Journalism - IVIR

Citizens’ attitudes toward AI in journalism and authenticity: Evidence from six countries on four different continents external link

Morosoli, S., Mattis, N., Naudts, L., Vreese, C.H. de & Helberger, N.

Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, vol. 6, pp: 1-53, 2026

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping journalism at an unprecedented pace, challenging long-held assumptions about what makes news credible, authentic, and human. As AI systems increasingly generate, curate, and personalize information, societies around the world are grappling with questions about how this transformation affects trust in the media and the perceived integrity of journalism. Scholars have highlighted that AI not only changes newsroom practices but also redefines audiences' expectations of journalistic values such as accuracy and transparency. Yet, public perceptions of these changes remain under-explored from a global, comparative perspective, as previous research has mainly taken a Western perspective. This study, therefore, examines to what extent individuals' attitudes toward AI in journalism and perceptions of authenticity differ across six culturally diverse countries: Brazil, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the United States. Using nationally representative surveys (N = 6,961), we analyze four core dimensions: (1) journalistic principles for AI-supported news, (2) individual engagement intentions for AI-supported news, (3) general authenticity perceptions across different dimensions and (4) the perceived impact of AI on them. Our findings show significant cross-national heterogeneity in attitudes toward AI in journalism, with more pronounced optimism in South Africa and Brazil and more pronounced skepticism in Western countries. Moreover, we frequently find ambivalent attitudes, as well as high degrees of heterogeneity within individual countries as well, with self-reported generative AI use emerging as one explanatory factor. Engagement intentions demonstrate a trend for ignoring AI-supported news, particularly in Western contexts, alongside a universal reluctance to share such content. This reflects broader trust issues and reputational concerns. Despite these differences, respondents across all countries converge on the importance of the human element when it comes to authenticity, rooted in journalists' character and values.

Links

Artificial intelligence, Journalism

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Morosoli, S.
AU  - Mattis, N.
AU  - Naudts, L.
AU  - Vreese, C.H. de
AU  - Helberger, N.
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026-09-15
T1  - Citizens’ attitudes toward AI in journalism and authenticity: Evidence from six countries on four different continents
JO  - Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media
VL  - 6
SP  - 1-53
DO  - https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2026.019
AB  - Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping journalism at an unprecedented pace, challenging long-held assumptions about what makes news credible, authentic, and human. As AI systems increasingly generate, curate, and personalize information, societies around the world are grappling with questions about how this transformation affects trust in the media and the perceived integrity of journalism. Scholars have highlighted that AI not only changes newsroom practices but also redefines audiences\' expectations of journalistic values such as accuracy and transparency. Yet, public perceptions of these changes remain under-explored from a global, comparative perspective, as previous research has mainly taken a Western perspective. This study, therefore, examines to what extent individuals\' attitudes toward AI in journalism and perceptions of authenticity differ across six culturally diverse countries: Brazil, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the United States. Using nationally representative surveys (N = 6,961), we analyze four core dimensions: (1) journalistic principles for AI-supported news, (2) individual engagement intentions for AI-supported news, (3) general authenticity perceptions across different dimensions and (4) the perceived impact of AI on them. Our findings show significant cross-national heterogeneity in attitudes toward AI in journalism, with more pronounced optimism in South Africa and Brazil and more pronounced skepticism in Western countries. Moreover, we frequently find ambivalent attitudes, as well as high degrees of heterogeneity within individual countries as well, with self-reported generative AI use emerging as one explanatory factor. Engagement intentions demonstrate a trend for ignoring AI-supported news, particularly in Western contexts, alongside a universal reluctance to share such content. This reflects broader trust issues and reputational concerns. Despite these differences, respondents across all countries converge on the importance of the human element when it comes to authenticity, rooted in journalists\' character and values.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - Journalism
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Citizens’ attitudes toward AI in journalism and authenticity: Evidence from six countries on four different continents},
	author = {Morosoli, S. and Mattis, N. and Naudts, L. and Vreese, C.H. de and Helberger, N.},
	url = {https://journalqd.org/article/view/9452},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2026.019},
	year = {2026},
	date = {2026-09-15},
	journal = {Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media},
	volume = {6},
	pages = {1-53},
	abstract = {Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping journalism at an unprecedented pace, challenging long-held assumptions about what makes news credible, authentic, and human. As AI systems increasingly generate, curate, and personalize information, societies around the world are grappling with questions about how this transformation affects trust in the media and the perceived integrity of journalism. Scholars have highlighted that AI not only changes newsroom practices but also redefines audiences\' expectations of journalistic values such as accuracy and transparency. Yet, public perceptions of these changes remain under-explored from a global, comparative perspective, as previous research has mainly taken a Western perspective. This study, therefore, examines to what extent individuals\' attitudes toward AI in journalism and perceptions of authenticity differ across six culturally diverse countries: Brazil, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, and the United States. Using nationally representative surveys (N = 6,961), we analyze four core dimensions: (1) journalistic principles for AI-supported news, (2) individual engagement intentions for AI-supported news, (3) general authenticity perceptions across different dimensions and (4) the perceived impact of AI on them. Our findings show significant cross-national heterogeneity in attitudes toward AI in journalism, with more pronounced optimism in South Africa and Brazil and more pronounced skepticism in Western countries. Moreover, we frequently find ambivalent attitudes, as well as high degrees of heterogeneity within individual countries as well, with self-reported generative AI use emerging as one explanatory factor. Engagement intentions demonstrate a trend for ignoring AI-supported news, particularly in Western contexts, alongside a universal reluctance to share such content. This reflects broader trust issues and reputational concerns. Despite these differences, respondents across all countries converge on the importance of the human element when it comes to authenticity, rooted in journalists\' character and values.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Journalism},
}

