Reasons Why AI Is Bad for HARO Queries

HARO is one of the most trusted ways to get featured in big publications. Journalists post requests for expert quotes, and businesses or individuals can reply with their insights. But with AI tools everywhere, many people now use them to write quick HARO pitches.

The problem is that most AI-generated responses aren’t good enough for real journalists. They often sound generic, miss the main point, or feel like they were copied from a template. HARO is competitive, and sending low-quality or automated answers can actually hurt your chances of ever being featured.

Before relying on AI for pitches, it’s best knowing why it can backfire and what risks it brings.

Generic Responses Lack Personal Touch

One of the biggest problems with AI-generated HARO responses is how generic they sound. Journalists are looking for specific insights, expert opinions, and real stories they can use in their articles. When an AI tool writes the pitch, it often produces something that feels empty.

A good HARO pitch should reflect your personality, your expertise, and your unique take on the topic. Journalists can tell when a response feels natural and when it’s just a collection of well-structured sentences with no depth. A generic answer doesn’t build trust, and most reporters will simply skip over it.

Taking a few extra minutes to write a personal, thoughtful response — even if it’s short — goes much further than sending a long, AI-generated answer that sounds like everyone else.

Misses Journalist’s Exact Angle

HARO queries are often very specific. A journalist might be writing about a narrow topic, like “how small businesses use AI to manage inventory.” An AI-generated pitch might misinterpret this and write something broad about “the future of AI in business,” which doesn’t match what the journalist actually asked for.

This mismatch happens because AI tools rely on patterns, not context. They can’t always read between the lines or understand the subtle angle the journalist is taking. Missing the angle means your response is less useful, and the journalist has no reason to include it in their story.

Reading the request carefully and tailoring your answer to exactly what the journalist wants is what makes a pitch stand out. AI can assist with grammar or structure, but the insight and relevance need to come from you. Otherwise, you risk wasting both your time and theirs.

Risk of Inaccurate or Fabricated Info

Another big risk of using AI for HARO pitches is that it can produce information that isn’t fully accurate. AI tools don’t actually know facts, they generate text based on patterns in their training data. That means they can “hallucinate” numbers, quotes, or research that sound real but aren’t.

This is a major problem because journalists rely on accuracy. If you send a pitch with a fake statistic or a made-up source, it could get published and damage your credibility when the truth comes out. Even worse, the journalist might stop trusting you for future requests.

When you write HARO pitches yourself, you can include verified data, real-life examples, and genuine experience. This is what reporters are looking for. 

Double-checking facts and sharing only what you know is true builds trust and increases your chances of getting quoted.

Overused, Repetitive Language

AI tools often reuse the same phrases over and over again. If you’ve ever tried generating multiple responses, you’ll notice how similar they sound — polished but predictable. 

Pitches that start with “In today’s fast-paced world…” or “It’s important to note…” are common AI giveaways. Journalists see hundreds of HARO responses every day, and when many sound the same, they immediately stand out as low-effort.

This sameness hurts your chances of getting selected. Reporters want fresh, interesting answers that bring something new to their story. If your response feels like it could have been copied from a generic blog post, they’ll likely skip it.

Writing pitches yourself allows you to use your natural tone, your own examples, and original wording. Even if your response is short, a unique voice catches the journalist’s attention and makes you look like a real expert rather than just another automated reply.

Lack of Personal Experience or Authority

One of the biggest strengths of HARO is that it lets journalists connect with real people who have real-world experience. AI can’t provide that. It can summarize general knowledge, but it can’t talk about what you’ve personally done, what challenges you’ve faced, or what lessons you’ve learned.

Journalists are often looking for quotes that bring stories to life. They want to say, “Here’s what an expert in the field told us.” If your pitch doesn’t show that you have firsthand knowledge, it won’t be as valuable to them.

Instead of letting AI write the entire response, focus on sharing your unique insights. Mention a project you worked on, a mistake you learned from, or a result you achieved. These small details show you’re credible and give the journalist something that AI simply can’t provide.

Slower Response if Not Supervised

Many people think using AI will save time, but in reality, it can sometimes slow you down. If you let AI write your HARO pitches without checking them, you risk sending irrelevant or poorly written responses that won’t get used. Then you’ve wasted time instead of saving it.

On top of that, if you rely too much on automation, you might wait too long before responding. HARO works best when you reply quickly — journalists often choose the first few strong answers they get. Spending too long editing AI text can cause you to miss the deadline completely.

A better approach is to skim the query, write a short and clear answer yourself, and send it right away. You’ll save time, stay relevant, and keep your response aligned with exactly what the journalist asked for.

Conclusion

AI-written HARO pitches often fail to get results. Journalists prefer responses that feel personal, share real experience, and directly match their query. When a pitch is generic or inaccurate, it is usually ignored and can damage your professional reputation.

Taking a few minutes to write a clear, human response makes a big difference. It shows you understand the request, respect the journalist’s time, and have real expertise to share. This approach builds trust and improves your chances of getting featured in future stories.

FAQs

1. Why is AI bad for HARO pitches?

AI often creates generic, repetitive responses that lack personality and depth. Journalists look for real stories, expert opinions, and fresh insights. When they see an answer that feels automated, they usually skip it. A personal, well-thought-out pitch always has a better chance of getting published.

2. Can I still use AI to help with HARO?

Yes, but with caution. AI can help you brainstorm ideas or check grammar, but it shouldn’t write the full pitch for you. The best responses still come from real experience and unique insight. Use AI as a helper. 

3. Do journalists notice AI-generated responses?

Many do. Journalists read dozens of HARO pitches every day and quickly spot patterns in wording or structure that sound automated. AI responses often feel polished but empty. Human-written answers with personal examples and a clear point usually stand out much more.

4. What happens if my HARO pitch is inaccurate?

If your pitch includes wrong data or false claims, it can hurt your credibility. Journalists need accurate information, and if they catch errors, they may stop considering your future responses. Always double-check facts before sending a pitch to avoid harming your reputation.

5. How can I write better HARO responses without AI?

Start by reading the query carefully and answering exactly what is asked. Keep it short, clear, and focused on one strong point. Share a quick personal story or example if possible. The goal is to make the journalist’s job easier with a ready-to-use quote.