CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Misinformation and Its ImpactsEthics and Social Impacts of AIJournalism and Media Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sourcing behavior and the role of news media in AI-powered search engines in the digital media ecosystem: Comparing political news retrieval across five languages

Open access
Brantner, Cornelia, Karlsson, Michael, Kuai, Joanne·2025·Telecommunications Policy
DOI 10.1016/j.telpol.2025.102952
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examines the role of news media in the context of generative AI-enhanced search engines, focusing on the 2024 Taiwan presidential election. Using Microsoft’s Copilot, we conducted a comparative analysis by prompting election news in five languages: English, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, German, and Swedish. While Copilot uses mainly professional news media, provides quick access to synthesized information, and exhibits source transparency, it frequently creates misinformation and misattributes news sources. The analysis highlights variations in Copilot’s sourcing behavior, showing a strong reliance on English-language sources, particularly those from the UK and US, across different prompting languages. Such reliance raises concerns about the homogenization of information and the marginalization of regional perspectives. The study underscores the critical role and dilemma of news media, which, while serving as authoritative sources in democratic societies, must navigate an increasing AI-mediated information ecosystem to maintain autonomy vis-à-vis powerful technological infrastructures. By evaluating Copilot’s sourcing practices and misinformation prevalence, this research contributes to the discourse on AI’s impact on news dissemination, media diversity, and democratic processes . Specifically, we discuss the consequences of two approaches available to news media to prevent their content from being used without compensation: opting out of crawling (“platform counterbalancing”) or establishing partnerships with AI companies. Current regulatory efforts, including copyright reforms and the EU AI Act, fall short of safeguarding journalism or regulating AI. We propose policy and regulatory recommendations to improve transparency, factual correctness, accuracy in source attribution, and accountability in AI-generated content, supporting informed citizenship in the digital age.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.telpol.2025.102952

