Journalists are being targeted by a growing volume of AI-generated press releases, questionable expert profiles and recycled research campaigns, as media outlets face mounting pressure to verify who is really behind the stories being pitched to them.

Reporters in the UK have reported receiving dozens, and in some cases hundreds, of dubious media pitches each week.

Some are sent by people who are difficult to verify, do not respond to follow-up questions, or move to new email addresses after being blocked.

The issue has raised fresh scrutiny over the way search-engine optimisation campaigns are being pushed through mainstream media, with commercial operators seeking backlinks and brand mentions from trusted news websites.

A Press Gazette investigation has identified a series of cases where fake or questionable experts appear to have been used in press releases later picked up by British media outlets.

The investigation found that some campaigns used polished expert commentary, professional-looking biographies and case studies that were difficult, or impossible, to verify.

The practice appears to be driven largely by SEO value. Links and brand mentions from established news organisations can help commercial websites improve their visibility in search results.

That has created an incentive for some operators to produce media-ready content designed less around public interest and more around gaining coverage.

Press Gazette reported that British businesses including Plumbworld, Ski Vertigo and Edit Suits appeared to have been connected to campaigns involving questionable SEO-led PR tactics.

There is no suggestion the companies necessarily knew the full methods used by third-party agencies or operators acting on their behalf.

One of the most prominent cases involved “Barbara Santini”, who was presented in media coverage as a psychiatrist or psychologist connected to the sex toy retailer Peaches and Screams.

According to Press Gazette, Santini appeared in British media dozens of times but could not be verified as the professional she was claimed to be.

The investigation also examined three related companies — MyJobQuote, PriceYourJob and HomeHow — which were reported to have featured more than 20 fake or questionable experts across topics including gardening, interior design and home improvement.

Many of those experts had little visible professional footprint online. Press Gazette reported that several had no clear LinkedIn profile, no meaningful social media presence and no obvious way for members of the public to book or verify their services.

The publisher later released a dossier identifying more than 500 stories in major news brands that were based on press releases from MyJobQuote and contained fake or misleading expert comment. Some of the articles have since been deleted or amended by publishers.

Other cases involved human-interest stories supplied to the media by linked agencies. Press Gazette reported that three agencies — SignalTheNews, RelayTheUpdate and InformTheAudience — sent UK media questionable case studies, including a widely published story about lottery winners who had lost winning tickets.

The people featured in that story did not appear to exist, according to the report.

The three agencies were also reported to have near-identical website designs and links to Romanian companies. Their websites appeared unfinished.

The findings have added to concern among journalists and editors about how easily AI-generated material can now be used to create convincing media pitches.

A press release can arrive with a professional headshot, a detailed biography, a short quote and a ready-made news angle, even when the person or case study behind it has not been properly verified.

That creates a practical problem for newsrooms already working with fewer staff and tighter publishing deadlines. Media releases are a routine part of daily reporting, but the rise of AI-generated profiles and SEO-driven PR has made basic verification more important.

The issue is not confined to the UK.

In Australia, editors and publishers are also seeing PR campaigns where older public statistics are repackaged and presented as fresh research by agencies or their clients.

In some cases, the data itself may be accurate. The concern is how it is framed. Figures taken from older government reports, regulator publications or industry studies can be reworked into a media release that gives the impression a company has produced new research.

That can mislead both journalists and readers if the original source, date and context of the data are not made clear.

Public data is often useful in journalism and PR, but it needs to be properly attributed.

If a campaign relies on figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, a government agency, a regulator or a third-party report, the release should make that clear rather than presenting the material as proprietary research.

The spread of AI-generated PR has also created problems for legitimate agencies, which now face greater scrutiny over the experts, statistics and case studies they put forward..

Case studies also need closer examination, particularly where people are offered through an agency but cannot be interviewed or independently verified.

The Press Gazette findings show how easily commercial material can move from an inbox into published news when it arrives in a polished and plausible format.