Chicago Sun-Times AI Fake Book List Sparks Publishing Controversy

Imagine eagerly searching for your next summer read, only to discover the recommended books don’t actually exist. That’s exactly what happened to readers of several major American newspapers this week when they encountered a summer reading list filled with fictional books by real authors. The twist? Artificial intelligence appears to be the culprit behind this literary confusion.

The Phantom Reading List

The Chicago Sun-Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and other major newspapers recently published a syndicated summer reading list titled “Summer reading list for 2025” that was revealed to contain predominantly fake books attributed to real authors. Of the 15 titles featured, an astonishing 10 were completely fabricated works.

Readers were recommended non-existent titles like Isabel Allende’s “Tidewater Dreams” and Percival Everett’s “The Rainmakers,” books that simply don’t exist in any bookstore or library catalog. Only five titles on the entire list were genuine publications that readers could actually purchase or borrow. ¹

The list, which notably lacked a byline, was part of licensed content provided by King Features, a unit of Hearst Newspapers. After the controversy emerged, writer Marco Buscaglia stepped forward to claim responsibility, admitting the list was partially generated using artificial intelligence. ²

Publisher’s Response and Industry Implications

Victor Lim, marketing director for Chicago Public Media (parent company of the Sun-Times), has stated they are investigating how this fabricated list made it into print. “While this content was licensed and not created by the Sun-Times newsroom, it is unacceptable for any content we provide to our readers to be inaccurate,” Lim emphasized. ³

This incident arrives at a particularly challenging time for the publishing industry. The Chicago Sun-Times recently lost 20% of its staff through buyouts as its nonprofit owner grapples with financial difficulties. Author Gabino Iglesias highlighted another troubling aspect of the modern publishing landscape, noting the scarcity of full-time book reviewers remaining in the United States. ⁴

AI in Publishing: Warning Signs

This embarrassing mishap represents one of the most visible failures of AI-generated content in mainstream media to date. It demonstrates the risks publishers face when using AI-generated content without rigorous human oversight and fact-checking processes.

The incident has sparked significant frustration among readers and the literary community:

One subscriber vented on Reddit: “As a subscriber, I am livid! What is the point of subscribing to a hard copy paper if they are just going to include AI slop too!?”⁵
Kelly Jensen, an author and former librarian, described the list as “made up, inaccurate garbage” and warned this represents “the future of book recommendations when libraries are defunded and dismantled.”

The Battle Against AI-Generated Content

The fake reading list controversy comes amid growing pushback from authors concerned about the misuse of their names and works by artificial intelligence. Iglesias mentioned he is among the writers pursuing a class action lawsuit to protect their work from being misappropriated by AI systems.

Iglesias offered a pointed solution to the problem, suggesting publishers should simply “pay writers, and then we can write these fake books that don’t exist.” His humorous comment underscores a serious concern: as publishers cut costs and turn to AI, the quality, accuracy, and integrity of content are increasingly at risk. ⁵

Lessons for AI Implementation

This incident offers valuable lessons for all industries integrating AI into content creation:

Human oversight remains essential – AI-generated content requires expert human review before publication
Fact-checking is non-negotiable – Basic verification would have quickly revealed these books didn’t exist
Attribution matters – The lack of a byline obscured responsibility for the content
Transparency builds trust – Readers deserve to know when AI has been used in content creation

As AI tools become more prevalent in journalism and publishing, establishing clear guidelines and ethical practices around their use becomes increasingly urgent. While AI can enhance productivity and assist with certain tasks, this incident demonstrates it cannot replace the expertise, judgment, and accountability of human professionals.

The Path Forward

For readers, this incident serves as a reminder to approach AI-generated content with healthy skepticism. For publishers, it highlights the need for transparent policies about AI use and robust fact-checking protocols. And for the AI community, it underscores the importance of developing tools that assist human creativity rather than fabricating information that misleads the public.

As we navigate this new frontier of AI in publishing, maintaining the trust of readers will require a commitment to accuracy, transparency, and human expertise that no algorithm can replace.

What do you think about this incident? Should newspapers disclose when they use AI-generated content? How would you feel if you discovered recommendations you trusted were fabricated by an algorithm? Share your thoughts in the comments below.