Why This Case Matters: Journalism, AI and the Work Behind the Story
By Cheval John | Vallano Media
This article was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence.
The final version was reviewed, edited and fact-checked by the author
Graphics created with AI-assisted design tools.
Visual concepts, editorial direction, composition, and final creative decisions were developed by Vallano Media.
Artificial intelligence can make journalism faster.
That is precisely why journalists need to be careful with it.
AI can help organize research, compare documents, identify questions, summarize complicated material and assist with drafting.
Tasks that once consumed hours can sometimes be completed much more efficiently.
But speed is not the same thing as accuracy.
An AI system can produce an answer that sounds authoritative while overlooking context, confusing chronology, relying on weak sources or presenting an interpretation as fact.
The technology can assist with journalism, but it cannot assume responsibility for what a journalist ultimately publishes.
That distinction became increasingly clear to Vallano Media while researching its two-part series examining the FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal and its aftermath.
What began as a sports story also became a real-world test of how artificial intelligence could fit inside an existing journalistic process without replacing the principles that made that process reliable.
The central question was simple:
What does responsible AI-assisted journalism look like when the journalist remains responsible for the work?
The Story Came First
The project did not begin as an experiment with artificial intelligence.
It began with a story.
The FIFA Forward Enterprise proposal raised questions that could not be answered simply by reading one article or accepting one organization’s explanation.
The reporting required multiple sources, comparisons between claims and documents, attention to chronology and a clear distinction between what could be verified and what remained uncertain.
AI became useful because it could assist with parts of that process.
It could help organize information.
It could surface potential inconsistencies for further investigation.
It could compare material from different sources.
It could generate additional questions.
And it could help structure complicated research before that research became an article.
But throughout the project there was one important boundary:
AI could help investigate the story.
It could not decide what was true.
That still required verification.
Using AI Is Not the Same as Depending on AI
There is an important difference between using artificial intelligence in journalism and handing journalism over to artificial intelligence.
A simplified AI-first approach might look like this:
Choose a topic → ask AI to research it → ask AI to write the article → publish.
That process may be fast.
It is also risky.
A more responsible workflow looks very different:
Question → research → source evaluation → verification → AI-assisted analysis → additional research → drafting → fact-checking → editorial judgment → publication.
Video Courtesy of NBA YouTube Channel
In that model, AI operates inside the journalistic process rather than replacing it.
The purpose of this project is not to argue that journalists should avoid artificial intelligence.
Nor is it to suggest that AI can independently perform journalism simply because it can produce convincing prose.
The more useful question is how journalists can use the technology while preserving the sourcing, verification, skepticism and accountability that journalism already requires.
That is what the FIFA reporting project allowed Vallano Media to examine in practice.
Journalism Already Had a Workflow
Artificial intelligence did not invent the journalistic process.
Long before generative AI became widely available, reporters already had a basic system for determining whether something was ready to publish.
A reporter receives information.
The reporter asks where it came from.
A source is identified.
Additional sources are consulted.
Claims are compared with documents, statistics, direct statements or other evidence.
Contradictions are investigated.
Context is added.
The reporter determines what can be stated as fact, what needs attribution and what cannot yet be supported.
Then the story is edited and reviewed before publication.
The tools have changed repeatedly over journalism’s history.
Reporters moved from notebooks and typewriters to computers, databases, search engines, digital archives, social media and now artificial intelligence.
But the fundamental responsibility did not change with each technological shift.
The journalist still had to determine whether the information was reliable enough to publish.
AI should be treated the same way.
It is another tool inside the workflow.
It can make portions of that workflow dramatically faster, but it does not eliminate the workflow itself.
In fact, because an AI system can generate polished explanations so quickly, the temptation to skip traditional verification may become greater.
A confident answer can look like a researched answer.
Those are not necessarily the same thing.
The Professional Has to Know the Field
This leads to another important lesson from the FIFA project.
AI becomes more useful when the person using it already understands the fundamentals of the work.
A journalist familiar with sourcing can recognize when an answer depends too heavily on secondary reporting.
