Hi Reader,
Think of your media list like a restaurant guest list.
For years, you only had to know who was coming. Now you also have to know who is quietly suing the kitchen.
This week, USA Today Co filed a $250 million lawsuit against OpenAI. The claim: hundreds of thousands of articles from 19 of its publications were used without permission or payment.
Three days later, Reach (the Mirror, the Express, the Daily Star) signed on to Google's news AI pilot. Google says it is paying for "enhanced content rights."
Same week. Opposite moves. One publisher is in court. The other is in business.
And here is the part most comms teams have not clocked yet. Those decisions change what happens to your pitch after you send it. A publisher with an AI deal may have your story summarized before a reader ever clicks. A publisher in a lawsuit may have a very different appetite for AI-assisted content crossing its desk.
Your media list used to be a list of names. Now it is a map of positions.
This week's prompt sorts your top outlets by where they stand, so your pitching strategy stops treating them all the same.
ππ½ Here's the prompt:
π― Expert Mode: The "Licensing-Era Media List Triage"
Scenario: Your target outlets are splitting into camps. Some have licensing deals with AI companies, some are suing them, and some are staying quiet. You need to know which is which, and what it means for how you pitch each one, before your next campaign goes out.
Instructions:
1οΈβ£ Pull your top 15 to 20 target outlets into one list. Use the outlets you actually pitch, not the ones you wish you did.
2οΈβ£ For each outlet, write down what you already know about its AI stance: signed a licensing deal, filed or joined a lawsuit, blocks AI crawlers, or "no idea." If you have to guess, write "unknown." Do not fill gaps with hunches.
3οΈβ£ Paste the list into Claude, ChatGPT, or Gemini with the prompt below.
Act as a media relations strategist. Below is my list of target outlets with what I currently know about each one's stance on AI (licensing deal, lawsuit, blocking crawlers, or unknown).
β
For each outlet, do four things.
β
βFirst, sort it into one of four groups: Partner (has an AI licensing deal), Plaintiff (is suing or has publicly objected to AI use of its work), Gatekeeper (blocks AI crawlers or restricts AI use but has taken no public legal action), or Unknown.
β
βSecond, for every Unknown, say exactly what I should look up to confirm its status.
β
βThird, explain in one sentence how that stance could change how a pitch to that outlet is received or surfaced.
β
βFourth, suggest one adjustment to my pitch approach for that outlet.
β
Flag any outlet where my own notes look outdated or uncertain. Do not state a deal or lawsuit as fact unless I gave it to you. Mark anything you are inferring as an inference.
β
End with a one-paragraph summary: which group holds most of my list, and what that means for how I should plan my next campaign.
4οΈβ£ Verify every row marked as a fact. Spend ten minutes checking the "Unknown" outlets against recent coverage from Press Gazette or the outlet's own announcements. AI can sort the list. It cannot confirm a lawsuit for you.
5οΈβ£ Take the three outlets where the adjustment matters most and rewrite your next pitch to each one. Send the updated plan to your team before the next campaign kicks off.
Suggested Tool: Claude (best at sorting messy lists and flagging what it cannot confirm)
Why You'll Love It
- It turns a headline you skimmed into a planning tool you can use on Monday.
- It shows you which outlets on your list are partners, plaintiffs, or question marks, so you stop pitching all of them the same way.
- It builds the habit of checking your assumptions before a campaign goes out, not after it underperforms.
Your media list is not static, and neither are the outlets on it. The teams that review it every quarter will pitch smarter than the ones working from a list built in 2023. Start with your top fifteen.
Talk soon,
Chris
β‘ The Cowork Version
Same triage, except Claude researches each outlet's current AI stance, builds the sorted tracker, and drops a finished brief into your folder.
Setup (one time):
- Put your target media list into a folder. A CSV, a spreadsheet, or a plain text list of outlet names all work.
- Add a short notes file with anything you already know about each outlet's AI stance, and mark guesses clearly.
- Make sure web search is turned on for the session so Claude can check recent coverage.
- Decide where the output should land (default: a new "Media Triage" folder alongside your source files).
Run this Cowork command:
Run a Licensing-Era Media List Triage using the files in this folder.
β
1οΈβ£ Read my media list and my notes file. Build one row per outlet with what I already know about its AI stance.
β
2οΈβ£ For each outlet, search recent coverage and the outlet's own announcements to find any AI licensing deal, lawsuit, public objection, or crawler blocking. Record the source and date for everything you find.
β
3οΈβ£ Sort every outlet into Partner, Plaintiff, Gatekeeper, or Unknown. If you cannot confirm a status with a source, mark it Unknown. Do not guess.
β
4οΈβ£ For each outlet, write one sentence on how its stance could change how a pitch is received or surfaced, and one specific adjustment to my pitch approach.
β
5οΈβ£ Flag every row where my notes conflict with what you found, and every row that rests on a single source.
β
6οΈβ£ Save the results as a spreadsheet, and write a one-page brief summarizing which group holds most of my list and what that means for my next campaign.
What you'll get:
- A sorted tracker of every target outlet, with a source and date behind each status
- A conflict list showing where your assumptions are out of date
- A pitch adjustment for each outlet, written in plain language
- A "needs a human check" list so nothing unverified slips into a campaign plan
- A one-page brief you can drop into a team meeting without reformatting
Want it on autopilot? Ask Claude to save this as a skill and schedule it to run on the first Monday of every month. Outlet stances are changing fast, and the tracker stays current without you chasing it.
Here are a few articles from the past week to help keep you up to speed:
1. USA Today Co sues OpenAI for $250 millionβ
Press Gazette
October 9, 2026
USA Today Co alleges OpenAI used hundreds of thousands of articles from its 19 publications, including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press, and IndyStar, without permission or payment. It also claims GPT models memorized its work and can reproduce near-verbatim copies when prompted. If you pitch any of those titles, your relationship with the outlet now sits next to a very public legal position.
2. Reach joins Google's news AI pilotβ
Press Gazette
October 12, 2026
Reach, which owns the Mirror, Express, and Daily Star, is the latest publisher in Google's pilot, which will test AI-powered article overviews and audio briefings on Google News. Google describes it as "a commercial partnership where we pay for enhanced content rights." For PR, that means a pitch that lands in a Reach title may be summarized before a reader sees the original.
3. Journalists now have an AI reputation, and PR is keeping trackβ
Fast Company
October 9, 2026
AI answers favor topical authority over general authority, so niche trade reporters can get cited ahead of prominent outlets. Muck Rack found only a 2% overlap between the journalists PR teams pitch and the ones AI cites for a brand. If your target list is built on prestige alone, you may be pitching the wrong people for AI visibility.
4. How New York Life's comms team went from uneasy about AI to leading the companyβ
Ragan Communications
October 12, 2026
New York Life's chief communications officer guided the team's comfort with AI, which led to an internal framework called "the way." Gen AI is expected at certain stages of drafting a press release, with a human always kept in the loop. It is a useful model if your team keeps asking where AI belongs and where it does not.
5. How to manage your PR budget in the era of AI searchβ
Forbes Agency Council
October 12, 2026
The author argues for shifting budget toward earned media and authentic social content, since that is the credibility AI search trusts. The suggested framework: invest in one new strategy each quarter of 2027 to prepare for 2028. Pair it with this week's prompt, and you have both a target list and a budget logic.
β