Welcome to Geelan Lies - The home of Ashley Stephen Geelan's Lies
Editorial illustration of an AI-assisted fact-checking desk contrasted with marked-up local-news copy
Lies / Questionable Behaviour / Shameful

Geelan Lies uses AI and still beats VicNews on quality

- - Ashley Geelan

Yes, Geelan Lies uses AI. That is not the scandal.

Geelan Lies uses AI regularly. There is no mystery in that and no point pretending otherwise.

The funny part is that even with AI in the workflow, Geelan Lies is producing cleaner, more careful, more accountable journalism than Ashley Geelan manages at VicNews.

That should embarrass him. Not because AI is magic. It is not. AI can produce rubbish if nobody is steering it, checking it, cutting the puff, checking the links, and asking whether the claim is actually supported. The difference is process. Geelan Lies uses AI as a tool. VicNews often reads like a man feeding public-source material into a template, slapping his byline on it, and hoping the site furniture makes it look like journalism.

Compare the output, not the mythology

Take the 20 August 2026 VicNews story “Truck driver dies following truck crash”. It is bylined to Ashley Geelan, sourced to Victoria Police, and it is basically a short police-incident summary. It tells readers a truck crashed into a tree on the Western Highway, the driver died, diversions remain in place, and the investigation is ongoing.

That is useful public information. But where is the journalism? There is no extra context about the road, no local traffic update beyond the agency line, no follow-up question, no human reporting, no crash-history context, no link to a live VicRoads or police update, and no visible attempt to turn the release into a better public-service story.

Then look at “Argentinian man charged after spate of offending”, also published on 20 August 2026. It is sourced to Victoria Police and runs as a straightforward charge list. The page even carries a caption spelling “Magistrates” as “Magisrates”. Small typo? Sure. But that is the point. If you are presenting yourself as the old-school local journalist sneering at AI, at least proofread the court caption.

The article does not show readers any independent checking. It does not explain why nationality belongs in the headline framing, why the court date matters, or what has and has not been tested in court. It is a charge-sheet rewrite with a file image. Fine as a brief. Weak as a boast.

The bigger stories expose the same problem

The 20 August 2026 VicNews article “EVIE is ‘Leading the Charge’ by slashing life-saving response times” is sourced to Fire Rescue Victoria. It has numbers, quotes, a report title, and a public report link. That gives it more substance than the police briefs.

But it still reads like official messaging carried across with minimal challenge. The headline adopts the report’s promotional language. The story says the trial found an average 11 per cent improvement, 26 seconds saved on arrival, 33 seconds saved in emergency medical response, and up to 90 per cent lower carbon emissions. Those are interesting figures. A stronger article would ask the obvious questions: compared with which appliances, over what kind of incidents, at what cost, with what maintenance burden, and whether the trial conditions match wider fleet use.

That is the difference between writing up a report and reporting on a report.

The same pattern appears in “CFA North West Region gets a boost”. VicNews labels the source as Country Fire Authority and uses supplied photos. The piece lists new vehicles, capacities, brigades, pumps, monitors and incident averages. Again, useful enough. But it is almost entirely institution-facing. It does not ask how long the brigades waited for those vehicles, what equipment they replaced, whether the coverage gap is now closed, or how local volunteers read the change.

AI did not make Geelan Lies better. Editing did.

Here is the uncomfortable truth for Geelan: the presence or absence of AI is not the measure of journalism. The measure is whether the finished work is clear, sourced, checked, proportionate and useful.

Geelan Lies uses AI to help sort material, draft angles, test wording and sharpen structure. Then the work is judged against the record. Does it identify the source? Does it separate fact from inference? Does it avoid inventing details? Does it link readers to what can be checked? Does it say when something is only alleged? Does it cut claims that cannot be supported?

That is journalism discipline. It is also exactly what is missing from so much of Geelan’s own output.

VicNews has all the costume pieces: masthead, categories, weather widget, social buttons, stock images, a byline, a “source” box, and article tags. But journalism is not a costume. A site does not become serious because it has a coat of arms in the header and a comment box at the bottom.

Quality shows up in the decisions. It shows up in the questions asked before publication. It shows up in whether a claim survives contact with evidence. It shows up in whether a writer adds value beyond whatever agency, court, council, emergency service or press office has already said.

The standard Geelan keeps failing

Geelan likes to posture as a journalist while sneering at people who use modern tools. But his own recent articles make the problem plain. A police brief with no added reporting. A court caption typo. A fire-truck report written mostly from the official frame. A CFA vehicle story that lists details but asks no real local questions.

None of those examples needs to be stolen content to be poor journalism. That is the point. Even when the material is not stolen, the work can still be thin, lazy and over-dressed.

Geelan Lies would rather be honest about the tools and strict about the output than pretend a tired rewrite becomes journalism because Ashley Geelan typed his name above it.

So yes, Geelan Lies uses AI. Regularly. And the result is still better sourced, better framed, better edited and more accountable than the recent VicNews work sitting under Geelan’s byline.

If Geelan wants to win that comparison, the path is simple: do better journalism. Not louder branding. Not more badges. Not more legal theatre. Journalism.

Sources reviewed