AI and the loss of 200,000 US media and film jobs, by one count: how much is AI, according to the data

AI and creative jobs are back in the spotlight after a September 27, 2026 post by Joseph Politano of Apricitas Economics, "AI and the Fall? of the Creative Class." Politano writes that "America has lost more than 200k jobs in 'creative' industries over the last four years, with roughly 50k lost within the last year alone," and asks whether generative AI, the image, video and music models that can produce creative work cheaply, is part of the reason. The government data confirm a deep slump in film and broadcasting jobs. They can't tell you how much of it AI caused.

This analysis is based on the Apricitas post; Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics (CES) series, read through the St. Louis Fed's FRED database; a BLS Economics Daily article from April 29, 2026; and Fortune's October 2, 2026 report, all checked October 26, 2026. As with the IMF's 40% exposure figure, the gap between "exposed to AI" and "lost to AI" is the whole question.

The short version

• The 200,000 figure is Apricitas's, covering "media, film & the arts" over four years. The post doesn't cite a BLS series, so the total can't be traced line by line.
• BLS data confirm the biggest piece: motion picture and sound recording employment fell from 456,100 in November 2022 to 328,500 in September 2026, a drop of 127,600, or 28%.
• The timing complicates an AI story. More than half of the film decline happened by September 2023, the year of the writers' and actors' strikes.
• "Arts" isn't falling across the board. Performing arts and spectator sports added 79,000 jobs between August 2022 and September 2026.
• The author himself hedges: he says AI's effects are "hard to disentangle from other factors," and lists consolidation, offshoring and the shift to online creators.

What exactly does Apricitas claim?

Politano's post makes a broad claim and several subsector claims, all as stated in the post:

• creative industries lost "more than 200k jobs" over four years, with losses of about 50,000 a year and accelerating;
• movie and TV lost more than 100,000 jobs, "nearly one-third of the sector's total";
• written publishing lost more than 70,000 over the same period;
• the stretch resembles media job losses in the 2001 and 2008 recessions, although "there's no generalized recession today."

His sourcing is thinner than the headline suggests. The post links to FRED charts for unemployment, turnover, and generative AI use (about 32% of workers in arts, entertainment and recreation versus 62% across all industries), but doesn't name the CES series, months or industry codes behind the 200,000 total. A reader in the comments noted that the 62% figure may include personal use; the post doesn't address that. Fortune, reviewing BLS data for its October 2 story, counted about 189,000 jobs lost across film and sound recording, broadcasting and publishing, using different periods for different sectors.

What do BLS payroll numbers show?

The BLS's CES survey counts jobs at employers, seasonally adjusted, by industry. Three series cover most of what Politano describes:

Last verified: October 26, 2026

In levels, broadcasting and content providers fell from 357,500 in August 2022 to 328,100 in September 2026, while performing arts and spectator sports rose from 517,200 to 596,200. In the latest year, September 2025 to September 2026, film and sound recording lost 20,300 jobs, broadcasting 14,400 and the performing arts 13,400. The BLS's publishing series isn't a clean match for "written publishing": in the current industry codes it includes software publishers, which is why it isn't in the table.

When did the film jobs disappear?

Mostly in 2023. The motion picture and sound recording series peaked at 456,100 in November 2022, the highest level in its history back to 1990.

US motion picture and sound recording employment, 2022 to 2026

Jobs, thousands, seasonally adjusted

0200400600383.2328.5

Nov 2022Sep 2023Sep 2024Sep 2025Sep 2026

Show the data

Month	Employment
Nov 2022	456.1
Sep 2023	383.2
Sep 2024	378.8
Sep 2025	348.8
Sep 2026	328.5

The series fell from 456,100 in November 2022 to 383,200 in September 2023, then 378,800 in September 2024, 348,800 in September 2025 and 328,500 in September 2026. The first year accounts for 72,900 of the 127,600 jobs lost, about 57%.

That pattern matters for attribution. The 2023 drop lines up with the Hollywood strikes, which Fortune notes drove part of the decline in Los Angeles film employment. After that, the series barely moved from September 2023 to September 2024 (down 4,400), then fell 30,000 in the following year and 20,300 in the year to September 2026. That later stretch is where an AI effect, if any, would have to show up.

What else explains the losses?

The sources offer several explanations besides AI:

• Strikes and the pandemic. The BLS's April 29, 2026 Economics Daily attributes film's decade-long decline to "the pandemic, the resulting reduction in film releases, and multiple worker strikes." It says motion picture and video production employment hit 289,000 in October 2022 and that "since 2023, multiple strikes contributed to a downward trend that has persisted into early 2026."
• Industry economics. Politano himself names Hollywood consolidation, offshoring of production, social media creators displacing traditional media, and movie and cable revenue that streaming hasn't replaced. He cites ticket sales down 25% from their 2019 peak and cable revenue down 18% from its peak.
• Long-running decline in print. Newspaper and magazine job losses predate generative AI by decades; Politano says newspaper payrolls are down "nearly 85%" from about half a million.
• Disagreement on the size. Richard Florida, the urbanist who coined "the creative class," told Fortune, "I'm not sure his numbers are right," and said AI "is both an enhancing technology and eliminating technology."

Politano's own strongest argument for AI is circumstantial: "perhaps the clearest evidence of AI's influence is just that all subsectors of the digital arts industry are losing jobs." He also writes that "media firms are decidedly coy about their AI use," which is exactly why the payroll data can't separate causes.

Can the data show how much is AI?

No, not with these series. Payroll counts show how many jobs exist in an industry, not why they disappeared. Isolating AI would need firm-level data on AI adoption matched to hiring, or a comparison of similar workers more and less exposed to AI.

There is some evidence of that kind elsewhere, but not for film. The IMF's January 2026 work found employment in AI-vulnerable occupations was 3.6% lower after five years in regions with high demand for AI skills, as our IMF explainer covers. Anthropic's own employment study, published October 16, 2026, reported that the junior share of its technical hires fell from 27% to 9%, though its authors caution that adoption wasn't random, as our report on that study explains. Neither measures creative industries.

Adoption data are also mixed. Gartner said on October 19, 2026, that only 13% of the 2,002 CIOs it surveyed see significant value from AI, as covered in our analysis of AI usage data. Wide AI use doesn't automatically mean headcount cuts.

What's confirmed, reported and uncertain

• Confirmed (BLS data): the film, broadcasting and performing-arts employment levels and changes in the table and chart; the BLS's own explanation of film's decline.
• The author's analysis: the 200,000 total and subsector figures, which the Apricitas post doesn't tie to named series; his list of non-AI factors.
• Reported: Fortune's 189,000 count and Florida's comments.
• Uncertain: how many of the losses since 2024 come from AI tools rather than strikes' aftershocks, offshoring or streaming economics. No source cited here measures it directly.