Save .bib

Journalism as Data: GDPR Implications of Licensing Journalistic Content to Large Language Models external link

Bouchè, G. & Steketee, M.

Technology and Regulation, pp: 102-121, 2026

Abstract

This article explores the data protection implications under the GDPR of integrating journalistic content into Large Language Models (LLMs). The number of commercial partnerships between AI companies and news publishers for the licensing of daily news and archival content has rapidly increased. We contend that while LLMs and their top-layer applications do offer innovative solutions for news dissemination, publishers should carefully evaluate their position under the GDPR. Comparing different technical solutions available, in particular pre-training, fine-tuning and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), we analyse the relevant regulatory barriers and opportunities, focusing in particular on the distribution of processing roles, lawfulness and transparency of these deals, and the application of the special regime for journalistic processing under art 85(2) GDPR.

Links

GDPR, Journalism, language models, Privacy

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Bouchè, G.
AU  - Steketee, M.
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026-08-27
T1  - Journalism as Data: GDPR Implications of Licensing Journalistic Content to Large Language Models
JO  - Technology and Regulation
SP  - 102-121
DO  - https://doi.org/10.71265/7yhpdx81
AB  - This  article  explores  the  data  protection  implications  under  the  GDPR  of  integrating  journalistic  content  into  Large  Language  Models  (LLMs).  The  number  of  commercial  partnerships between AI companies and news publishers for the licensing of daily news and  archival  content  has  rapidly  increased.  We  contend  that  while  LLMs  and  their  top-layer applications do offer innovative solutions for news dissemination, publishers should carefully evaluate their position under the GDPR. Comparing different technical solutions available,  in  particular  pre-training,  fine-tuning  and  Retrieval  Augmented  Generation  (RAG), we analyse the relevant regulatory barriers and opportunities, focusing in particular on  the  distribution  of  processing  roles,  lawfulness  and  transparency  of  these  deals,  and  the application of the special regime for journalistic processing under art 85(2) GDPR.
K1  - GDPR
K1  - Journalism
K1  - language models
K1  - Privacy
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Journalism as Data: GDPR Implications of Licensing Journalistic Content to Large Language Models},
	author = {Bouchè, G. and Steketee, M.},
	url = {https://techreg.org/article/view/25844},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.71265/7yhpdx81},
	year = {2026},
	date = {2026-08-27},
	journal = {Technology and Regulation},
	pages = {102-121},
	abstract = {This  article  explores  the  data  protection  implications  under  the  GDPR  of  integrating  journalistic  content  into  Large  Language  Models  (LLMs).  The  number  of  commercial  partnerships between AI companies and news publishers for the licensing of daily news and  archival  content  has  rapidly  increased.  We  contend  that  while  LLMs  and  their  top-layer applications do offer innovative solutions for news dissemination, publishers should carefully evaluate their position under the GDPR. Comparing different technical solutions available,  in  particular  pre-training,  fine-tuning  and  Retrieval  Augmented  Generation  (RAG), we analyse the relevant regulatory barriers and opportunities, focusing in particular on  the  distribution  of  processing  roles,  lawfulness  and  transparency  of  these  deals,  and  the application of the special regime for journalistic processing under art 85(2) GDPR.},
	keywords = {GDPR, Journalism, language models, Privacy},
}

Save .bib

Remuneration for AI Training: A New Source of Income for Journalists?

