Without journalists, there is no journalism: the social dimension of generative artificial intelligence in the media
Authors: Simón Peña-Fernández, Koldobika Meso-Ayerdi, Ainara Larrondo-Ureta, Javier Díaz-Noci
Organizations: Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU) Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y de la Comunicación Barrio Sarriena, s/n 48940 Leioa (Vizcaya), Spain · Universitat Pompeu Fabra Departament de Comunicació Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain
The implementation of artificial intelligence techniques and tools in the media will systematically and continuously alter their work and that of their professionals during the coming decades. To this end, this article carries out a systematic review of the research conducted on the implementation of AI in the media over the last two decades, particularly empirical research, to identify the main social and epistemological challenges posed by its adoption. For the media, increased dependence on technological platforms and the defense of their editorial independence will be the main challenges. Journalists, in turn, are torn between the perceived threat to their jobs and the loss of their symbolic capital as intermediaries between reality and audiences, and a liberation from routine tasks that subsequently allows them to produce higher quality content. Meanwhile, audiences do not seem to perceive a great difference in the quality and credibility of automated texts, although the ease with which texts are read still favors human authorship. In short, beyond technocentric or deterministic approaches, the use of AI in a specifically human field such as journalism requires a social approach in which the appropriation of innovations by audiences and the impact it has on them is one of the keys to its development. Therefore, the study of AI in the media should focus on analyzing how it can affect individuals and journalists, how it can be used for the proper purposes of the profession and social good, and how to close the gaps that its use can cause.
The increasing use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in journalism raises concerns about possible detrimental effects both on journalism and its democratic function. We explore these risks through a case study of GenAI in Norwegian Newsrooms during the 2025 parliamentary election campaign. Based on interviews with managers and journalists over a ten-month period, we analyse how ambitious visions fared in the face of technological and practical challenges. We highlight the risk of an internal threat stemming from the journalists' own use of AI, contrasting the dominant focus on external disinformation threats. We show how newsroom managers shared sociotechnical imaginaries resulting in unrealistically optimistic beliefs about the capabilities of the technology and the pace of development, leading to plans for audience-facing GenAI services collapsing and giving way to more mundane uses of GenAI tools internally in the newsrooms. Furthermore, we identify a vulnerability in the newsroom's resilience against GenAI influence: a GenAI Catch-22. In order to monitor the GenAI tools and prevent errors and undue influence, newsrooms rely on human expertise. But by using GenAI extensively, the newsrooms risk a deterioration of human expertise, preventing them from monitoring the GenAI systems adequately.
As newsrooms integrate generative AI, journalists face a disclosure challenge: how to communicate AI involvement in ways that maintain reader trust. Current practice offers two approaches: brief one-line labels or detailed disclosures specifying human oversight, editorial accountability, and error reporting mechanisms. Neither achieves journalists' goal of building trust through transparency. An existing controlled experiment with 34 news readers show that detailed disclosures trigger a transparency dilemma, reducing trust rather than increasing it, and risk introducing dark patterns that readers scroll past with the illusion of transparency. One-line disclosures avoid this effect but can create an information gap, prompting readers to expend cognitive effort searching for signs of AI involvement that the disclosure indicates but does not explain. Yet readers are not rejecting transparency, they proposed disclosure designs centered on user agency: detail-on-demand interactions, proportional AI-ratio visualizations, outlet-level signals, and explicit "no AI" labels. I argue that this disconnect between what practitioners believe is responsible disclosure and what users actually need is a design problem for the HCI community.
Pooja Prajod
Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica Amsterdam, the Netherlands
We conducted an interview study with twelve students on their use of generative AI in academic communication. Students delegated professional messages to AI most where the pressure to sound professional is highest: email to instructors and administrators. AI involvement ranged from correcting the writer's own text to working out and writing the message outright, and students checked AI-written text against two criteria: whether it looks like AI and whether it sounds like them. Building on these findings, we model the AI-mediated process of writing a student--instructor email at the highest level of involvement we observed, and compare it with an unaided model of writing the same messages, built from participants' accounts and a classic model of the writing process. Three differences emerge: the learning loop that builds writing skill is removed, the message is no longer written for its specific recipient, and the confidence a successful exchange returns goes to using the system rather than to the writer's own ability. From these differences we derive two risks, that individual capacities never form and that authenticity and trust in communication become work. Design can respond to both but is unlikely to be enough, so the risks also need research and policy attention.
Jared Ren, Soobin Cho
Human Centered Design & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, USA