Below are some important readings on media and race focused on case of the US that @MeeraSelva1 and I have recommended to @risj_oxford, we are always looking for more recommendations.
Beyond the ones we've put on the list, some others I have read or revisited in recent days 1/3
What might an AI-mediated information ecosystem look like?
Shuwei Fang @OpenSociety & @StructStories asked for scenarios. Mine, on interplay btw AI pragmatism, AI experimentalism, & AI incrementalism, draws on @risj_oxford research & more
My starting point? Public uptake will be one of the most important driving forces shaping the AI-mediated information ecosystem and, by extension, journalism & news media’s place in it. Demand is sometimes overlooked in discussions that tend to focus on actors on supply side 2/14
Extrapolating from public approach to previous digital technologies a likely approach might be "AI pragmatism", combination of (a) abstract concern about impact, (b) scepticism towards many of the institutions using AI, & (c) a practical appreciation of many AI applications 3/14
AI cannot reliably identify false news (let alone lies), despite what sales reps and boosters may claim. Too many false positives, false negatives, issues of bias, (let alone perceiving "entire meanings")
Because so much of the most potentially consequential misinfo, including false news and lies, is fundamentally political, there is real and perceived conflict of interests when govs' want to play role as arbiters of truth.
This is even more pronounced in low-trust contexts. 2/4
For years, experts have argued govs' and public authorities' most constructive role is indirect - convening whole-of-society responses and providing funding for independent fact-checkers, journalists, researchers, civil society
Second, what is crucial is not volume but influence. As @hugoreasoning and others have pointed out, attempts at mass persuasion mostly fail! . But one thing that often influence people is elite cues from politicians they support 3/7press.princeton.edu/books/hardcove… cambridge.org/core/books/nat…
Beyond inadverdently disseminating disinfo bcs of business-as-usual editorial practices, there are also parts of the media (e.g. some pundits, broadcast hosts) who are parts of what @sobieraj called "outrage industry" - even when working for news media global.oup.com/academic/produ… 2/6
Whether as sources (for news reporters), guests/subjects (for hosts and pundits), or important users and advertiseres (for platforms) - or just doing their own thing - some domestic political elites sometimes contribute to mis- and disinfo problems academic.oup.com/book/26406 3/6
Trust in news: the good, the bad, and the ugly - spoke about @risj_oxford Trust in News Project at #WNMC22
The GOOD news, from publishers' POV, is the "trust gap" between news in general and news on various platforms - news media stand out from just "stuff on the internet" 1/7
BAD news, in already difficult context facing political attacks, competition from platforms, & much more, is that negative perceptions are very widespread. Half or more of survey respondents say they think journalists try to manipulate the public to serve powerful politicians 2/7
UGLY news is that, when we talk to journalists trying to address low trust and overcome negative perceptions, the things they focus on (e.g. transparency, audience engagement) are very different from what audiences focus on (relevance, familiarity, reputation for integrity) 3/7