Author
Listed:
- Rubén Rivas-de-Roca
(Department of Communication Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain)
- Tania Forja-Pena
(Department of Communication Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain)
- Artai Bringas-Gómez
(Department of Communication Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain)
- Berta García-Orosa
(Department of Communication Sciences, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain)
Abstract
The consolidation of artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the journalistic sector, to the point that its ethical dimension is being altered. However, the mission and values of the media in the face of the current emergence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) have barely been explored. Bearing this in mind, it is important to understand not only how journalists perceive AI, but also to examine the role that the media assign to themselves and the audience’s participation in this context. This research explores the roles defined by a sample of leading media outlets (n = 21) in seven countries in Western Europe and North America: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. To this end, a discursive content analysis is applied to three newspapers (printed or digital) per country. The findings reflect differences between countries and media outlets, within a common trend of prioritizing responsibility as the primary editorial value, followed by truthfulness. We also found scant direct references to AI regulation, alongside the development of participatory interactivity within readership established by the media outlet. Furthermore, greater participation of audiences was observed in publicly funded publications, granting audiences a deliberative role.
Suggested Citation
Rubén Rivas-de-Roca & Tania Forja-Pena & Artai Bringas-Gómez & Berta García-Orosa, 2026.
"Journalistic Values and GenAI: A Transnational Study of Editorial Policies,"
Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:15:y:2026:i:3:p:198-:d:1897912
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:15:y:2026:i:3:p:198-:d:1897912. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address
(email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.