The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and more specifically chatbots, has sparked intense debate in recent years, fueled by antagonistic visions in which utopian futures clash with narratives of humanity in peril. While academic literature has provided rich insights into the role of discourse in the social construction of innovation, the framing processes that shape public understanding of what is ethically acceptable or problematic remain under-explored. This gap is particularly salient when the societal impacts of an innovation are obscured by deeply polarized imaginaries. Drawing on a longitudinal analysis of French media coverage over two decades, we analyze the evolution of ethical frames related to chatbots. Our findings reveal a significant transition in ethical framing: from an initial period of ethical silence to a contemporary state of conditional beneficence where technological hype is coupled with an ethics of non-maleficence (e.g., concerns over privacy and bias). We demonstrate that while the press discourse reflects a modernist techno-optimism, it frequently leaves the underlying societal purposes of AI unexamined, thereby marginalizing key ethical dimensions such as justice, autonomy, and the common good. We argue that this discursive gap fosters a form of fatalism that limits critical AI literacy and the collective capacity to envision beneficial technological futures. Finally, we highlight the methodological value of specialized lexicometric dictionaries for tracing both dominant lexis and the unsaid in the construction of ethical dimensions within large-scale media corpora.
AdelsteinJ.CleggS. (2016). Code of ethics: A stratified vehicle for compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(1), 53–66.
2.
AldrichH. E.FiolC. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. The Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.
3.
AndsagerJ. L. (2000). How interest groups attempt to shape public opinion with competing news frames. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 577–592.
4.
BenfordR. D. (1993). “You could be the hundredth monkey”: Collective action frames and vocabularies of motive within the nuclear disarmament movement. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(2), 195–216.
5.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
6.
BerberichN.NishidaT.SuzukiS. (2020). Harmonizing artificial intelligence for social good. Philosophy and Technology, 33(4), 613–638.
7.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT. (1966). The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge (1st ed.). Doubleday.
8.
BojovicN. (2022). Strategic framing of enabling technologies: Insights from firms digitizing smell and taste. Research Policy, 51(3), 1–15.
9.
BoltanskiL.ThévenotL. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton University Press.
10.
BorauS. (2024). Deception, discrimination, and objectification: Ethical issues of female AI agents. Journal of Business Ethics, 198, 1–19.
11.
BreitE. (2010). On the (Re)construction of corruption in the media: A critical discursive approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4), 619–635.
12.
BunzM.BraghieriM. (2022). The AI doctor will see you now: Assessing the framing of AI in news coverage. AI and Society, 37(1), 9–22.
13.
CallonM.CourtialJ.LavilleF. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research—The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205.
14.
CarmiE.YatesS. J.LockleyE.PawluczukA. (2020). Data citizenship: Rethinking data literacy in the age of disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation. Internet Policy Review, 9(2), 1–22.
15.
CastoriadisC. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. MIT Press.
16.
CaveS.CoughlanK.DihalK. (2019). “Scary robots” examining public responses to AI. In AIES 2019—Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society (pp. 331–337). Association for Computing Machinery.
17.
CaveS.DihalK. (2020). The whiteness of AI. Philosophy and Technology, 33(4), 685–703.
18.
CaveS.DihalK.DillonS. (2020). Ai narratives: A history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines. Oxford University Press.
19.
ChateauraynaudF. (2003). Prospéro: une technologie littéraire pour les sciences humaines [Prospero: A Literary Technology for the Humanities]. CNRS Editions.
20.
ChateauraynaudF.TornyD. (1999). Les sombres précurseurs : une sociologie pragmatique de l’alerte et du risque. [Dark precursors: A pragmatic sociology of alert and risk] Ecole Des Hautes Etudes En Sciences Sociales.
21.
ChhillarD.AguileraR. V. (2022). An eye for artificial intelligence: Insights into the governance of artificial intelligence and vision for future research. Business and Society, 61(5), 1197–1241.
22.
CoghlanS.LeinsK.SheldrickS.CheongM.GoodingP.D’AlfonsoS. (2023). To chat or bot to chat: Ethical issues with using chatbots in mental health. Digital Health, 9, 1–11.
23.
