Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 98 references

GenPod: Constructive News Framing in AI-Generated Podcasts More Effectively Reduces Negative Emotions Than Non-Constructive Framing

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Constructive framing in AI-generated podcasts reduces listeners' negative emotions more than non-constructive framing.

desk verdict A competent but under-controlled pilot study showing constructive framing in AI-generated podcasts reduces negative affect; the effect direction is expected from prior work, but the causal attribution to framing needs a manipulation check and stimulus-equivalence evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18300 v1 pith:L67RDKYI submitted 2024-12-24 cs.HC

Wen Ku , Yihan Liu , Wei Zhang , Pengcheng An This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords GenerativeAINewsframingConstructivejournalismPodcastsEmotionsSelf-efficacyText-to-speechHuman-computerinteraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether the framing an AI system applies to the same news facts can change how listeners feel. The authors built GenPod, a pipeline that takes identical source articles, recompiles them with either constructive or non-constructive framing, and turns them into spoken podcasts. In a between-subjects experiment with 65 listeners, the constructive podcast reduced negative emotions significantly more than the non-constructive podcast did, while positive emotions did not differ. The result matters because AI-generated news is growing quickly and could otherwise inherit the negative-framing habits of commercial media; the finding suggests a low-cost way to lessen the emotional toll of news without changing the underlying facts.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the GenPod pipeline, a four-stage process that dissects source articles into standard news elements (headline, lead, body, background, conclusion), recompiles those elements with LLM agents using constructive or non-constructive framing definitions and few-shot examples, converts the recompiled texts into dyadic-dialogue podcast scripts, and synthesizes the audio with text-to-speech. Its role is to generate two podcast versions from the same factual material that differ only in framing, so that any emotion difference can be attributed to framing rather than content. The PANAS scale is the instrument used to measure the emotion outcome.

What would settle it

Run a replication with a manipulation check and blind content ratings; the framing-specific claim fails if listeners cannot reliably tell which condition they heard, or if the negative-emotion difference disappears once perceived quality, story selection, and audio characteristics are statistically controlled.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that constructive framing in AI-generated podcasts reduces listeners' negative emotions more effectively than non-constructive framing. In the experiment, listeners who heard the constructive podcast showed a mean change in negative affect of $-2.36$ (SD = 4.46) on the PANAS scale, whereas listeners who heard the non-constructive podcast showed a mean change of $+0.53$ (SD = 3.85), a significant difference ($F(1,63) = 7.815$, $p < 0.01$). Positive emotions did not differ significantly between conditions. The paper also reports that constructive framing improved self-efficacy for the food delivery worker topic ($F(1,63) = 8.530$, $p < .01$) but not for the sports fandom topic, with qualitative interviews echoing that pattern.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the two podcasts differ only in constructive versus non-constructive framing, and that listeners actually perceived that contrast; if the episodes also differ in story choices, depth, perceived quality, or tone, the emotion difference cannot be pinned on framing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI news products can deliberately adopt constructive framing to reduce the negative emotional impact of daily news without altering the reported facts.
  • Designers of news, education, and therapy applications can treat framing instructions as a design parameter when building generative audio content.
  • Because constructive framing raised self-efficacy only on a relatable, concrete topic, its efficacy benefit may depend on how close the listener feels to the issue.
  • The same pipeline offers a reusable method for studying other framing contrasts in AI-generated media, going beyond the binary constructive/non-constructive comparison.
  • The ability to shift emotions through framing is also an ability to manipulate, so transparency about framing choices becomes a governance concern for AI news platforms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, a testable extension would be a dose-response study that varies the proportion of solution-focused sentences in the podcast; if emotion reduction scales with constructive content, the mechanism is the framing itself rather than a fixed story template.
  • Beyond the paper, the absence of a reported manipulation check means the emotion difference could partly reflect perceived quality, voice, or other incidental audio cues, so a replication that asks listeners to rate framing and quality separately would separate those channels.
  • Beyond the paper, if the effect replicates in longer and repeated listening, constructive framing could be applied to other AI-generated audio formats such as voice assistants and audiobooks, not just long-form podcasts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents GenPod, a generative-AI pipeline that converts identical news source articles into two podcast versions, one framed constructively (emphasizing solutions, forward-looking perspectives) and one non-constructively (emphasizing problems, conflict, pessimism). In a between-subjects experiment (N=65 after excluding one integrity-check failure), the authors measured listeners' positive and negative affect using a short-form PANAS before and after listening, and measured per-topic self-efficacy with custom Likert items. They report a significant one-way ANOVA on negative-affect change scores (F(1,63)=7.815, p<0.01), with the constructive-podcast group showing a mean decrease of -2.36 (SD=4.46) and the non-constructive group a mean increase of +0.53 (SD=3.85). They also report a significant self-efficacy difference favoring the constructive podcast on the food-delivery-worker topic (F(1,63)=8.530, p<.01) but no significant difference on the sports-fandom topic. Qualitative interviews with seven participants illustrate contrasting emotional and efficacy responses. The paper argues that simply altering framing instructions in an AI pipeline can reduce negative emotions and, in some contexts, enhance self-efficacy, and it draws design and ethical implications for AI-generated media.

