The authors — Sebastián Valenzuela, Ingrid Bachmann, Porismita Borah, and Natalia Solís Valdés — found that human oversight was the most influential factor considered. Media outlets that require human review of all AI content were seen as more credible, and were chosen as news sources more often, compared to outlets without such oversight. Participants also thought disclosure of generative AI use was important for credibility and news use. And they were less likely to use an outlet or find it credible when AI automated both objective news stories as well as content requiring nuance and interpretation, compared with outlets that prohibit all AI-automated news writing.

…

Together, these studies help build a clearer picture of how and when news outlets need to preserve the “human touch,” and how they should talk about AI. It’s becoming clearer that human involvement is considered a sign of professional responsibility and accountability — essential currency in an age of media distrust. Publishers would also do well to step carefully around AI where subjective or value-based judgments are concerned. And they should think hard about how labels are presented, especially as those labels talk about the human touch and oversight that is so important to audiences.