ComynsB.Franklin-JohnsonE. (2018). Corporate reputation and collective crises: A theoretical development using the Case of Rana Plaza. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(1), 159–183.
24.
CornelissenJ. P.WernerM. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.
25.
CraneA.HenriquesI.HustedB.MattenD. (2015). Defining the scope of Business & Society. Business and Society, 54(4), 427–434.
26.
CrépelM.DoS.CointetJ.-P.CardonD.BouacheraY. (2021). Mapping AI issues in media through NLP methods. In CHR2021: Computational humanities research conference. Amsterdam.
27.
CzarniawskaB. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies. Sage.
28.
DedehayirO.SteinertM. (2016). The hype cycle model: A review and future directions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 108, 28–41.
29.
DeibertR. (2015). The geopolitics of cyberspace after snowden. Current History, 114(768), 9–15.
30.
DicksonM. A.EckmanM. (2008). Media portrayal of voluntary public reporting about corporate social responsibility performance: Does coverage encourage or discourage ethical management?Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 725–743.
31.
FanniR.SteinkoglerV. E.ZampedriG.PiersonJ. (2023). Enhancing human agency through redress in artificial intelligence systems. AI and Society, 38(2), 537–547.
32.
FloridiL.CowlsJ.BeltramettiM.ChatilaR.ChazerandP.DignumV.LuetgeC.MadelinR.PagalloU.RossiF.SchaferB.ValckeP.VayenaE. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28, 689–707.
33.
FloridiL.CowlsJ.KingT. C.TaddeoM. (2020). How to design AI for social good: Seven essential factors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 1771–1796.
34.
FlyverbomM.DeibertR.MattenD. (2019). The governance of digital technology, big data, and the internet: New roles and responsibilities for business. Business and Society, 58(1), 3–19.
35.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder.
36.
FrenchW.AllbrightD. (1998). Resolving a moral conflict through discourse. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 177–194.
37.
GamsonW. A.CroteauD.HoynesW.SassonT. (1992). Media images and the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373–393.
38.
GarudR.GehmanJ.GiulianiA. P. (2014). Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: A narrative perspective. Research Policy, 43(7), 1177–1188.
39.
GillM. J.BurrowR. (2018). The function of fear in institutional maintenance: Feeling frightened as an essential ingredient in haute cuisine. Organization Studies, 39(4), 445–465.
40.
GrovesT.FiguerolaC. G.QuintanillaM. Á. (2016). Ten years of science news: A longitudinal analysis of scientific culture in the Spanish digital press. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 691–705.
41.
GuoL.VargoC. J.PanZ.DingW.IshwarP. (2016). Big social data analytics in journalism and mass communication. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(2), 332–359.
42.
HaefnerN.WincentJ.ParidaV.GassmannO. (2021). Artificial intelligence and innovation management: A review, framework, and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 162, Article 120392.
43.
HerhausenD.LudwigS.AbedinE.HaqueN. U.de JongD. (2025). From words to insights: Text analysis in business research. Journal of Business Research, 198, Article 115491.
44.
HermanE.ChomskyN. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.
45.
HermannE. (2022). Leveraging artificial intelligence in marketing for social good—An ethical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 179(1), 43–61.
46.
HerschelR.MioriV. (2017). Ethics & big data. Technology in Society, 49, 31–36.
47.
IslamG.GreenwoodM. (2021). Reconnecting to the social in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(1), 1–4.
48.
JobinA.IencaM.VayenaE. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399.
49.
John-MathewsJ. M.CardonD.BalaguéC. (2022). From reality to world. A critical perspective on AI fairness. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(4), 945–959.
50.
JohnsonK.PasqualeF.ChapmanJ. (2019). Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and bias in finance: Toward responsible innovation. Fordham Law Review, 88(2), 499–530.
51.
KangM.HalliburtonB. (2020). The android of Albertus Magnus: A legend of artificial being. In CaveS.DihalK.DillonS. (Eds.), AI narratives: A history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines (pp. 72–94). Oxford University Press.
52.
KennedyM. T.(Yu-Chieh) LoJ.LounsburyM. (2010). Category currency: The changing value of conformity as a function of ongoing meaning construction. In HsuG.NegroG.KoçakÖ. (Eds.), Categories in markets: Origins and evolution (Vol. 31, pp. 369–397). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
53.