Significance. If the causal attribution to framing is secured, this is a useful empirical contribution. The paper addresses a timely and underexplored area (AI-generated audio news), uses a recognized instrument (PANAS), random assignment, and a concrete, reusable pipeline design that separates content extraction (Agent 1) from framing (Agents 2–3). The qualitative data enrich the quantitative findings and provide plausible mechanisms. The authors are appropriately cautious in the abstract ('in certain news contexts' for self-efficacy). However, the central claim—that the negative-emotion difference is specifically due to constructive versus non-constructive framing rather than incidental differences between the two AI-generated episodes—is not yet adequately supported, because no manipulation check or stimulus-equivalence evidence is reported. With such evidence, the paper would make a solid, valuable contribution to HCI and constructive-journalism research; without it, the main conclusion leaps beyond the data.

major comments (1)
  1. [§5.2, §4.2.2, §6.1.3] The central causal claim that the difference in negative affect is attributable to framing, rather than to incidental content differences, is not supported by the reported checks. Section 5.2 states that 'Consistency was maintained across both versions by the same introductory and concluding text, identical voices, and background music,' but this controls only audio-level and boundary features; it does not establish equivalence of the recompiled news texts in factual content, specificity, depth, tone, or perceived quality. The journalism-expert review in §4.2.2 validates quality and relevance, not equivalence of non-framing attributes. The participant quotes in §6.1.3 show that the two conditions diverged in concrete informational content (e.g., 'new policies being implemented,' 'success stories' versus 'dead-end,' 'no hope for change'). A manipulation check is therefore necessary: participants should have rated how constructive, solution-oriented, hopeful, or negative each episode felt, and ideally a content analysis should verify that the two versions contain the same factual claims and differ only in framing. Without such evidence, the observed PANAS difference could be driven by differing facts, depth, or perceived quality rather than by constructive framing per se. The absence of released transcripts or audio further prevents independent verification. I consider this a load-bearing gap for the paper's main conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6.1.1, §5.3] The paper reports F and p for the negative-affect ANOVA but no effect sizes or confidence intervals; please report Cohen's d or partial eta-squared and a 95% CI for the group difference, as this is now standard for media-effects studies.
  2. [§5.3, §6.1.1] No baseline comparison is reported. Although random assignment should balance pre-test PANAS, the manuscript does not show that the two groups had comparable pre-experiment negative affect; please report pre-test means and a between-group test on the baseline.
  3. [§6.2.2, §8] The conclusion states that constructive podcasts 'enhanced self-efficacy compared to non-constructive podcasts' without the qualification that the effect was significant only for the food-delivery-worker topic and not for the sports-fandom topic; please align the conclusion with the abstract's more accurate 'in certain news contexts.'
  4. [§6.1.2] For positive emotions, the F and p values are not reported; please include the ANOVA statistic alongside the means and standard deviations.
  5. [§5.3] The comprehension check is mentioned but no results are given. Please report how many participants answered correctly and whether any data were excluded for failing it; the one exclusion is described as an 'integrity check' but the relationship between the comprehension and integrity checks is unclear.
  6. [§4.3, §5.2, author affiliations] There are minor typographical issues: 'Convertion' should be 'Conversion' (§4.3), 'opic' should be 'topic' (§5.3), and the affiliation 'Renmin Univesity' should be 'Renmin University.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical between-subjects comparison with an independent outcome measure, and no derived quantity reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that constructive framing in AI-generated podcasts reduces listeners' negative emotions more than non-constructive framing. This is an empirical comparison between two externally defined conditions, generated by prompting an LLM to recompile the same dissected news elements under constructive or non-constructive instructions (Sections 4.2 and 5.2), and measured with an independent, standard instrument, the PANAS scale (Section 5.3). There are no fitted parameters, no equations whose output is defined by their inputs, and no prediction that is statistically forced by a calibration step. The definitions of constructive and non-constructive news in Section 4.2.1 are literature-based conceptual definitions, not operationalizations of the outcome; negative affect is measured by PANAS