A journalist who understands attribution can identify when an AI response has turned somebody’s claim into an apparent fact.
A journalist familiar with chronology can notice when separate events have been incorrectly combined.
And a journalist who understands the subject can recognize when an explanation simply does not make sense.
This is why AI literacy alone is not enough.
Someone can become highly skilled at prompting an AI system and still produce unreliable journalism if they do not understand reporting.
The technology does not remove the need for professional knowledge.
It increases the value of that knowledge because the professional must evaluate what the technology produces.
In that sense, one of the most important AI skills may not be knowing what to ask.
It may be knowing when the answer is wrong.
AI Can Play More Than One Role
Another lesson from the reporting process was that AI did not perform one fixed job.
Its role changed depending on what the story required.
At one stage, it could function like a research assistant, helping organize information that had already been gathered.
At another, it could act like a brainstorming partner by suggesting questions that had not yet been considered.
Later, it could help compare claims from different sources.
And during review, AI could be deliberately prompted to challenge the assumptions behind the reporting.
That shift is important.
AI does not always have to help a journalist strengthen an argument.
Sometimes one of its most useful roles is helping expose weaknesses in that argument.
Rather than treating the first AI response as an answer, the response can become the beginning of another round of questioning.
What evidence supports this?
What is missing?
What assumptions are being made?
What would contradict this conclusion?
Is this statement supported by a primary source?
Those questions deliberately slow down a technology whose greatest appeal is speed.
The objective is not to use AI as quickly as possible.
The objective is to use it without allowing speed to outrun verification.
Accountability Never Moved
There was one responsibility that could not be delegated anywhere in the process.
Publication.
AI could recommend wording.
It could summarize research.
It could challenge assumptions.
It could help identify information that deserved further examination.
But when Vallano Media published the FIFA articles, responsibility for those articles belonged to Vallano Media.
If a claim had been wrong, saying that an AI system generated it would not have been an adequate explanation.
That may be the simplest principle in this entire project:
AI can participate in the process.
Accountability stays with the publisher.
Why This Matters Beyond One FIFA Story
The FIFA case is useful because it turns an abstract debate about artificial intelligence into something practical.
Much of the conversation around AI and journalism tends to swing between two extremes.
One side treats AI primarily as a threat to journalism.
The other presents it as a replacement for large parts of the reporting and writing process.
The experience of using AI inside an actual reporting project was more complicated than either position suggests.
AI was useful.
It made research easier to organize.
It helped surface questions.
It helped test assumptions.
It reduced the time required for some tasks.
But none of those benefits removed the need for reporting judgment.
The technology worked best when combined with an existing professional process.
That lesson extends beyond journalism.
Public relations professionals still have to understand audiences, messaging and reputation.
Researchers still have to understand methodology.
Business owners still have to understand their markets.
Analysts still have to understand the information they are interpreting.
AI can increase a professional’s capacity, but it does not automatically create expertise.
Someone who understands the work is in a much better position to use AI effectively because that person knows what should happen before, during and after AI becomes involved.
The Goal Is Not Automation for Its Own Sake
It is tempting to measure AI adoption by how much work can be automated.
That may be the wrong measurement for journalism.
A better question is whether AI improves the quality, speed or depth of the reporting without weakening verification.
If the technology helps organize dozens of sources more efficiently, that can be useful.
If it surfaces a contradiction that deserves further investigation, that can be useful.
If it helps produce a clearer outline, that can be useful.
But if it encourages a reporter to stop checking sources because an answer sounds convincing, the technology has made the workflow worse rather than better.
Efficiency only matters if the finished work remains trustworthy.
That principle became one of the most important lessons of the FIFA project.
The objective was not to remove the journalist from the process.
It was to determine where AI could make the journalist more effective.
A Working System, Not a Perfect One
The workflow examined in this series should not be treated as a universal formula.
Different journalists, publications and subject areas will require different safeguards.
Breaking news will operate differently from long-form analysis.
Investigative reporting will require different levels of documentation from a game recap.
