The 62-page report by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford looks at the attitudes of 12,000 news consumers in six countries regarding AI and the news, comparing these findings to those of their previous survey conducted last year.

It confirms what we have all suspected for a while now (because, hey, this is how we tend to use it ourselves): Information-seeking has now become the primary use case for AI, with weekly use of AI for getting information more than doubling from 11% to 24%, surpassing media creation. Still, specialised uses like news consumption remain limited, at 6%.

“Among AI-for-news users, ‘latest news’ (54%) and help with summarising, evaluating, or rewriting are most common. Younger users lean more towards using AI to help them navigate the news: 48% of 18-24s used AI to make a story easier to understand compared to 27% of 55+,” the report said.

Let’s take a moment to think about this: About half of the younger people surveyed and about a quarter of the older people surveyed turn to AI to make sense of the news they are reading.

Hmmm ... aren’t all of us trying to reach audiences more effectively? Surely we can meet their needs better by making our news more accessible? Surely we can use GenAI, which excels at language tasks, ourselves to do this for our readers rather than sending them to answer engines? 

Here are a few examples of news companies that are doing just that:

• An “easy” version of the news produced by Dutch public broadcaster NOS in the Netherlands. It is aimed at older people, non-native speakers, and those with learning problems or disrupted education. It contains fewer images, a simpler sentence structure, easier language, and fewer topics explained at a slower tempo.

• Two more accessible versions of the news produced by the Süddeutsche Zeitung, which lets the reader use a slider to choose an “easy language” version of an investigation or a “simple language” version, or simply read the original.

• Schibsted’s Aftonbladet created a Youth Assistant to repurpose news for younger readers. The Times of India has done something similar.

Most people surveyed see AI-generated answers regularly, the report said, and about one-third say they consistently click through to source links, with younger users being more likely to say they click through (nearly 40%).

So, young people are skeptical. This is a good thing for society — and for us in the news business. Again, a good reason for us to double down on trying to reach them more effectively.

Trust levels are moderate at 50% among those who encounter AI answers, with users valuing their speed and information aggregation capabilities. But for “high-stakes” topics like health and politics, many people verify answers through traditional sources, the report said.

“Expectations about AI’s impact on news remain mixed, with people anticipating benefits like cheaper production and faster updates while also having concerns about reduced transparency and trustworthiness, whereas only 33% believe journalists routinely check AI outputs before publication.”

Only one-third of our readers believe we routinely check AI outputs before publication? This is also something we can act upon. Building trust and engaging with our audiences is easier than it ever has been in the past. We can:

• Publish clear guidelines on where we do — and do not — use AI (here’s how The New York Times, the BBC, and The Globe and Mail do it).

• Clearly flag use cases where we do use it (e.g., summaries or conversational interfaces)

• Use AI to help us get a good sense of what readers are saying in the comments section and use that feedback to shape coverage (for example, here’s how the Toronto Star does it).

• Use AI to bring the reader into the newsroom and build trust through transparency. For example, here’s how Every does it. 

If you’d like to subscribe to my bi-weekly newsletter, INMA members can do so here.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .