After analyzing more than 2 million pitches and 100 million emails sent through HARO (Help a Reporter Out) over the past year, HARO’s 2026 data shows that getting featured in the media depends on relevance, not volume. Human-written pitches are roughly three times more likely to get featured than AI-generated ones, 21% of all pitches are entirely AI-generated, and 35% of journalists actively filter AI content out. The sources who consistently earn coverage aren’t the ones sending the most pitches, they’re the ones giving journalists exactly what they asked for.
The data at a glance
- 2 million+ pitches processed by HARO in the past year
- 100 million+ emails sent connecting journalists and sources
- 21% of pitches are flagged as entirely AI-generated
- 35% of journalists filter out AI-generated responses
- 3x — human-written pitches are about three times more likely to get featured than AI-written ones
- 32% of journalist requests are rejected during HARO’s approval process
- 1 user banned roughly every 23 minutes, primarily for spam and terms-of-service violations
1. More pitches means more competition, not more opportunity
A journalist posting a single query can receive dozens of responses. Some are highly relevant. Others technically answer the question but add little insight. Many ignore the instructions entirely.
Being first to respond isn’t enough on its own. The strongest pitches are the ones that make a journalist think, “This person can help me write my story” — and that starts with reading the entire request before responding. If a journalist asks for a specific type of expert, a particular format, or answers to several distinct questions, the winning pitch delivers exactly that.
2. 21% of pitches are entirely AI-generated — and journalists are filtering them out
AI has made it faster to produce a media pitch, but speed comes with a tradeoff. HARO uses AI-detection technology from Pangram to flag pitches, and 21% of submissions are identified as entirely AI-generated. Meanwhile, 35% of journalists have chosen to filter out AI-flagged responses when posting a request.
This doesn’t mean AI has no place in a pitching workflow. It means AI should support expertise, not replace it. A practical rule of thumb: use AI to work faster, not to pretend you know something you don’t. A pitch built on real experience, data, or a genuine point of view consistently outperforms a generic response generated from the journalist’s own query.
3. Human-written pitches get featured about 3x more often than AI-written ones
Human-written pitches are roughly three times more likely to get featured than AI-written pitches. Journalists aren’t grading for polished paragraphs — they’re looking for information they can actually use in a story, and that’s where fully human teams tend to have the edge.
The sources who stand out bring something specific to the table: firsthand experience, original data, a strong point of view, or expertise that maps directly to the story at hand. They also do three things consistently well — they provide credible, verifiable information; they respond to what the journalist actually asked, not a loosely related version of it; and they make the journalist’s job easier by handing over something ready to use.
That last point is the throughline across all of HARO’s data. A pitch doesn’t win because it sounds impressive — it wins because it saves the journalist time. The clearer and more usable a response is, the less editing it needs, and the more likely it is to make the final story.
4. Relevance beats volume
Responding to every request that contains a keyword match usually wastes time on pitches that were never a real fit. A more effective approach is to be selective. Before responding, ask:
- Do I genuinely have expertise in this topic?
- Can I give a specific answer rather than a generic opinion?
- Do my credentials match what the journalist is looking for?
- Can I answer every part of the request?
- Can I offer something the journalist can’t easily find elsewhere?
If the answer is yes across the board, respond. If not, skip it. Ten highly relevant pitches consistently outperform a hundred generic ones.
5. Quality control runs in both directions
HARO doesn’t just filter sources, it filters requests too. Approximately 32% of journalist requests are rejected during HARO’s approval process, after review of the journalist, publication, and request for quality and legitimacy. The platform also bans a user roughly every 23 minutes, primarily for spam and terms-of-service violations.
This two-way filtering reflects what makes a journalist-source platform function at all: journalists need confidence that sources are real, qualified, and helpful, and sources need confidence that the opportunities they’re responding to are legitimate. Quality control isn’t a nice-to-have here — it’s the mechanism that keeps the system usable.
6. The best pitch isn’t necessarily the fastest one
There’s a common assumption that winning a HARO opportunity is purely a race to respond first. Speed matters when a journalist is on a tight deadline, but being first is worthless if the response isn’t useful. The better goal is to be the first great response. That means having credentials ready and areas of expertise clear before a relevant opportunity even appears.
When responding, get to the point: lead with the most relevant credential, answer the journalist’s questions directly, and provide a quote they can use as-is. Skip unnecessary background. The mindset that works isn’t “write a sales pitch” it’s “help someone finish their story.”
The takeaway
Across more than 2 million pitches and 100 million emails, the underlying lesson hasn’t changed even as the volume and use of AI have grown. Before you submit, make sure your pitch is HARO approved:
- Helpful
- Authentic
- Relevant
- On time
AI can help find opportunities and organize a pitching workflow, but it can’t replace the one thing that makes a source valuable in the first place — having something worth saying. The sources who consistently get featured aren’t the ones sending the most pitches. They’re the ones giving journalists the best reason to choose theirs.