A local newsroom may use AI differently from an independent digital publication.
And the technology itself will continue to change.
What matters is the underlying principle.
AI should be incorporated into a system where its output can be questioned, checked and rejected.
The journalist needs the ability to say:
That answer is useful.
That answer needs verification.
That answer is incomplete.
Or simply:
That answer is wrong.
The process documented here developed through actual reporting rather than theory.
It evolved as problems appeared.
Weak answers led to stronger verification steps.
Overconfident conclusions led to more adversarial questioning.
Gaps in research led to additional sourcing.
In other words, the workflow improved because the technology was not assumed to be reliable by default.
It had to earn its place in the process.
What Comes Next
The next stage is where the discussion becomes more practical.
Before AI could help interpret the FIFA story, the reporting needed a research foundation strong enough to support that analysis.
That meant identifying credible sources, separating primary evidence from secondary reporting, establishing chronology and recognizing where the evidence remained incomplete.
Only then could AI become useful without becoming the source itself.
Chapter 2 will examine how that research foundation was built — and why source quality had to come before AI analysis next Tuesday.
Graphics created with AI-assisted design tools.
Visual concepts, editorial direction, composition, and final creative decisions were developed by Vallano Media.
How 162 Baseball Games Made Regional Networks Essential to Fan Loyalty
By Cheval John | Vallano Media
This article was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence.
The final version was reviewed, edited and fact-checked by the author
Graphics created with AI-assisted design tools.
Visual concepts, editorial direction, composition, and final creative decisions were developed by Vallano Media.
For six months, millions of fans experience baseball primarily through the teams they follow.
Then October arrives.
The postseason becomes a much more national experience.
The biggest games move onto national television and streaming platforms.
Storylines that have developed locally throughout the season suddenly become part of a national conversation.
That contrast helps explain something important about baseball’s media business.
National coverage gives Major League Baseball (MLB) enormous reach.
But the sport’s unusually long regular season created an environment in which regional coverage could become particularly important for frequency, familiarity and fan engagement.
Baseball does not just provide games.
It provides a relationship that can be renewed almost every day.
162 Opportunities to Matter
An NFL team currently plays 17 regular-season games.
A Major League Baseball team plays 162.
That difference changes the media equation.
Baseball teams play throughout the week, sometimes for nearly two straight weeks without a day off.
Fans can spend an entire summer following the same broadcasters, players, coaches and storylines.
One Tuesday night in June may not attract a massive national audience.
To a fan following that team every day, however, it is another chapter in a season-long story.
Was the starting pitcher able to recover from his previous outing?
Is a rookie beginning to establish himself?
Can the team survive an injury to a key player?
Will a struggling hitter finally break out of his slump?
Those stories accumulate.
And regional media was uniquely positioned to tell them.
That is why baseball became such a natural product for the regional sports network model.
National Reach and Regional Depth Are Different Products
This distinction matters.
The argument is not that national television is somehow unimportant to Major League Baseball.
National distribution gives MLB something regional coverage cannot: the ability to place its biggest games, stars and events in front of audiences far beyond an individual team’s market.
But regional coverage historically performed another job.
It could spend hours talking about one team.
Pregame shows could examine the night’s matchup.
Postgame coverage could break down what happened.
Original programming could explore franchise history, prospects, personalities and community stories.
National coverage is built for reach.
Regional coverage is built for frequency and depth.
Baseball needs both.
The difference is that a 162-game schedule gives regional coverage an extraordinary amount of material with which to build that relationship.
When the Broadcaster Becomes Part of the Team Experience
There is another element that is difficult to measure simply by looking at television rights agreements.
Familiarity matters.
When fans hear the same broadcasters night after night, those voices can become associated with the team itself.
The broadcast is no longer simply a mechanism for delivering a sporting event.
It becomes part of the experience of following the franchise.
That helps explain why regional sports networks became so valuable to baseball organizations.
They were not simply purchasing inventory consisting of 162 baseball games.
