse voices are heard—or silenced—in journalism.
Take the experience of George Buid, a journalist in the Philippines. Despite ongoing efforts to improve his English, language had long been a barrier to publishing. A former photojournalist turned writer, George often struggled with the pressure of writing in a non-native tongue.
“It used to take me a week to write an article,” he says. “My editor wanted it in an hour. Now I can meet that deadline—thanks to AI.”
In such cases, AI doesn’t just assist—it unlocks opportunity, enabling journalists to maintain editorial standards, amplify underrepresented perspectives, and fully participate in the global media conversation.
Proceed with Caution: AI’s Double Edge
Yet, for all the convenience and potential that artificial intelligence brings, journalists are far from complacent. They remain sharply critical, each voicing concerns that reflect their own professional vantage point. For Caroline Harrap, speaking from the perspective of a freelancer, AI deepens a sense of isolation and exacerbates existing inequalities:
“It intensifies the feeling of loneliness and significantly undermines freelance copywriting work—which, for many journalists, is already poorly paid.”
One concern cuts across all roles and national contexts: the issue of copyright and the use of journalists’ content to train AI systems. Laurens Vreekamp has gone as far as proposing a subscription-based model to compensate journalists when their work is used in this way—essentially to regain some control over how their content feeds algorithmic outputs.
“But never to feed AI models directly,” he cautions. “We’re giving our work away for free, and in doing so, we risk becoming obsolete.”
Irene Larraz adds another layer of concern: the proliferation of fake news. Meanwhile, George Buid and Ronald Rodrigues raise alarms about the erosion of human-centered storytelling.
Buid describes it as a “flattening of narrative,” while Rodrigues speaks of a growing “absence of human perspective.” Rodrigues also warns that algorithmic systems—especially when underpinned by limited or biased datasets—can reinforce harmful stereotypes, particularly those targeting marginalized communities.
“AI can reproduce and amplify existing prejudices,” he explains, “especially when there’s a lack of data or context surrounding underrepresented groups.”
He’s also deeply concerned about the privacy implications of AI, particularly how it draws on facial recognition technologies, social media tracking, and online behavioral analytics—practices that often skirt the edges of regulatory frameworks. Still, he remains hopeful:
“So far, journalism continues to hold onto a deeply human perspective.”
AI, then, is a double-edged sword—offering tangible benefits to newsroom workflows while also introducing profound and still-unfolding risks. To meet this challenge, newsrooms, individual journalists, and professional associations alike must commit to a proactive stance.
“We need resources to govern this technology properly: more rules, more tools,” says Harrap. “And above all, reassurances that journalism jobs—especially those of freelancers—won’t be the first to disappear. That fear is real and should not be dismissed.” “Not one less,” she insists.
Vreekamp, though coming from a different background in the industry, agrees.
“Everyone needs to be included in ongoing workshops and training sessions on AI in journalism—spaces where professionals can routinely test out new tools and learn how they function.” Larraz echoes this point and emphasizes that Newtral deliberately structures its working groups to foster collaboration between engineers and journalists: “That’s the only way to truly understand AI’s potential—and its limits.”
She adds:
“We have to stop waiting for third parties to design our tools. When we do that, we hand over our data and end up buying back solutions that often don’t meet our needs.”
In this sense, artificial intelligence is a tool that demands caution. For now, it doesn’t seem to heighten anxiety among journalists; on the contrary, it often helps manage their daily workload. But that doesn’t mean it comes without cost. Journalists are acutely aware of the risks of complicity—and remain firmly committed to upholding the core values of their profession in the face of accelerating technological change.
This article was produced in collaboration with Francesca Barca and Kata Moravecz, as part of PULSE Thematic Networks a European initiative that supports transnational journalistic collaborations.
