AI in the newsroom: a journalist's guide

This is a press release. Process it into a structure for a news piece.
Don't infer anything — work only with what's in the release.

1. FACTS: a numbered list of verifiable claims. For each, note who states
   it in the release (institution, named person, "unspecified").
   Copy figures exactly, including units and time periods.
2. SPIN: sentences that look like facts but are actually opinion, a goal,
   or a promise about the future. Quote them verbatim.
3. MISSING: what would logically be in a release on this topic that
   isn't — specifically amounts, deadlines, names of those responsible,
   comparison with the past, the other side.
4. QUESTIONS TO ASK: 5 questions for the spokesperson, ranked by how
   uncomfortable they are. Each must be answerable in one sentence or number.

Text of the release:
[paste the press release]

You've been given three press releases about the same event from three
different parties. Compare them.

List as a table: CLAIM | release A | release B | release C
For each claim, note what each release says about it — and when one is
silent on it, write "not stated."

Then separately:
- CONTRADICTIONS: where the releases differ on a number, a date, or a
  claim, and what could settle the contradiction (which document,
  which database, who to ask).
- AGREEMENT: what all three agree on — the firmest ground.
- DIFFERENT VOCABULARY: how each side names the same thing.

Don't judge who's right. Just show where they diverge.

Release A ([who]):
[paste]
Release B ([who]):
[paste]
Release C ([who]):
[paste]

I'm working on a news piece about [topic] in the context of
[region / institution]. I'm not writing it through you — I need to get
oriented in the topic, so I know what to ask and where to verify it.

Put together a briefing:
1. How it works: the mechanics of the thing in 8 sentences, no jargon.
   Where the money is, who decides, what's mandatory and what's voluntary.
2. Who the players are: roles, not names — the contracting authority,
   the contractor, the oversight body, who pays, who it serves.
3. Where the public data is: specific names of registries and documents
   that track this, and for each, what you can learn from it.
4. Common ways mistakes and manipulation happen in this field —
   generally, as warning signs, not accusations.
5. Five questions I need to answer before I write the first sentence.

Use search, and cite a source with a link for every factual claim.
Where you're not sure, say so instead of guessing.

I want to publish this claim. Before I do, break it down for me.

Claim: "[paste the exact sentence as I want to write it]"
Where I got it: [press release / other outlet / spokesperson / document]

1. Break the claim into verifiable components (number, time period,
   subject, causal link, comparison) and list them separately.
2. For each component, say exactly where it gets verified — the name
   of the registry, document, or annual report. Not "public sources" —
   a specific name.
3. Flag the weakest component — the one most likely to be skewed or
   taken out of context.
4. Write a more cautious version of the same claim, one that still holds
   under narrower conditions, that I can use until I have confirmation.

Don't tell me whether it's true. Show me where to find out.

This is a verbatim transcript of an interview I conducted. The speaker is
[role, a public figure]. Topic: [topic].

Process it into:
1. QUOTES: pick 6 passages usable as direct quotes. For each, give the
   exact wording (don't edit the words, only remove obvious slips and
   filler and mark that you did), where it falls in the interview, and
   why it's strong (new claim / admission / number / phrasing).
2. EVASIVE SPOTS: where the speaker answered evasively, changed the
   subject, or answered a different question than the one I asked.
3. CLAIMS TO VERIFY: facts the speaker stated that I need to verify
   elsewhere before publishing them.
4. DIDN'T ASK: what's still open and should be followed up on.

Don't rephrase anything into nicer prose. The quotes have to be usable
as-is.

Transcript:
[paste the transcript]

You have the Hlídač státu MCP server connected. I'm doing research for a
news piece, not a business vetting check — I'm interested in patterns
and anomalies, not a traffic light.

Subject: [name of the authority / municipality / organization]
Period: [from–to]
Question: who received money from this contracting authority, and how
did that change over time.

Proceed like this:
1. Find the subject's company ID (IČO) and confirm we have the right one
   (name, registered seat, legal form).
2. List contractors by total contract volume over the period —
   TOP 15, columns: contractor, IČO, number of contracts, total volume,
   first and last contract.
3. For the five largest, show the volume broken down by year.
4. Flag what's unusual in that data: a sudden jump, a contractor that
   appeared out of nowhere and straight to the top, repeated contracts
   just under a threshold, a long gap and a sudden return.
5. For each finding, note what could innocently explain it.

For every number, cite which record it's from, so I can open it myself.
Don't estimate anything — when data is missing, say it's missing.