Senftleben, M.

In: The Cambridge Handbook of Media Law and Policy in Europe, Cambridge University Press , 2026, pp: 433-464, ISBN: 9781009568159

Abstract

Generative AI systems threaten to usurp the market for human press and media productions. To enable journalists to act as ‘watchdogs’, highlight societal problems, and prompt necessary changes, remuneration rules should offer support for quality journalistic work by humans. In the EU, the rights reservation option following from Article 4(3) of the 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market – now flanked by the provisions of the AI Act – could support a remuneration system focusing on the use of human journalistic content for AI training. While AI training income would benefit media companies that own large repertoires of journalistic work, individual journalists might not receive an appropriate revenue share. This chapter suggests introducing a general output-based payment obligation on all providers and users of generative AI systems involved in media productions: both companies offering generative AI systems and companies using these systems in the media sector. Mandatory collective rights management could ensure payment directly to individual journalists, as in the repartitioning schemes of collecting societies. The remuneration could also finance funds that improve journalists’ working and living conditions. When distributing AI remuneration, social and cultural institutions could prioritise public interest journalism as a countermeasure to AI-generated misinformation and disinformation.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009568159.028

Artificial intelligence, Journalism, Media law, remuneration

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Senftleben, M.
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026-05-30
T1  - Remuneration for AI Training: A New Source of Income for Journalists?
SP  - 433-464
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009568159.028
AB  - Generative AI systems threaten to usurp the market for human press and media productions. To enable journalists to act as ‘watchdogs’, highlight societal problems, and prompt necessary changes, remuneration rules should offer support for quality journalistic work by humans. In the EU, the rights reservation option following from Article 4(3) of the 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market – now flanked by the provisions of the AI Act – could support a remuneration system focusing on the use of human journalistic content for AI training. While AI training income would benefit media companies that own large repertoires of journalistic work, individual journalists might not receive an appropriate revenue share. This chapter suggests introducing a general output-based payment obligation on all providers and users of generative AI systems involved in media productions: both companies offering generative AI systems and companies using these systems in the media sector. Mandatory collective rights management could ensure payment directly to individual journalists, as in the repartitioning schemes of collecting societies. The remuneration could also finance funds that improve journalists’ working and living conditions. When distributing AI remuneration, social and cultural institutions could prioritise public interest journalism as a countermeasure to AI-generated misinformation and disinformation.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - Journalism
K1  - Media law
K1  - remuneration
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey,
	title = {Remuneration for AI Training: A New Source of Income for Journalists?},
	author = {Senftleben, M.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009568159.028},
	year = {2026},
	date = {2026-05-30},
	pages = {433-464},
	abstract = {Generative AI systems threaten to usurp the market for human press and media productions. To enable journalists to act as ‘watchdogs’, highlight societal problems, and prompt necessary changes, remuneration rules should offer support for quality journalistic work by humans. In the EU, the rights reservation option following from Article 4(3) of the 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market – now flanked by the provisions of the AI Act – could support a remuneration system focusing on the use of human journalistic content for AI training. While AI training income would benefit media companies that own large repertoires of journalistic work, individual journalists might not receive an appropriate revenue share. This chapter suggests introducing a general output-based payment obligation on all providers and users of generative AI systems involved in media productions: both companies offering generative AI systems and companies using these systems in the media sector. Mandatory collective rights management could ensure payment directly to individual journalists, as in the repartitioning schemes of collecting societies. The remuneration could also finance funds that improve journalists’ working and living conditions. When distributing AI remuneration, social and cultural institutions could prioritise public interest journalism as a countermeasure to AI-generated misinformation and disinformation.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Journalism, Media law, remuneration},
}

Save .bib

Infrastructures of Media Freedom: Expanding Journalism’s Ethical Horizon

Helberger, N.

Digital Journalism, 2026

Abstract

This commentary argues that some technology choices are editorial and ultimately contribute to the quality of our public information ecosystem. Building on freedom of expression theory, I propose expanding the horizon of journalism’s professional ethics to also include the responsible selection of recommender systems, virtual agents, clouds, social networks, and generative AI tools—the very infrastructures of media freedom.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2026.2652342

Journalism, Media law

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

AI Hype in Journalism: Visibility, Power, and the Politics of Media Narratives

Dodds, T., Mine, N., Helberger, N., Guzman, A.L. & Diakopoulos, N.

