A Shift Amid the Transition: Towards Smarter, More Resilient Digital Journalism in the Age of AI and Disinformation
Open accessAbstract
Digital journalism is facing a growing number of challenges as the wave of digital transformation enters a new phase. The changes, both slow and sudden, are making it increasingly necessary for there to be a shift amid the transition. The surge of artificial intelligence (AI) in the journalistic world has ushered in what appears to be a new phase for digitalisation and journalism’s role as a producer of factual information and knowledge in society. Current debates suggest that we are at a critical time to reinvent journalism for the new wave of digital transformation. In this stage, which recently began and which some are calling the Fourth Industrial Revolution, both professionals and academics point to the need to make journalism more resilient, so it can adapt to the changes without losing its basic essence, and more people-centred, helping to support individuals in the age of AI. This article analyses the challenges from the perspectives of both academics and professional journalists, based on their codes of ethics. The methodology used is a content analysis of 45 European ethical codes and the Delphi method, involving experts from the journalistic sector and academia. The results highlight that codes of ethics have not kept pace with these professionally and expert-led debates, as few mention new technologies such as artificial intelligence and they tend to focus more on disinformation and social engagement.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There is a lack of adequate technological literacy to tackle online disinformation and assist journalists in their jobs of quality reporting.
“At the same time, they also highlight the lack of adequate technological literacy to tackle online disinformation and assist journalists in their jobs of quality reporting.”
From Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project (2026) · cites this paper as Forja-Pena et al., 2024
Cites
The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts
Hosseini, M., Resnik, D. B., & Holmes, K. (2023) · Research Ethics · doi:10.1177/17470161231180449 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Deepfakes, Democracy, and the Ethics of Synthetic Media: A Synthesis of the SOLARIS Project
(2026) · University of Maribor Press · doi:10.18690/um.feri.2.2026
- Authors
- Forja-Pena, T., García-Orosa, B., & López-García, X.
- Affiliations
- Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (ES)
- Department of Communication Sciences, Universidad de Santiago, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
- Corresponding author
- Forja-Pena, Tania
- Venue
- Social Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-07-30
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 403
- ISSN
- 2076-0760 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4401116252
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9
- FWCI
- 8.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Hispana (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033
- “ERDF/EU”
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- digital journalism, artificial intelligence in journalism, disinformation, journalistic ethics code, digital transformation, Fourth Industrial Revolution, professional journalists
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