KofmanP. (2025). Scoring the ethics of AI Robo-Advice: Why we need gateways and ratings. Journal of Business Ethics, 198, 21–33.
54.
KorneevaE.SalgeT. O.TeubnerT.AntonsD. (2023). Tracing the legitimacy of artificial intelligence: A longitudinal analysis of media discourse. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, 1–20.
55.
LaurellC.SandströmC. (2018). Comparing coverage of disruptive change in social and traditional media: Evidence from the sharing economy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 339–344.
56.
LeeJ. A.UngarS. (1989). A coding method for the analysis of moral discourse. Human Relations, 42(8), 691–715.
57.
LewisonM.FlintA. S.Sluys, K.Van. (2002). Taking on critical literacy: The journey of newcomers and novices. Language Arts, 79(5), 382–392.
58.
LiangT.ZhangY. J.QiangW. (2022). Does technological innovation benefit energy firms’ environmental performance? The moderating effect of government subsidies and media coverage. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 180, Article 121728.
59.
LiveleyG.ThomasS. (2020). Homer’s intelligent machines: AI in antiquity. In CaveS.DihalK.DillonS. (Eds.), AI narratives: A history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines (pp. 25–48). Oxford University Press.
60.
LounsburyM.GlynnM. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7), 545–564.
61.
March-RussellP. (2019). Science fiction, modernism, and the Avant-Garde. In LinkE. C.CanavanG. (Eds.), The Cambridge history of science fiction (pp. 120–134). Cambridge University Press.
62.
March-RussellP. (2020). Machines like us? Modernism and the question of the robot. In CaveS.DihalK.DillonS. (Eds.), AI narratives: A history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines (pp. 165–186). Oxford University Press.
63.
MatthesJ. (2009). What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media framing studies in the World’s Leading Communication Journals, 1990–2005. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 349–367.
64.
Mayer-SchönbergerV.CukierK. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
65.
MimounL.Trujillo-TorresL.SobandeF. (2022). Social emotions and the legitimation of the fertility technology market. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(6), 1073–1095.
66.
MittelstadtB. D.AlloP.TaddeoM.WachterS.FloridiL. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21.
67.
Monsalve-AlamáA.Ortigosa-BlanchA.Sánchez-GarcíaJ. (2023). The evolution of the media discourse on the implementation of media companies’ new digital business models. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 190, 1–11.
68.
MorleyJ.FloridiL.KinseyL.ElhalalA. (2020). From what to how: An initial review of publicly available AI ethics tools, methods and research to translate principles into practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(4), 2141–2168.
69.
NagpalM.De CremerD.Van HielA. (2024). Is technology uniquely placed to solve our problems? An examination into technosolutionism, what it entails and what it predicts. Business & Society, 64(5), 933–967.
70.
NavisC.GlynnM. A. (2010). How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(3), 439–471.
71.
NeffG.NagyP. (2016). Talking to bots: Symbiotic agency and the case of Tay. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4915–4931.
72.
NguyenD. (2023). How news media frame data risks in their coverage of big data and AI. Internet Policy Review, 12(2).
73.
NguyenD.BeijnonB. (2024). The data subject and the myth of the ‘black box’ data communication and critical data literacy as a resistant practice to platform exploitation. Information Communication and Society, 27(2), 333–349.
74.
NguyenD.HekmanE. (2022). A ‘new arms race’? Framing China and the U.S.A. in A.I. News Reporting: A comparative analysis of the Washington Post and South China Morning Post. Global Media and China, 7(1), 58–77.
75.
NguyenD.HekmanE. (2024). The news framing of artificial intelligence: A critical exploration of how media discourses make sense of automation. AI and Society, 39(2), 437–451.
76.
OcasioW.LoewensteinJ.NigamA. (2015). How streams of communication reproduce and change institutional logics: The role of categories. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 28–48.
77.
ParkJ. (2020). Making the automaton speak: Hearing artificial voices in the eighteenth century. In CaveS.DihalK.DillonS. (Eds.), AI narratives: A history of imaginative thinking about intelligent machines. (pp. 119–143) Oxford University Press.