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Afgiansyah, 2023, Artificial intelligence neutrality: Framing analysis of GPT powered-bing Chat and Google bard, Jurnal Riset Komunikasi, 6, 10.38194/jurkom.v6i2.908 · DOI
  2. Bayer, 2024, The place of content ranking algorithms on the AI risk spectrum, Telecommunications Policy, 48, 10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102741 · DOI
  3. Berners‐Lee, 1992, World‐wide web: The information universe, Internet Research, 2, 52, 10.1108/eb047254 · DOI
  4. Bossio, 2023, The news media bargaining code: Impacts on Australian journalism one year on, Policy & Internet, 15, 611, 10.1002/poi3.361 · DOI
  5. Broda, 2024, Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news: Lessons from an interdisciplinary, systematic literature review, Annals of the International Communication Association, 0, 1
  6. Chua, 2023, Platform configuration and digital materiality: How news publishers innovate their practices amid entanglements with the evolving technological infrastructure of platforms, Journalism Studies, 24, 1857, 10.1080/1461670X.2023.2247494 · DOI
  7. Cools, 2024, Uses of generative AI in the newsroom: Mapping journalists' perceptions of perils and possibilities, Journalism Practice, 1, 10.1080/17512786.2024.2394558 · DOI
  8. Grönlund, 2024, Vol. 12
  9. Grynbaum, 2023, The Times sues OpenAI and Microsoft over A.I. use of copyrighted work, The New York Times
  10. Hanitzsch, 2011, Mapping journalism cultures across nations: A comparative study of 18 countries, Journalism Studies, 12, 273, 10.1080/1461670X.2010.512502 · DOI
  11. Helberger, 2024, FutureNewsCorp, or how the AI Act changed the future of news, Computer Law & Security Review, 52, 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105915 · DOI
  12. Helm, 2024, Diversity and language technology: How language modeling bias causes epistemic injustice, Ethics and Information Technology, 26
  13. Jürgens, 2017, The power of default on reddit: A general model to measure the influence of information intermediaries, Policy & Internet, 9, 395, 10.1002/poi3.166 · DOI
  14. Karlsson, 2010, Rituals of transparency: Evaluating online news outlets’ uses of transparency rituals in the United States, United Kingdom and Sweden, Journalism Studies, 11, 535, 10.1080/14616701003638400 · DOI
  15. Karlsson, 2011, The immediacy of online news, the visibility of journalistic processes and a restructuring of journalistic authority, Journalism, 12, 279, 10.1177/1464884910388223 · DOI
  16. Karlsson, 2023, Recoding journalism: Establishing normative dimensions for a twenty-first century news media, Journalism Studies, 24, 553, 10.1080/1461670X.2022.2161929 · DOI
  17. Kelly, 2023, Bing Chat: The future of search engines?, Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60, 1007, 10.1002/pra2.927 · DOI
  18. Kuai, 2024, Unravelling copyright dilemma of AI-generated news and Its implications for the institution of journalism: The cases of US, EU, and China, New Media & Society, 26, 5150, 10.1177/14614448241251798 · DOI
  19. Kuai, 2022, AI ≥ Journalism: How the Chinese copyright law protects tech giants’ AI innovations and disrupts the journalistic institution, Digital Journalism, 10, 1893, 10.1080/21670811.2022.2120032 · DOI
  20. Mager, 2018, Internet governance as joint effort: (Re)ordering search engines at the intersection of global and local cultures, New Media & Society, 20, 3657, 10.1177/1461444818757204 · DOI
  21. Marshall, 2023, News publishers are wary of the Bing chatbot’s media diet, Wired
  22. 2024, How Bing delivers search results, Microsoft
  23. Myllylahti, 2024, New Funding models in journalism are emerging, but major leap forward is lacking, Media and Communication, 12
  24. Napoli, 2014, Automated media: An institutional theory perspective on algorithmic media production and consumption, Communication Theory, 24, 340, 10.1111/comt.12039 · DOI
  25. Nechushtai, 2018, Could digital platforms capture the media through infrastructure?, Journalism, 19, 1043, 10.1177/1464884917725163 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Nechushtai, 2019, What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations, Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 298, 10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.043 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Nicholas, 2023, Lost in translation: Large language models in non-English content analysis, Research report. Center for Democracy & Technology
  28. Piasecki, 2024, AI-generated journalism: Do the transparency provisions in the AI Act give news readers what they hope for?, Internet Policy Review, 13, 10.14763/2024.4.1810 · DOI
  29. Pires, 2022, Learning with YouTube: Beyond formal and informal through new actors, strategies and affordances, Convergence, 28, 838, 10.1177/13548565211020545 · DOI
  30. Plantin, 2018, Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook, New Media & Society, 20, 293, 10.1177/1461444816661553 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Poell, 2022, Spaces of negotiation: Analyzing platform power in the news industry, Digital Journalism
  32. Puschmann, 2019, Beyond the bubble: Assessing the diversity of political search results, Digital Journalism, 7, 824, 10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626 · DOI
  33. Quintais, 2020, The new copyright in the digital single market directive: A critical look, European Intellectual Property Review, 2020
  34. Rieder, 2018, From ranking algorithms to ‘ranking cultures’: Investigating the modulation of visibility in YouTube search results, Convergence, 24, 50, 10.1177/1354856517736982 · DOI
  35. Robertson, 2023, Publishers worry A.I. chatbots will cut readership, The New York Times
  36. Roose, 2023, A conversation with Bing's chatbot left me deeply unsettled, The New York Times
  37. Ryfe, 2016, What is the meaning of a news link?, Digital Journalism, 4, 41, 10.1080/21670811.2015.1093269 · DOI
  38. Shaw, 2017, Encoding and decoding affordances: Stuart Hall and interactive media technologies, Media, Culture & Society, 39, 592, 10.1177/0163443717692741 · DOI
  39. Shin, 2022, Countering algorithmic bias and disinformation and effectively harnessing the power of AI in media, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 99, 887, 10.1177/10776990221129245 · DOI
  40. Simon, 2023, Escape me if you can: How AI reshapes news organisations' dependency on platform companies, Digital Journalism, 1
  41. Steiner, 2022, Seek and you shall find? A content analysis on the diversity of five search engines' results on political queries, Information, Communication & Society, 25, 217, 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1776367 · DOI
  42. Stokel-Walker, 2023, TechScape: Google and Microsoft are in an AI arms race – who wins could change how we use the internet, The Guardian
  43. Trielli, 2022, Partisan search behavior and Google results in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, Information, Communication & Society, 25, 145, 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1764605 · DOI
  44. Urman, 2023, The silence of the LLMs: Cross-lingual analysis of political bias and false information prevalence in ChatGPT, Google Bard, and Bing Chat, OSF Preprints
  45. Van Dijck, 2019, Reframing platform power, Internet Policy Review, 8, 10.14763/2019.2.1414 · DOI
  46. Wahl-Jorgensen, 2013, Subjectivity and story-telling in journalism: Examining expressions of affect, judgement and appreciation in Pulitzer Prize-winning stories, Journalism Studies, 14, 305, 10.1080/1461670X.2012.713738 · DOI
  47. Weltevrede, 2016, Platform affordances and data practices: The value of dispute on Wikipedia, Big Data & Society, 3, 1, 10.1177/2053951716653418 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Brantner, C., Karlsson, M., & Kuai, J.
Affiliations
Karlstad University (SE)
Corresponding author
Kuai, Joanne
ORCID
Venue
Telecommunications Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-06
Volume
49
Issue
5
Pages
102952
ISSN
0308-5961 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.telpol.2025.102952
OpenAlex
W4409200809
Cited by
17
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 2
FWCI
19.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Telecommunications Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digitala vetenskapliga arkivet (Diva) (Karlstad University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Swedish Research Council (2022-05392)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
Keywords
Microsoft Copilot, misinformation, source transparency, EU AI Act, AI regulation, democratic process

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review