It's common practice for many journalists to invite their audience to weigh in on potential coverage. It's much less common to explain how that input is used (or even if it's considered).
Our work on AI so far has equipped journalists to understand community needs and perceptions, be transparent about their own use of AI, and educate their communities about how AI works.
Focus group members indicated that encountering this type of coverage would motivate them to subscribe, become members, or even make financial contributions to mainstream outlets.
The powerful should be monitored? Society works better when more things are out in the open and transparent? Statements like these feel like common sense to journalists, but our neighbors do not all agree.
It's common practice for many journalists to invite their audience to weigh in on potential coverage. It's much less common to explain how that input is used (or even if it's considered).
Our work on AI so far has equipped journalists to understand community needs and perceptions, be transparent about their own use of AI, and educate their communities about how AI works.
Focus group members indicated that encountering this type of coverage would motivate them to subscribe, become members, or even make financial contributions to mainstream outlets.
The powerful should be monitored? Society works better when more things are out in the open and transparent? Statements like these feel like common sense to journalists, but our neighbors do not all agree.