Using Hlídač státu, build me a data profile of the company [name],
IČO [12345678]. I'm writing a news piece about it, so I need facts and
dates, not assessments.

1. Basics: formation, registered seat, legal form, field, changes of
   seat and name.
2. People: statutory body and ownership structure, including changes
   and dates.
3. Money from the state: contracts with public institutions (year,
   contracting authority, subject, amount) and subsidies (program, year,
   amount, purpose).
4. Risk records: insolvency, corporate criminal records, unreliable
   VAT payer status, competition authority decisions.
5. Political ties in the data: donations to parties by the company or
   by people in its statutory body, with date and amount.
6. Timeline: every event found, chronologically, in a single list
   (date — event — source).

Point 6 matters most to me. If a category has nothing, write
"no record" — don't guess.

Using Hlídač státu, test a hypothesis. I'd rather disprove it than
confirm it, so look for evidence against it too.

Hypothesis: companies that donated to party [party] between [from–to]
also won contracts from [contracting authority / type of authority].

1. List the companies that made a donation to the party in that period
   (company, IČO, date, amount).
2. For each one, find contracts and tenders with the contracting
   authority in the period [from–to] — count and volume.
3. Build a table: company | total donations | total contracts | first
   donation | first contract | which came first.
4. Separately, note which companies had contracts even before their
   first donation — that weakens the hypothesis.
5. Separately, note how many donors have no contracts at all.
6. Note what data would properly confirm or disprove this hypothesis,
   and which of it Hlídač doesn't have.

Don't draw conclusions about motive. Just return numbers and dates with
sources.

This is a finished news piece. Suggest headlines.

Rules:
- No clickbait, no questions in the headline, no "shocking."
- The headline must be true even without the article — it can't promise
  more than the text delivers.
- Don't use words that aren't backed up in the text.
- Length up to [65] characters including spaces; give the character
  count for each.

Give me 12 variants split into three groups:
A) STRAIGHT NEWS — who, what, where. 4 variants.
B) LEADING WITH A NUMBER or a specific detail. 4 variants.
C) LEADING WITH THE CONSEQUENCE for the reader. 4 variants.

Then, separately, tell me which claim in the text is the strongest one
in your view, and why — I want to know if I gave it enough emphasis
in the piece.

Text:
[paste the article]

Write an intro for this piece. Three variants.

Rules:
- The intro can't just repeat the headline in different words.
- It must include: what happened, who it affects, and one specific
  detail (a number, date, or name) from the text.
- Length [280–320] characters including spaces; give the exact count
  for each variant.
- No adjectives that aren't backed up in the text.
- The intro's last sentence should be the reason to keep reading — but
  not a promise of something the text doesn't deliver.

Headline: [paste the headline]
Text:
[paste the article]

Cut this text to [3800] characters including spaces. It's currently
[4600] characters.

What must NOT be lost:
- any number, date, name, or quote
- any claim that carries information
- the note that we contacted the other side

What to cut, in this order:
1. Repeating the same thing in different words
2. Explaining commonly known context
3. Subordinate clauses that only soften the phrasing
4. Modifiers that don't carry information
5. Only as a last resort: the least essential paragraph as a whole —
   and tell me which one and why

Don't cut in a way that chops sentences into fragments. The result has
to be a readable news text.

At the end, write:
- the result's length in characters
- a bulleted list of what you cut

Text:
[paste the text]

Rewrite this text in a different tone. Facts, numbers, names, and
quotes must NOT change — not rounded, not simplified, not dropped.

Source tone: [official press release / trade text / spoken remarks]
Target tone: [straight news / narrative feature / newsletter written
in first person / an explainer for readers with no background in
the field]

Specifically:
- Sentence length: [short declarative sentences / longer compound
  sentences]
- Voice: [impersonal / newsroom in first person plural]
- Technical terms: [keep and explain in parentheses / replace with
  plain language]
- Banned phrasing: bureaucratic passive voice, throat-clearing
  officialese, nominalizations that hide the actor

At the end, list any changes that touched something other than style —
if you had to alter content for the sake of tone, I want to know.

Text:
[paste the text]

Check this text before publication. DO NOT edit it — just list findings,
so I can decide myself.