Digital Journalism, vol. 14, iss. : 2, pp: 207-219, 2026

Abstract

Hype is a phenomenon that emerges from a set of practices rooted in the norms and narratives not only of journalism but of digital media and its algorithmic infrastructure more broadly, in the sociopolitical and cultural capital of technical expertise, and in the ambiguous and uncertain promises of a brighter future made by the world’s techno-elite. In this special issue, we explore media hype around AI functions as a pervasive system that is “sunk into and inside of other structures, social arrangements, and technologies” (Star, Citation1999, 381). We pay particular attention to how AI hype is embedded within journalism’s norms and narratives, labor politics, and the rhetoric of the tech industry. As the different articles in this special issue show, understanding AI hype as a systemic phenomenon conveys its power to shape narratives, practices, and regulations across layered systems of actors and networks, as well as its malleability by different stakeholders.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2026.2630187

Artificial intelligence, Journalism, Media law

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Dodds, T.
AU  - Mine, N.
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Guzman, A.L.
AU  - Diakopoulos, N.
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026-03-11
T1  - AI Hype in Journalism: Visibility, Power, and the Politics of Media Narratives
JO  - Digital Journalism
VL  - 14
IS  - 2
SP  - 207-219
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2026.2630187
AB  - Hype is a phenomenon that emerges from a set of practices rooted in the norms and narratives not only of journalism but of digital media and its algorithmic infrastructure more broadly, in the sociopolitical and cultural capital of technical expertise, and in the ambiguous and uncertain promises of a brighter future made by the world’s techno-elite. In this special issue, we explore media hype around AI functions as a pervasive system that is “sunk into and inside of other structures, social arrangements, and technologies” (Star, Citation1999, 381). We pay particular attention to how AI hype is embedded within journalism’s norms and narratives, labor politics, and the rhetoric of the tech industry. As the different articles in this special issue show, understanding AI hype as a systemic phenomenon conveys its power to shape narratives, practices, and regulations across layered systems of actors and networks, as well as its malleability by different stakeholders.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - Journalism
K1  - Media law
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {AI Hype in Journalism: Visibility, Power, and the Politics of Media Narratives},
	author = {Dodds, T. and Mine, N. and Helberger, N. and Guzman, A.L. and Diakopoulos, N.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2026.2630187},
	year = {2026},
	date = {2026-03-11},
	journal = {Digital Journalism},
	volume = {14},
	issue = {2},
	pages = {207-219},
	abstract = {Hype is a phenomenon that emerges from a set of practices rooted in the norms and narratives not only of journalism but of digital media and its algorithmic infrastructure more broadly, in the sociopolitical and cultural capital of technical expertise, and in the ambiguous and uncertain promises of a brighter future made by the world’s techno-elite. In this special issue, we explore media hype around AI functions as a pervasive system that is “sunk into and inside of other structures, social arrangements, and technologies” (Star, Citation1999, 381). We pay particular attention to how AI hype is embedded within journalism’s norms and narratives, labor politics, and the rhetoric of the tech industry. As the different articles in this special issue show, understanding AI hype as a systemic phenomenon conveys its power to shape narratives, practices, and regulations across layered systems of actors and networks, as well as its malleability by different stakeholders.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Journalism, Media law},
}

Save .bib

Public accountability and regulatory expectations for AI in journalism: qualitative evidence from focus groups with Dutch citizens

Morosoli, S., Naudts, L., Cools, H., Venkatraj, K., Helberger, N. & Vreese, C.H. de

AI & Society, 2025

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape society, its integration into journalism raises critical questions about transparency, accountability, and public trust. Existing AI regulations have largely been developed without meaningful public input, prompting concerns about whether current governance approaches adequately address societal expectations. This study investigates the expectations and concerns of Dutch citizens regarding mandatory AI disclosures in journalism through three focus groups (N = 21). We aimed for a broad sample of participants to ensure diversity in terms of age, gender, and education level. Key questions measured the main concerns about AI-generated content, why participants want to know if they are interacting with AI-generated content and which rights individuals would like to have in this context. The results reveal a preference for participatory regulatory processes and standardized transparency measures, such as the disclosure of sources. The results further underscore the wish to be able to hold news organizations and individual AI users accountable when regulations are breached. The findings can inform news professionals and regulators alike, for example, in the context of the implementation of the AI transparency obligations in the European AI Act.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02591-5