items such as upset, hostile, ashamed, nervous, and afraid, which do not reduce to the framing definitions. The paper also does not rely on a self-citation chain to establish its result; prior framing research is cited as background and motivation, but the reported ANOVA result F(1,63)=7.815 is a fresh empirical finding from the authors' own data. The absence of a manipulation check or stimulus-equivalence evidence is a legitimate internal-validity concern: the observed mood difference could in principle be driven by incidental content differences between the two generated podcasts rather than by framing per se. That is a causal-attribution threat, not circularity, because the claim is not true by construction and the outcome measure is independent of the manipulation. The qualitative interview excerpts further show participants responding to concrete content differences, but this supports the possibility of confounding rather than any reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense: no load-bearing step is equivalent to its own premises, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no theoretical entities or fitted parameters. Its load-bearing assumptions are about the validity of the LLM-based framing manipulation, the equivalence of the two podcast conditions, and the psychometric quality of the outcome measures. These are domain assumptions that are plausible but not independently verified in the manuscript.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The constructive and non-constructive framing definitions used to prompt the LLM capture the intended contrast.
    Section 4.2.1 defines the two framing styles, but no manipulation check verifies that listeners perceive the resulting podcasts as constructive versus non-constructive.
  • domain assumption The generated podcasts differ only in framing and not in extraneous content quality, factual emphasis, or engagement.
    Sections 4.2 to 4.4 and 5.2 hold constant voices, music, and intro and outro text, but the LLM rewrites the news body in each condition. No checks are reported for factual coverage, complexity, or perceived quality.
  • domain assumption The short-form PANAS and the topic-specific self-efficacy items validly measure the intended constructs.
    Section 5.3 and 5.4 describe the measures, but the paper does not report reliability or validation for the three custom self-efficacy questions per topic.
  • standard math Parametric ANOVA assumptions hold for the change-score analyses.
    Section 6 reports F-tests without reporting normality or homogeneity checks, which matters given the small sample size.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GenPod: Constructive News Framing in AI-Generated Podcasts More Effectively Reduces Negative Emotions Than Non-Constructive Framing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L67RDKYI

@misc{pith2026241218300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GenPod: Constructive News Framing in AI-Generated Podcasts More Effectively Reduces Negative Emotions Than Non-Constructive Framing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L67RDKYI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18300}
}
read the original abstract

AI-generated media products are increasingly prevalent in the news industry, yet their impacts on audience perception remain underexplored. Traditional media often employs negative framing to capture attention and capitalize on news consumption, and without oversight, AI-generated news could reinforce this trend. This study examines how different framing styles-constructive versus non-constructive-affect audience responses in AI-generated podcasts. We developed a pipeline using generative AI and text-to-speech (TTS) technology to create both constructive and non-constructive news podcasts from the same set of news resources. Through empirical research (N=65), we found that constructive podcasts significantly reduced audience's negative emotions compared to non-constructive podcasts. Additionally, in certain news contexts, constructive framing might further enhance audience self-efficacy. Our findings show that simply altering the framing of AI generated content can significantly impact audience responses, and we offer insights on leveraging these effects for positive outcomes while minimizing ethical risks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the generative podcast production pipeline with constructive or non-constructive framing methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of GenPod’s pipeline to generate constructive and non-constructive podcasts. The initial input consists [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The detailed prompt structure and the function of Agent 1. The prompt for Agent 1 includes Task Instructions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of the post-survey showed that construc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amina Adadi and Mohammed Berrada. 2018. Peeking inside the black-box: a survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE access 6 (2018), 52138– 52160

    2018

  2. [2]

    Rahima Aissani, Rania Abdel-Qader Abdallah, Sawsan Taha, and Muham- mad Noor Al Adwan. 2023. Artificial Intelligence Tools in media and journalism: Roles and concerns. In 2023 International Conference on Multimedia Computing, Networking and Applications (MCNA). IEEE, 19–26

    2023

  3. [3]

    Pedro Almeida, Pedro Beça, Telmo Silva, Marcelo Afonso, Iulia Covalenco, and Carolina Duarte Nicolau. 2022. A podcast creation platform to support news corporations: results from UX evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Inter- national Conference on Interactive Media Experiences . 343–348

    2022

  4. [4]

    Geetha Sai Aluri, Paul Greyson, and Joaquin Delgado. 2023. Optimizing Podcast Discovery: Unveiling Amazon Music’s Retrieval and Ranking Framework. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 1036–1038

    2023

  5. [5]

    Denise Baden, Karen McIntyre, and Fabian Homberg. 2019. The impact of con- structive news on affective and behavioural responses. Journalism Studies 20, 13 (2019), 1940–1959

    2019

  6. [6]

    Albert Bandura. 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review 84, 2 (1977), 191

    1977

  7. [7]

    Beyondwords. 2024. Beyondwords. https://beyondwords.io/ Accessed: 2024-08- 23

    2024

  8. [8]

    Jeffrey P Bigham, Chandrika Jayant, Hanjie Ji, Greg Little, Andrew Miller, Robert C Miller, Robin Miller, Aubrey Tatarowicz, Brandyn White, Samual White, et al. 2010. Vizwiz: nearly real-time answers to visual questions. In Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology . 333–342

    2010

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philos- ophy. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency . PMLR, 149–159

    2018

  2. [10]

    Maged N Kamel Boulos, Inocencio Maramba, and Steve Wheeler. 2006. Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC medical education 6 (2006), 1–8

    2006

  3. [11]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  4. [12]

    Alessandro Bruno, Pier Luigi Mazzeo, Aladine Chetouani, Marouane Tliba, and Mohamed Amine Kerkouri. 2023. Insights into Classifying and Mitigating LLMs’ Hallucinations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08117 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Taina Bucher. 2018. If... then: Algorithmic power and politics . Oxford University Press

    2018

  6. [14]

    CNN Business. 2024. AI Is Replacing Workers in Some Jobs Faster Than Ex- pected. https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/20/business/ai-jobs-workers-replacing/ index.html Accessed: 2024-09-05

    2024

  7. [15]

    Kevin Matthe Caramancion. 2023. News verifiers showdown: a comparative performance evaluation of chatgpt 3.5, chatgpt 4.0, bing ai, and bard in news fact-checking. In 2023 IEEE Future Networks World Forum (FNWF) . IEEE, 1–6

    2023

  8. [16]

    Matt Carlson. 2018. The robotic reporter: Automated journalism and the redefi- nition of labor, compositional forms, and journalistic authority. In Journalism in an Era of Big Data . Routledge, 108–123

    2018

  9. [17]

    Alexander L Curry and Keith H Hammonds. 2014. The power of solutions journalism. Solutions Journalism Network 7 (2014), 1–14

    2014

  10. [18]

    Nicole Smith Dahmen, Kathryn Thier, and Brent Walth. 2021. Creating en- gagement with solutions visuals: Testing the effects of problem-oriented versus solution-oriented photojournalism. Visual Communication 20, 2 (2021), 271–288

    2021

  11. [19]

    Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2019. Automating the news: How algorithms are rewriting the media. Harvard University Press

    2019

  12. [20]

    Laurence Dierickx, Carl-Gustav Lindén, Andreas Opdahl, Sohail Khan, and Diana Guerrero Rojas. 2023. AI in the newsroom: A data quality assessment framework for employing machine learning in journalistic workflows. (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Ying Roselyn Du. 2023. Personalization, echo chambers, news literacy, and algorithmic literacy: a qualitative study of AI-powered news app users. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 67, 3 (2023), 246–273

    2023

  14. [22]

    Earkind. 2024. Earkind. https://www.earkind.com/ Accessed: 2024-08-23

    2024

  15. [23]

    Robert M Entman. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication 43, 4 (1993), 51–58

    1993

  16. [24]

    Xiao Fang, Shangkun Che, Minjia Mao, Hongzhe Zhang, Ming Zhao, and Xiao- hang Zhao. 2024. Bias of AI-generated content: an examination of news produced by large language models. Scientific Reports 14, 1 (2024), 5224

    2024

  17. [25]

    Luciano Floridi, Josh Cowls, Monica Beltrametti, Raja Chatila, Patrice Chazerand, Virginia Dignum, Christoph Luetge, Robert Madelin, Ugo Pagallo, Francesca Rossi, et al. 2018. AI4People—an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommend...

    2018

  18. [26]

    Barbara L Fredrickson. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist 56, 3 (2001), 218

    2001

  19. [27]

    Wenwen Fu. 2023. AI-News Personalization System Combining Complete Con- tent Characterization and Full Term Interest Portrayal in the Big Data Era. IEEE Access (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Paul Ginns and Jennifer Fraser. 2010. Personalization enhances learning anatomy terms. Medical Teacher 32, 9 (2010), 776–778

    2010

  21. [29]

    Margaret A Goralski and Tay Keong Tan. 2020. Artificial intelligence and sus- tainable development. The International Journal of Management Education 18, 1 (2020), 100330

    2020

  22. [30]

    D Graves. 2018. Understanding the promise and limits of automated fact-checking. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Patricia Gual-Montolio, Irene Jaén, Verónica Martínez-Borba, Diana Castilla, and Carlos Suso-Ribera. 2022. Using artificial intelligence to enhance ongoing psychological interventions for emotional problems in real-or close to real-time: a systematic review. International Jour...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Ankur Gupta, Neeraj Kumar, Purnendu Prabhat, Rajesh Gupta, Sudeep Tanwar, Gulshan Sharma, Pitshou N Bokoro, and Ravi Sharma. 2022. Combating fake news: Stakeholder interventions and potential solutions. Ieee Access 10 (2022), 78268–78289

    2022

  25. [33]

    Beatriz Gutiérrez-Caneda, Jorge Vázquez-Herrero, and Xosé López-García. 2023. AI application in journalism: ChatGPT and the uses and risks of an emergent technology. Profesional de la Información 32, 5 (2023). GenPod: Constructive News Framing in AI-Generated Podcasts More Eff...

    2023

  26. [34]

    Cathrine Gyldensted. 2015. From Mirrors to Movers. Five elements of positive psychol¬ ogy in constructive journalism.[no place]: GGroup Publishing (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Onuh Matthew Ijiga, Idoko Peter Idoko, Lawrence Anebi Enyejo, Omachile Akoh, and Solomon Ileanaju. 2024. Harmonizing the voices of AI: Exploring generative music models, voice cloning, and voice transfer for creative expression. (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Fabia Ioscote, Adriana Gonçalves, and Claudia Quadros. 2024. Artificial Intelli- gence in Journalism: A Ten-Year Retrospective of Scientific Articles (2014–2023). Journalism and Media 5, 3 (2024), 873–891

    2024

  29. [37]

    Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. 1984. Choices, values, and frames.American psychologist 39, 4 (1984), 341

    1984

  30. [38]

    Hannes Karlbom. 2021. Abstractive summarization of podcast transcriptions

    2021

  31. [39]

    I’m Not Sure, But

    Sunnie SY Kim, Q Vera Liao, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Stephanie Ballard, and Jen- nifer Wortman Vaughan. 2024. " I’m Not Sure, But... ": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models’ Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accounta...

    2024

  32. [40]

    Mariska Kleemans, Luise F Schlindwein, and Roos Dohmen. 2017. Preadoles- cents’ emotional and prosocial responses to negative TV news: Investigating the beneficial effects of constructive reporting and peer discussion. Journal of youth and adolescence 46 (2017), 2060–2072

    2017

  33. [41]

    Nayeon Lee, Yejin Bang, Tiezheng Yu, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2022. Neus: Neutral multi-news summarization for mitigating framing bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04902 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Yu Liang, Aditya Ponnada, Paul Lamere, and Nediyana Daskalova. 2023. Enabling goal-focused exploration of podcasts in interactive recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 142–155

    2023

  35. [43]

    Carlos Lopezosa, Lluís Codina, Carles Pont-Sorribes, and Mari Vállez. 2023. Use of generative artificial intelligence in the training of journalists: challenges, uses and training proposal. Profesional de la información 32, 4 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Razi Mahmood, Ge Wang, Mannudeep Kalra, and Pingkun Yan. 2023. Fact- checking of ai-generated reports. In International Workshop on Machine Learning in Medical Imaging. Springer, 214–223

    2023

  37. [45]

    Marie-Louise Mares and E Woodard. 2012. Effects of prosocial media content on children’s social interactions. Handbook of children and the media (2012), 197–214

    2012

  38. [46]

    Jelle Mast, Roel Coesemans, and Martina Temmerman. 2019. Constructive jour- nalism: Concepts, practices, and discourses. Journalism 20, 4 (2019), 492–503

    2019

  39. [47]

    Karen McIntyre. 2019. Solutions journalism: The effects of including solution information in news stories about social problems. Journalism Practice 13, 1 (2019), 16–34

    2019

  40. [48]

    Karen McIntyre and Cathrine Gyldensted. 2018. Constructive journalism: An introduction and practical guide for applying positive psychology techniques to news production. The journal of media innovations 4, 2 (2018), 20–34

    2018

  41. [49]

    Karen McIntyre and Meghan Sobel. 2018. Reconstructing Rwanda: How Rwandan reporters use constructive journalism to promote peace. Journalism Studies 19, 14 (2018), 2126–2147

    2018

  42. [50]

    Karen Elizabeth McIntyre. 2015. Constructive journalism: The effects of posi- tive emotions and solution information in news stories . Ph. D. Dissertation. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    2015

  43. [51]

    Tania Mishra and Jayanta Kumar Parida. 2023. The Role of AI in Enhancing Employee Equality and Gender Justice in the IT Industry. In2023 5th International Conference on Inventive Research in Computing Applications (ICIRCA) . IEEE, 621– 626

    2023

  44. [52]

    Eliza Mitova, Sina Blassnig, Edina Strikovic, Aleksandra Urman, Claes de Vreese, and Frank Esser. 2023. Exploring users’ desire for transparency and con- trol in news recommender systems: A five-nation study. Journalism (2023), 14648849231222099

    2023

  45. [53]

    Robin L Nabi. 2003. Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emo- tions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research 30, 2 (2003), 224–247

    2003

  46. [54]

    S Nazar and MR Bustam. 2020. Artificial intelligence and new level of fake news. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering , Vol. 879. IOP Publishing, 012006

    2020

  47. [55]

    Zahra Nazari, Praveen Chandar, Ghazal Fazelnia, Catherine M Edwards, Ben- jamin Carterette, and Mounia Lalmas. 2022. Choice of implicit signal matters: Accounting for user aspirations in podcast recommendations. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 2433–2441

    2022

  48. [56]

    Sachita Nishal and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2024. Envisioning the applications and implications of generative AI for news media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18835 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Sachita Nishal, Charlotte Li, and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2024. Domain-Specific Evaluation Strategies for AI in Journalism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17911 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Christian Staal Bruun Overgaard. 2023. Mitigating the consequences of negative news: How constructive journalism enhances self-efficacy and news credibility. Journalism 24, 7 (2023), 1424–1441

    2023

  51. [59]

    Rasmus Tue Pedersen. 2014. News media framing of negative campaigning. Mass Communication and Society 17, 6 (2014), 898–919

    2014

  52. [60]

    Podcastle. 2024. Podcastle. https://podcastle.ai/ Accessed: 2024-08-23

    2024

  53. [61]

    Swati Rawat, Sumit Mittal, Deepa Nehra, Chandani Sharma, and Dalip Kamboj

  54. [62]

    Rezvaneh Rezapour, Sravana Reddy, Rosie Jones, and Ian Soboroff. 2022. What Makes a Good Podcast Summary?. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 2039– 2046

    2022

  55. [63]

    Corrections is so Negative, we don’t get any Good Recognition

    Rosemary Ricciardelli, Mark Stoddart, and Heather Austin. 2024. News media framing of correctional officers:“Corrections is so Negative, we don’t get any Good Recognition”. Crime, Media, Culture 20, 1 (2024), 40–58

    2024

  56. [64]

    Jemily Rime, Jon Francombe, and Tom Collins. 2022. How do you pod? A study revealing the archetypal podcast production workflow. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences . 11–18

    2022

  57. [65]

    Delia Robescu. 2008. Investigating the lexis of news reports [articol]. (2008)

    2008

  58. [66]

    Luca Sandrini and Robert Somogyi. 2023. Generative AI and deceptive news consumption. Economics Letters 232 (2023), 111317

    2023

  59. [67]

    Dietram A Scheufele. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication 49, 1 (1999), 103–122

    1999

  60. [68]

    Dietram A Scheufele and David Tewksbury. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication 57, 1 (2007), 9–20

    2007

  61. [69]

    Bhumi Shah et al . 2022. A Comprehensive Review of the Negative Impact of Integration of AI in Social-Media in Mental Health of Users. In 2022 5th International Conference on Advances in Science and Technology (ICAST) . IEEE, 431–434

    2022

  62. [70]

    Nikhil Sharma, Q Vera Liao, and Ziang Xiao. 2024. Generative Echo Chamber? Effect of LLM-Powered Search Systems on Diverse Information Seeking. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–17

    2024

  63. [71]

    Jingyu Shi, Rahul Jain, Hyungjun Doh, Ryo Suzuki, and Karthik Ramani. 2023. An HCI-Centric Survey and Taxonomy of Human-Generative-AI Interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07127 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Ankit Shrestha, Audrey Flood, Saniat Sohrawardi, Matthew Wright, and Mahdi Nasrullah Al-Ameen. 2024. A First Look into Targeted Clickbait and its Countermeasures: The Power of Storytelling. In Proceedings of the CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–23

    2024

  65. [73]

    Lawrence C Soley and Robert L Craig. 1992. Advertising pressures on newspapers: A survey. Journal of Advertising 21, 4 (1992), 1–10

    1992

  66. [74]

    S Shyam Sundar and Sampada S Marathe. 2010. Personalization versus customiza- tion: The importance of agency, privacy, and power usage.Human communication research 36, 3 (2010), 298–322

    2010

  67. [75]

    Crispin Thurlow, Giorgia Aiello, and Lara Portmann. 2020. Visualizing teens and technology: A social semiotic analysis of stock photography and news media imagery. New media & society 22, 3 (2020), 528–549

    2020

  68. [76]

    Helma Torkamaan, Mohammad Tahaei, Stefan Buijsman, Ziang Xiao, Daricia Wilkinson, and Bart P Knijnenburg. 2024. The Role of Human-Centered AI in User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization—Models, Frameworks, and Paradigms. In A Human-Centered Perspective of Intelligent Per...

    2024

  69. [77]

    Christoph Trattner, Dietmar Jannach, Enrico Motta, Irene Costera Meijer, Nicholas Diakopoulos, Mehdi Elahi, Andreas L Opdahl, Bjørnar Tessem, Njål Borch, Morten Fjeld, et al. 2022. Responsible media technology and AI: challenges and research directions. AI and Ethics 2, 4 (202...

    2022

  70. [78]

    Marc Trussler and Stuart Soroka. 2014. Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. The International Journal of Press/Politics 19, 3 (2014), 360–379

    2014

  71. [79]

    Lorenzo Vaiani, Moreno La Quatra, Luca Cagliero, and Paolo Garza. 2022. Lever- aging multimodal content for podcast summarization. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing . 863–870

    2022

  72. [80]

    Toni GLA Van der Meer, Anne C Kroon, Piet Verhoeven, and Jeroen Jonkman

  73. [81]

    Teun A Van Dijk. 1985. Structures of news in the press. Discourse and communi- cation: New approaches to the analysis of mass media discourse and communication 10 (1985), 69

    1985

  74. [82]

    Iris van Venrooij, Tobias Sachs, and Mariska Kleemans. 2022. The effects of constructive television news reporting on prosocial intentions and behavior in children: The role of negative emotions and self-efficacy. Communications 47, 1 (2022), 5–31

    2022

  75. [83]

    Ambeth Kumar Visvam Devadoss, Vijay Rajasekar Thirulokachander, and Ashok Kumar Visvam Devadoss. 2019. Efficient daily news platform gener- ation using natural language processing. International journal of information technology 11 (2019), 295–311

    2019

  76. [84]

    Karin Wahl-Jorgensen. 2020. An emotional turn in journalism studies? Digital journalism 8, 2 (2020), 175–194

    2020

  77. [85]

    Bryan Wang. 2023. Democratizing Content Creation and Consumption through Human-AI Copilot Systems. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–4. Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Wen Ku, Yihan Liu, Wei Zhan...

    2023

  78. [86]

    D Watson, L Clark, and A Tellegen. 2007. Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 38, 2 (2007), 227–242

    2007

  79. [87]

    Elizabeth J Wilson and Daniel L Sherrell. 1993. Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the academy of marketing science 21 (1993), 101–112

    1993

  80. [88]

    Samuel Woolley. 2020. We’re fighting fake news AI bots by using more AI. That’sa mistake. MIT Technol. Rev. Published online January 8 (2020), 2020

    2020

  81. [89]

    World’s Best News. n.d.. The Women Making Our Clothes Are Fighting for Better Rights. https://worldsbestnews.org/news/the-women-making-our-clothes-are- fighting-for-better-rights/ Accessed: 2024-09-05

    2024

  82. [90]

    Peng Xu, Chien-Sheng Wu, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Clickbait? sensational headline generation with auto-tuned reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.03582 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Wei Xu, Marvin J Dainoff, Liezhong Ge, and Zaifeng Gao. 2023. Transitioning to human interaction with AI systems: New challenges and opportunities for HCI professionals to enable human-centered AI. International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction 39, 3 (2023), 494–518

    2023

  84. [92]

    Guangping Zhang, Dongsheng Li, Hansu Gu, Tun Lu, and Ning Gu. 2024. Het- erogeneous Graph Neural Network with Personalized and Adaptive Diversity for News Recommendation. ACM Transactions on the Web 18, 3 (2024), 1–33

    2024

  85. [93]

    Guangping Zhang, Dongsheng Li, Hansu Gu, Tun Lu, Li Shang, and Ning Gu. 2024. Simulating News Recommendation Ecosystems for Insights and Implications. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems (2024)

    2024

  86. [94]

    Xiaoke Zhang. 2023. How does AI-generated voice affect online video creation?: evidence from TikTok. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of British Columbia

    2023

  87. [95]

    Yujin Zhou and Zixian Zhou. 2020. Towards a responsible intelligent HCI for journalism: A systematic review of digital journalism. In International Conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction . Springer, 488–498

    2020

  88. [96]

    Shoshana Zuboff. 2019. Surveillance capitalism and the challenge of collective action. In New labor forum , Vol. 28. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 10–29

    2019

  89. [2019]

    Journalism Studies 20, 6 (2019), 783–803

    Mediatization and the disproportionate attention to negative news: The case of airplane crashes. Journalism Studies 20, 6 (2019), 783–803

    2019

  90. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Management & Machine Intelligence

    Exploring the Potential of ChatGPT to improve experiential learning in Education. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Information Management & Machine Intelligence . 1–8

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.