1. SPELLING AND GRAMMAR: errors, subject-verb agreement, commas.
   Format: the flawed spot → the fix → reason (brief).
2. TYPOGRAPHY: quotation marks, dashes versus hyphens, spacing around
   abbreviations and numbers, ellipses, orphaned short words at line
   ends.
3. INTERNAL FACTUAL CONSISTENCY: numbers that repeat in the text and
   don't match; names spelled differently each time; dates that don't
   line up; totals that don't add up.
4. LEGALLY SENSITIVE SPOTS: sentences that assert a crime without
   citing a final judgment; an accusation phrased as fact; imprecise
   use of terms like "accused," "charged," "convicted," "suspected."
5. UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS: sentences with no source or link to where the
   information came from.

Don't rewrite anything. Just the list.

Text:
[paste the text]

I have this data for an article about [topic]. I want to turn it into
one chart that will go in the piece.

Data:
[paste the table or list of numbers with labels]

1. State what's objectively in this data — what quantities, over what
   period, in what units, where the gaps are.
2. Suggest 3 chart types that would fit. For each, say what it
   emphasizes and what it hides.
3. Recommend one and explain why.
4. Give me: a chart title, axis labels including units, a data-source
   line for the caption, and a methodology note if one is needed.
5. Flag if any of those chart types would be misleading — a truncated
   axis, incomparable periods, mixing nominal and real values, a small
   sample.

Don't calculate any new values for me. Work only with what I gave you.

Create an SVG diagram to go in a news piece.

What it should show: [money flow from the contracting authority through
the main contractor to subcontractors / an ownership structure /
a timeline of events]

Elements and relationships:
[list: nodes and what connects them, including amounts and dates]

Requirements:
- 900px wide, height fits the content, readable even scaled down to
  600px.
- Sans-serif typeface, label size at least 13px.
- Restrained palette, three colors at most, no gradients or shadows.
- Arrows showing direction of flow, each labeled with amount and year.
- Diagram title top left, a data-source line bottom right.
- Must be legible in black and white too — distinguish by shape and
  line, not color alone.
- No text in the image that isn't in the data I gave you.

Return clean SVG code I can save as a file.

Turn this published article into social posts.

Iron rules:
- No claim that isn't in the article. Not even a simplified one.
- No "guess what happened next" questions and no "shocking revelation."
- When the article says something only "risks" happening or is
  "according to the spokesperson," that qualifier has to survive into
  the post too.
- Copy numbers exactly, including time period and units.

Produce:
1. FACEBOOK: 3 variants, each [400–600] characters. One opens with a
   specific number, one with a human detail from the piece, one with a
   plain summary.
2. X: 3 variants up to [250] characters, with the character count for
   each.
3. INSTAGRAM: caption text for a card, [2–4] short sentences, plus a
   suggestion for the large text on the card itself (8 words max, must
   be a quote or a number from the piece).
4. NEWSLETTER: one sentence introducing the link, up to [180]
   characters.
5. Separately: a list of 3 sentences from the article usable as pull
   quotes for graphics — verbatim, with who said them.

At the end, note if anything you drafted claims more than the article
does.

Article:
[paste the published text]

Put together my morning newsroom brief. Run this every weekday at 7:00.

Sources: my mail and calendar (via connectors) and the beats I follow:
[topic 1], [topic 2], [topic 3].

Structure:
1. TODAY: what's on my calendar, with times. Separately flag anything
   with a hard filing deadline.
2. AWAITING REPLY: who I wrote to and haven't heard back from — name,
   what it was about, how many days it's been pending. Sort by age.
3. NEW IN MY INBOX: press releases and invitations from the last 24
   hours, one line each, ranked by how closely they relate to my
   beats. Flag anything under embargo or with a deadline.
4. MY BEATS: what's new on them (with links and sources, no claims
   without a link).
5. ONE THING: what you think I should do first today, and why.

Be concise. The whole brief should fit on one screen. Don't infer
anything — if something isn't in my mail or calendar, say it isn't
there.

This is an anonymized working document. I want you to check the
anonymization, not the content.

Go through the text and find spots that could reveal the identity of a
specific person or organization, even without a name present:
1. A unique combination of details (role plus time period plus
   organization size, a specific project, a specific event).
2. Details that are harmless on their own but together narrow the field
   down to a handful of people.
3. Phrasing that reveals a relationship to the matter (who had access,
   who was present, who could have known).
4. Any leftover specific numbers, dates, or names I missed.

For each finding, say how to rewrite it so the information stays usable
but the trail disappears.

Don't summarize the content for me, don't analyze it, don't draw any
conclusions from it.

Text:
[paste the cleaned material]