AI Regulation, Journalism

RIS

TY  - GEN
AU  - Morosoli, S.
AU  - Naudts, L.
AU  - Cools, H.
AU  - Venkatraj, K.
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Vreese, C.H. de
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-09-04
T1  - Public accountability and regulatory expectations for AI in journalism: qualitative evidence from focus groups with Dutch citizens
JO  - AI & Society
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02591-5
AB  - As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape society, its integration into journalism raises critical questions about transparency, accountability, and public trust. Existing AI regulations have largely been developed without meaningful public input, prompting concerns about whether current governance approaches adequately address societal expectations. This study investigates the expectations and concerns of Dutch citizens regarding mandatory AI disclosures in journalism through three focus groups (N = 21). We aimed for a broad sample of participants to ensure diversity in terms of age, gender, and education level. Key questions measured the main concerns about AI-generated content, why participants want to know if they are interacting with AI-generated content and which rights individuals would like to have in this context. The results reveal a preference for participatory regulatory processes and standardized transparency measures, such as the disclosure of sources. The results further underscore the wish to be able to hold news organizations and individual AI users accountable when regulations are breached. The findings can inform news professionals and regulators alike, for example, in the context of the implementation of the AI transparency obligations in the European AI Act.
K1  - AI Regulation
K1  - Journalism
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

article{nokey,
	title = {Public accountability and regulatory expectations for AI in journalism: qualitative evidence from focus groups with Dutch citizens},
	author = {Morosoli, S. and Naudts, L. and Cools, H. and Venkatraj, K. and Helberger, N. and Vreese, C.H. de},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02591-5},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-09-04},
	journal = {AI & Society},
	abstract = {As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape society, its integration into journalism raises critical questions about transparency, accountability, and public trust. Existing AI regulations have largely been developed without meaningful public input, prompting concerns about whether current governance approaches adequately address societal expectations. This study investigates the expectations and concerns of Dutch citizens regarding mandatory AI disclosures in journalism through three focus groups (N = 21). We aimed for a broad sample of participants to ensure diversity in terms of age, gender, and education level. Key questions measured the main concerns about AI-generated content, why participants want to know if they are interacting with AI-generated content and which rights individuals would like to have in this context. The results reveal a preference for participatory regulatory processes and standardized transparency measures, such as the disclosure of sources. The results further underscore the wish to be able to hold news organizations and individual AI users accountable when regulations are breached. The findings can inform news professionals and regulators alike, for example, in the context of the implementation of the AI transparency obligations in the European AI Act.},
	keywords = {AI Regulation, Journalism},
}

Save .bib

A nightmare to control: Legal and organizational challenges around the procurement of journalistic AI from external technology providers external link

Piasecki, S. & Helberger, N.

The Information Society, vol. 41, iss. : 3, pp: 173-194, 2025

Abstract

Little research has explored the process of procuring AI systems in the media from the perspective of contractual terms and conditions. It’s importance is underscored by the emerging regulatory framework coming from Brussels that embraces private ordering through mechanisms such as negotiations, instructions, and standardization. This article addresses the following research questions: How are journalistic AI procurement processes perceived by professionals? What are the practical and legal obstacles experienced in negotiating procurement conditions? How to improve media organizations’ contractual negotiation power? The study is grounded in 12 semi-structured interviews with members of media organizations (lawyers, technologists, and managers) and an analysis of 16 terms and conditions of companies providing AI systems. Based on its findings, it strives to propose a contractual counter-power for (especially smaller and local) media actors interested in using journalistic AI.

