ArticlePloS one2024
Quality of science journalism in the age of Artificial Intelligence explored with a mixed methodology.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Science journalists, traditionally, play a key role in delivering science information to a wider audience. However, changes in the media ecosystem and the science-media relationship are posing challenges to reliable news production. Additionally, recent developments such as ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence (AI) more generally, may have further consequences for the work of (science) journalists. Through a mixed-methodology, the quality of news reporting was studied within the context of AI. A content analysis of media output about AI (news articles published within the time frame 1 September 2022-28 February 2023) explored the adherence to quality indicators, while interviews shed light on journalism practices regarding quality reporting on and with AI. Perspectives from understudied areas in four European countries (Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) were included and compared. The findings show that AI received continuous media attention in the four countries. Furthermore, despite four different media landscapes, the reporting in the news articles adhered to the same quality criteria such as applying rigour, including sources of information, accessibility, and relevance. Thematic analysis of the interview findings revealed that impact of AI and ChatGPT on the journalism profession is still in its infancy. Expected benefits of AI related to helping with repetitive tasks (e.g. translations), and positively influencing journalistic principles of accessibility, engagement, and impact, while concerns showed fear for lower adherence to principles of rigour, integrity and transparency of sources of information. More generally, the interviewees expressed concerns about the state of science journalism, including a lack of funding influencing the quality of reporting. Journalists who were employed as staff as well as those who worked as freelancers put efforts in ensuring quality output, for example, via editorial oversight, discussions, or memberships of associations. Further research into the science-media relationship is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.