78.
PasqualeF. (2015). The Black Box society. Harvard University Press.
79.
PatriottaG.GondJ. P.SchultzF. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1804–1836.
80.
PerrenL.SapsedJ. (2013). Innovation as politics: The rise and reshaping of innovation in UK parliamentary discourse 1960–2005. Research Policy, 42(10), 1815–1828.
81.
PollachI. (2011). Taming textual data: The contribution of corpus linguistics to computer-aided text analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 263–287.
82.
QuachS.ThaichonP.MartinK.WeavenS.PalmatierR. (2022). Digital technologies: Tensions in privacy and data. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(6), 1299–1323.
83.
RobertsA. (2016). The history of science fiction. Palgrave Macmillan UK.
84.
RosenbloomD.BertonH.MeadowcroftJ. (2016). Framing the sun: A discursive approach to understanding multi-dimensional interactions within socio-technical transitions through the case of solar electricity in Ontario, Canada. Research Policy, 45(6), 1275–1290.
85.
SamuelA. L. (1960). Some moral and technical consequences of automation—A refutation. Science, 132(3429), 741–742.
86.
SchatzbergE. (2018). Technology: critical history of a concept. University of Chicago Press.
87.
SchwarzO. (2025). The post-choice society: Algorithmic prediction and the decentring of choice. Theory, Culture and Society, 42(4), 3–22.
88.
SeeleP.SchultzM. D. (2022). From greenwashing to machinewashing: A model and future directions derived from reasoning by analogy. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(4), 1063–1089.
89.
SheehanK. B.PittmanM. (2019). Straight from the source? Media framing of creative crowd labor and resultant ethical concerns. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(2), 575–585.
90.
StahlB. C.AndreouA.BreyP.HatzakisT.KirichenkoA.MacnishK.Laulhé ShaelouS.PatelA.RyanM.WrightD. (2021). Artificial intelligence for human flourishing—Beyond principles for machine learning. Journal of Business Research, 124, 374–388.
91.
SullivanY. W.Fosso WambaS. (2022). Moral judgments in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Business Ethics, 178, 917–943
ThomasN.DochertyN. (2025). “Empathy code”: The dangers of automating empathy in business. Business and Society, 65(3), 528–532.
94.
VaderaA. K.AguileraR. V. (2015). The evolution of vocabularies and its relation to investigation of white-collar crimes: An institutional work perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 21–38.
95.
van WynsbergheA. (2021). Sustainable AI: AI for sustainability and the sustainability of AI. AI and Ethics, 1(3), 213–218.
96.
VeldhuisA.LoP. Y.KennyS.AntleA. N. (2025). Critical artificial intelligence literacy: A scoping review and framework synthesis. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 43, 1–20.
97.
VesaM.TienariJ. (2022). Artificial intelligence and rationalized unaccountability: Ideology of the elites?Organization, 29(6), 1133–1145.
98.
WesselL.RuotsalainenR.SchildtH. A.WickertC. (2023). The escalation of organizational moral failure in public discourse: A semiotic analysis of Nokia’s Bochum Plant Closure. Journal of Business Ethics, 184(2), 459–478.
99.
WestS. M. (2019). Data capitalism: Redefining the logics of surveillance and privacy. Business and Society, 58(1), 20–41.
100.
WienerN. (1960). Some moral and technical consequences of automation. Science, 131(3410), 1355–1358.
101.
WinklerI. (2011). The representation of social actors in corporate codes of ethics. How code language positions internal actors. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(4), 653–665.
102.
WrightC.NybergD. (2012). Working with passion: Emotionology, corporate environmentalism and climate change. Human Relations, 65(12), 1561–1587.
103.
WrightD. (2011). A framework for the ethical impact assessment of information technology. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 199–226.
104.
WuX.DuanR.NiJ. (2024). Unveiling security, privacy, and ethical concerns of ChatGPT. Journal of Information and Intelligence, 2(2), 102–115.
105.
ZhouY.FeiZ.HeY.YangZ. (2022). How human–chatbot interaction impairs charitable giving: The role of moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(3), 849–865.