Links

Artificial intelligence, Journalism

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Piasecki, S.
AU  - Helberger, N.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-03-09
T1  - A nightmare to control: Legal and organizational challenges around the procurement of journalistic AI from external technology providers
JO  - The Information Society
VL  - 41
IS  - 3
SP  - 173-194
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2025.2473398
AB  - Little research has explored the process of procuring AI systems in the media from the perspective of contractual terms and conditions. It’s importance is underscored by the emerging regulatory framework coming from Brussels that embraces private ordering through mechanisms such as negotiations, instructions, and standardization. This article addresses the following research questions: How are journalistic AI procurement processes perceived by professionals? What are the practical and legal obstacles experienced in negotiating procurement conditions? How to improve media organizations’ contractual negotiation power? The study is grounded in 12 semi-structured interviews with members of media organizations (lawyers, technologists, and managers) and an analysis of 16 terms and conditions of companies providing AI systems. Based on its findings, it strives to propose a contractual counter-power for (especially smaller and local) media actors interested in using journalistic AI.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - Journalism
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {A nightmare to control: Legal and organizational challenges around the procurement of journalistic AI from external technology providers},
	author = {Piasecki, S. and Helberger, N.},
	url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01972243.2025.2473398},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2025.2473398},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-03-09},
	journal = {The Information Society},
	volume = {41},
	issue = {3},
	pages = {173-194},
	abstract = {Little research has explored the process of procuring AI systems in the media from the perspective of contractual terms and conditions. It’s importance is underscored by the emerging regulatory framework coming from Brussels that embraces private ordering through mechanisms such as negotiations, instructions, and standardization. This article addresses the following research questions: How are journalistic AI procurement processes perceived by professionals? What are the practical and legal obstacles experienced in negotiating procurement conditions? How to improve media organizations’ contractual negotiation power? The study is grounded in 12 semi-structured interviews with members of media organizations (lawyers, technologists, and managers) and an analysis of 16 terms and conditions of companies providing AI systems. Based on its findings, it strives to propose a contractual counter-power for (especially smaller and local) media actors interested in using journalistic AI.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Journalism},
}

Save .bib

FutureNewsCorp, or how the AI Act changed the future of news

Helberger, N.

Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 52, num: 105915, 2024

Abstract

Inspired by scenario writing methods to foster discussion on the societal implications of technology and regulation, the paper develops a ‘legal fiction scenario’ to anticipate the impact of the proposed European AI Act and examine some of the regulatory choices made. The paper tells the story of FutureNewsCorp – the largest news media company in Europe in the year 2043. The story of FutureNewsCorp is used for a critical analysis of the most recent draft of the AI Act and here, in particular, of the role of standardisation bodies and the division of responsibility between providers of AI systems and their professional users. Using the scenario method, the paper demonstrates that regulations like the planned AI Act can result in a shift of the power to decide what responsible use of AI is - from regulators and editors to technology developers and standardisation bodies - and that in doing so it may contribute to changing the structure and workings of an entire sector.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105915

AI Regulation, Journalism

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Helberger, N.
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024-04-23
T1  - FutureNewsCorp, or how the AI Act changed the future of news
JO  - Computer Law & Security Review
VL  - 52
NV  - 105915
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105915
AB  - Inspired by scenario writing methods to foster discussion on the societal implications of technology and regulation, the paper develops a ‘legal fiction scenario’ to anticipate the impact of the proposed European AI Act and examine some of the regulatory choices made. The paper tells the story of FutureNewsCorp – the largest news media company in Europe in the year 2043. The story of FutureNewsCorp is used for a critical analysis of the most recent draft of the AI Act and here, in particular, of the role of standardisation bodies and the division of responsibility between providers of AI systems and their professional users. Using the scenario method, the paper demonstrates that regulations like the planned AI Act can result in a shift of the power to decide what responsible use of AI is - from regulators and editors to technology developers and standardisation bodies - and that in doing so it may contribute to changing the structure and workings of an entire sector.
K1  - AI Regulation
K1  - Journalism
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {FutureNewsCorp, or how the AI Act changed the future of news},
	author = {Helberger, N.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105915},
	year = {2024},
	date = {2024-04-23},
	journal = {Computer Law & Security Review},
	volume = {52},
	number = {105915},
	abstract = {Inspired by scenario writing methods to foster discussion on the societal implications of technology and regulation, the paper develops a ‘legal fiction scenario’ to anticipate the impact of the proposed European AI Act and examine some of the regulatory choices made. The paper tells the story of FutureNewsCorp – the largest news media company in Europe in the year 2043. The story of FutureNewsCorp is used for a critical analysis of the most recent draft of the AI Act and here, in particular, of the role of standardisation bodies and the division of responsibility between providers of AI systems and their professional users. Using the scenario method, the paper demonstrates that regulations like the planned AI Act can result in a shift of the power to decide what responsible use of AI is - from regulators and editors to technology developers and standardisation bodies - and that in doing so it may contribute to changing the structure and workings of an entire sector.},
	keywords = {AI Regulation, Journalism},
}

Save .bib

Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights external link

McGonagle, T. & Voorhoof, D.