They were gaining access to months of recurring attention from a defined audience.
For a business, that is an enormously powerful proposition.
Instead of asking, “How many people can we reach tonight?” the model also allowed teams and networks to ask another question:
How often can we matter to the people who already care?
That question would eventually help turn some baseball franchises into sophisticated media businesses of their own.
When Baseball Teams Became Media Brands
Perhaps no example illustrates the potential of regional baseball media better than the New York Yankees.
The YES Network launched on March 19, 2002.
Today, YES says it owns the exclusive regional media rights to the Yankees and Brooklyn Nets.
Its ownership includes Yankee Global Enterprises alongside Main Street Sports, Amazon, RedBird Capital, Blackstone’s Tactical Opportunities business and Mubadala Capital.
That ownership structure is important.
YES should not simply be described as a television network wholly owned by the Yankees.
The more interesting business story is that the Yankees helped demonstrate how a franchise could hold a significant stake in the media operation built around its own content.
And the content extends well beyond nine innings.
YES carries Yankees pregame and postgame programming, spring training games and original Yankees-focused shows in addition to game broadcasts.
The baseball team supplies the central product.
The media operation expands the world around it.
Boston Shows How the Model Can Evolve
The New England Sports Network (NESN) provides another useful example.
NESN is owned by Fenway Sports Group, owner of the Boston Red Sox, and Delaware North, owner of the Boston Bruins.
But what makes NESN especially relevant now is how far it has moved beyond the traditional definition of a regional cable channel.
NESN and NESN+ still serve the six-state New England region, but fans can also access the network through NESN 360 via direct subscription or television authentication.
NESN also operates a national service and a free ad-supported streaming channel.
That evolution matters.
The regional relationship survived even as the method of distribution changed.
A fan does not necessarily need the same cable package that would have been required two decades ago to have a regional sports relationship with the Red Sox.
The technology evolved.
The demand for team-specific coverage remained.
The Cubs Provide an Even Newer Example
The Marquee Sports Network offers a more recent version of the same strategy.
Marquee is a joint venture between the Chicago Cubs and Sinclair and serves as the exclusive home of Cubs broadcasts.
It now distributes Cubs coverage through its linear television network as well as direct-to-consumer and streaming options.
Again, the interesting story is not simply that the Cubs have their own regional network.
It is that the definition of a regional network is changing.
A regional sports network once meant a channel buried somewhere inside a cable package.
Increasingly, it can mean an ecosystem.
Linear television.
Streaming.
Mobile access.
Original programming.
Social content.
On-demand viewing.
Different technologies can serve the same underlying purpose: keeping a fan connected to a particular team.
The Business Lesson Was Bigger Than Baseball
This is where MLB’s regional media history becomes useful outside sports.
Businesses frequently become obsessed with total reach.
How many impressions?
How many followers?
How many views?
Those numbers matter, but they do not tell the entire story.
Regional baseball networks built their businesses around a different type of value: repeated interaction with a highly interested audience.
They were not trying to convince everyone in America to watch the Cubs, Yankees or Red Sox every night.
They were serving the people who already cared about those teams and giving them reasons to return.
That is an important distinction.
A niche audience is not necessarily a small opportunity.
If the audience cares deeply enough and returns frequently enough, specialization itself can become an advantage.
But the regional sports network business eventually ran into a major problem.
The audience relationship remained valuable.
The economic structure supporting it began to crack.
The Cable Model Cracked. The Regional Relationship Didn’t.
The story of regional sports networks could easily be mistaken for a story about decline.
Cord-cutting weakened the traditional television bundle.
Distribution disputes became increasingly visible.
Some fans struggled to find or afford their local team’s games.
Then came one of the biggest disruptions in regional sports television.
Diamond Sports Group, the company that operated the Bally Sports regional networks, filed for bankruptcy protection in 2023.
But stopping the story there would now be misleading.
In November 2024, a bankruptcy court approved Diamond’s restructuring plan.
The company subsequently moved forward under the FanDuel Sports Network branding.
