CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 38Journalism and Media StudiesMedia Studies and CommunicationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

How (not to) run an AI project in investigative journalism

Open access
Fridman, M., Krøvel, R., Palumbo, F.·2025·Journalism Practice
DOI 10.1080/17512786.2023.2253797
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Data journalists are increasingly reliant on automation and artificial intelligence (AI) to process and analyse massive datasets. AI can contribute to journalism by creating visualizations, verifying accuracy of information, analysing historical data, monitoring social media, finding patterns and outliers, generating text and much more. However, the integration of AI into the newsroom comes with its own challenges. In this article, we take a practice-based approach to develop a deeper understanding of how to overcome such challenges. Our teams of data scientists, AI experts and journalists took on four projects incorporating data science and machine learning into investigative journalism. From those experiences, we found that access to data at scale, data quality and reworking the concept of “newsworthy” as a machine learning question were the most significant obstacles to deploying AI in the newsroom. We recommend closer collaborations between team members of different disciplines to create a truly trans-disciplinary approach, as well as some practical considerations for choosing projects to facilitate successful AI-assisted investigations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17512786.2023.2253797

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. EU Court of Justice delivers blow to beneficial ownership … . 2022, November 22. Transparency.Org. https://www.transparency.org/en/press/eu-court-of-justice-delivers-blow-to-beneficialownership-transparency.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fridman, M., Krøvel, R., & Palumbo, F.
Affiliations
OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University (NO)
Corresponding author
Krøvel, R.
ORCID
Venue
Journalism Practice
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2023-09-04
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
1362-1379
ISSN
  • 1751-2786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-2794
DOI
10.1080/17512786.2023.2253797
OpenAlex
W4386459855
Cited by
38
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 7
FWCI
18.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journalism Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Artificial Intelligence Lab (AI Lab), Institutt for informasjonsteknologi, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
  • Fritt Ord Foundation and the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
artificial intelligence in journalism, investigative journalism, data journalism, newsroom automation, data quality, data access, newsworthiness, machine learning, interdisciplinary collaboration

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