European Audiovisual Observatory, 2023, Strasbourg, Edition: 8th , ISBN: 9789287184351

Abstract

This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first seven editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2021 and 2022) have proved hugely successful. The new seventh edition summarises over 378 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database).

Links

https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-8th-edition-april-2023-/1680ab1d11

Freedom of expression, Journalism, Media law

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Towards a Normative Perspective on Journalistic
AI: Embracing the Messy Reality of Normative
Ideals download

Helberger, N., Drunen, M. van, Möller, J., Vrijenhoek, S. & Eskens, S.

Digital Journalism, vol. 10, iss. : 10, pp: 1605-1626, 2022

Abstract

Few would disagree that AI systems and applications need to be “responsible,” but what is “responsible” and how to answer that question? Answering that question requires a normative perspective on the role of journalistic AI and the values it shall serve. Such a perspective needs to be grounded in a broader normative framework and a thorough understanding of the dynamics and complexities of journalistic AI at the level of people, newsrooms and media markets. This special issue aims to develop such a normative perspective on the use of AI-driven tools in journalism and the role of digital journalism studies in advancing that perspective. The contributions in this special issue combine conceptual, organisational and empirical angles to study the challenges involved in actively using AI to promote editorial values, the powers at play, the role of economic and regulatory conditions, and ways of bridging academic ideals and the messy reality of the real world. This editorial brings the different contributions into conversation, situates them in the broader digital journalism studies scholarship and identifies seven key-take aways.

Links

Artificial intelligence, governance, Journalism, Media law, normative perspective, professional values, Regulation

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Drunen, M. van
AU  - Möller, J.
AU  - Vrijenhoek, S.
AU  - Eskens, S.
PY  - 2022
DA  - 2022-12-22
T1  - Towards a Normative Perspective on JournalisticAI: Embracing the Messy Reality of NormativeIdeals
JO  - Digital Journalism
VL  - 10
IS  - 10
SP  - 1605-1626
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2152195
AB  - Few would disagree that AI systems and applications need to be “responsible,” but what is “responsible” and how to answer that question? Answering that question requires a normative perspective on the role of journalistic AI and the values it shall serve. Such a perspective needs to be grounded in a broader normative framework and a thorough understanding of the dynamics and complexities of journalistic AI at the level of people, newsrooms and media markets. This special issue aims to develop such a normative perspective on the use of AI-driven tools in journalism and the role of digital journalism studies in advancing that perspective. The contributions in this special issue combine conceptual, organisational and empirical angles to study the challenges involved in actively using AI to promote editorial values, the powers at play, the role of economic and regulatory conditions, and ways of bridging academic ideals and the messy reality of the real world. This editorial brings the different contributions into conversation, situates them in the broader digital journalism studies scholarship and identifies seven key-take aways.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - governance
K1  - Journalism
K1  - Media law
K1  - normative perspective
K1  - professional values
K1  - Regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Towards a Normative Perspective on JournalisticAI: Embracing the Messy Reality of NormativeIdeals},
	author = {Helberger, N. and Drunen, M. van and Möller, J. and Vrijenhoek, S. and Eskens, S.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/towards-a-normative-perspective-on-journalisticai-embracing-the-messy-reality-of-normativeideals/digital_journalism_2022_10/},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2152195},
	year = {2022},
	date = {2022-12-22},
	journal = {Digital Journalism},
	volume = {10},
	issue = {10},
	pages = {1605-1626},
	abstract = {Few would disagree that AI systems and applications need to be “responsible,” but what is “responsible” and how to answer that question? Answering that question requires a normative perspective on the role of journalistic AI and the values it shall serve. Such a perspective needs to be grounded in a broader normative framework and a thorough understanding of the dynamics and complexities of journalistic AI at the level of people, newsrooms and media markets. This special issue aims to develop such a normative perspective on the use of AI-driven tools in journalism and the role of digital journalism studies in advancing that perspective. The contributions in this special issue combine conceptual, organisational and empirical angles to study the challenges involved in actively using AI to promote editorial values, the powers at play, the role of economic and regulatory conditions, and ways of bridging academic ideals and the messy reality of the real world. This editorial brings the different contributions into conversation, situates them in the broader digital journalism studies scholarship and identifies seven key-take aways.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, governance, Journalism, Media law, normative perspective, professional values, Regulation},
}

Save .bib