Reuters reported that the restructuring reduced Diamond’s debt from nearly $9 billion to approximately $200 million while the company reached revised arrangements involving several MLB teams.
That distinction is critical.
The financial crisis demonstrated serious weaknesses in the traditional RSN business model.
It did not demonstrate that fans suddenly stopped wanting local baseball coverage.
The problem was increasingly about how that coverage was packaged, distributed and financed.
Video Courtesy of S&P Global Market Intelligence YouTube Channel
MLB’s National Strategy Is Changing Too
At the same time, Major League Baseball’s national media strategy is also evolving.
Beginning with the 2026 season, MLB entered new three-year national media agreements with ESPN, NBCUniversal and Netflix covering the 2026 through 2028 seasons.
Under those agreements, ESPN acquired MLB.TV and a midweek game package.
NBCUniversal obtained Sunday packages and the Wild Card round, while Netflix added the Home Run Derby and selected special events.
The change is visible immediately this postseason.
The 2026 regular season ends Sunday, September 27.
Two days later, on September 29, all four Wild Card Series begin with national coverage through NBC, Peacock and NBC Sports Network.
That transition almost perfectly illustrates baseball’s two media worlds.
For 162 games, fans largely experience their teams through an accumulation of local and regional stories.
Then the postseason arrives and those stories are presented to a much broader national audience.
One model does not eliminate the need for the other.
They complement each other.
Streaming Doesn’t Eliminate Regionalism
There is a temptation to describe streaming as the replacement for regional sports networks.
That misses the larger point.
Streaming is primarily a distribution technology.
Regionalism describes the audience relationship.
The two can coexist.
NESN can remain focused on New England while offering NESN 360.
Marquee can remain focused on Cubs fans while offering direct streaming access.
YES can remain centered around Yankees coverage while its content moves across digital platforms.
In fact, YES announced in August 2026 that DAZN would become the exclusive direct-to-consumer streaming home for YES and MSG Networks beginning later that year.
That is not the disappearance of regional sports media.
It is regional sports media adapting to another distribution system.
What Baseball Can Teach Businesses About Audience Strategy
For businesses, there is a larger lesson hiding inside all of this.
Technology changes quickly.
Audience needs often change much more slowly.
A company can make the mistake of confusing the platform with the relationship.
Cable television was enormously important to regional sports networks, but cable itself was never the fundamental reason baseball fans wanted local coverage.
They wanted to follow their team.
They wanted familiar voices.
They wanted context that mattered specifically to them.
They wanted someone covering the ordinary Wednesday game in July with the understanding that, to that team’s fans, it was not ordinary at all.
That principle applies well beyond baseball.
A business may build an audience through a website today, a social platform tomorrow and some technology that does not yet exist a decade from now.
Those platforms are tools.
The relationship with the audience is the durable asset.
Final Thought: 162 Games, One Long Conversation
Four days ago, all 30 MLB teams have played their final games of the 2026 regular season.
Two days ago, the postseason began.
For the teams that advance, the audience becomes larger and the national spotlight becomes brighter.
But those postseason moments do not appear from nowhere.
They arrive after six months of games.
Six months of broadcasts.
Six months of injuries, debuts, winning streaks, slumps, trades, surprises and conversations.
Regional sports networks became important to baseball because they had the opportunity to tell that entire story.
The traditional RSN business model may never look exactly as it once did.
Cable bundles are changing.
Streaming is expanding.
Rights agreements are becoming more complicated.
But the fundamental audience demand remains remarkably familiar.
Fans still want to follow their team.
Night after night.
Game after game.
Season after season.
That is the business lesson hidden inside baseball’s 162-game schedule.
National exposure can make a team visible.
Sustained, relevant coverage can make that team part of someone’s routine.
The platform can change.
The relationship is the asset.
Sources and Further Reading
Major League Baseball — 2026 postseason schedule
Major League Baseball — 2026–28 national media agreements
YES Network — About YES
NESN — Network and streaming distribution
Marquee Sports Network — Cubs distribution and streaming expansion
Share this: