4.2 Article

Why Does Explainability Matter in News Analytic Systems? Proposing Explainable Analytic Journalism

期刊

JOURNALISM STUDIES
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 1047-1065

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1461670X.2021.1916984

关键词

Explainable journalism; explanatory cues; interpretability; understandability; explainable algorithmic journalism; news personalization; analytic journalism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As the use of algorithms in journalism continues to grow, analytic/algorithmic journalism (AJ) has seen rapid development in major news organizations. Studies have shown that explainability plays a crucial role in how users perceive and trust algorithm-driven AI systems, with users' trust depending on their assessment of algorithmic qualities.
As the use of algorithms has emerged in journalism, analytic/algorithmic journalism (AJ) has seen rapid development in major news organizations. Despite this surging trend, little is known about the role and the effects of explainability on the process by which people perceive and make sense of trust in an algorithm-driven AI system. While AJ has greatly benefited from increasingly sophisticated algorithm technologies, AJ suffers from a lack of transparency and understandability for readers. We identify explainability as a heuristic cue of an algorithm and conceptualizes it in relation to trust by testing how it affects user emotion with AJ. Our experiments show that the addition of interpretable explanations leads to enhanced trust in the context of AJ and readers' trust hinges upon the perceived normative values that are used to assess algorithmic qualities. Explanations of why certain news articles are recommended give users emotional assurance and affirmation. Mediation analyses show that explanatory cues play a mediating role between trust and performance expectancy. The results have implications for the inclusion of explanatory cues in AJ, which help to increase credibility and help users to assess AJ value.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据