This study explores audience sentiments toward generative artificial intelligence (AI) in journalism by analyzing in-depth qualitative interviews with Danish news consumers. Findings show that while the users acknowledge AI’s potential to improve efficiency and writing quality—and are sometimes delighted by the prospects—they emphasize the need for a human journalist in the loop. Many are concerned about AI replacing human journalists; some fear AI’s capacity to produce fake news, biased content, and clickbait, while others find AI annoyingly inappropriate and its writing generic and impersonal. Regarding transparency and labeling, opinions range from seeing it as irrelevant or context-dependent to essential.
AltayS.GilardyF. (2024). People are skeptical of headlines labelled as AI-generated, even if true or human-made, because they assume full AI automation. PNAS Nexus, 3(10), 1–11.
2.
ArguedasA. R. (2024). Public attitudes towards the use of AI in journalism. In NewmanN.FletcherR.RobertsonC. T.ArguedasA. R.NielsenR. K. (Eds.), Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2024 (pp. 39–43). Reuters Institute, University of Oxford.
3.
BeckettC.YaseenM. (2023). Generating change: A global survey of what news organisations are doing with AI. The London School of Economics and Political Science.
4.
BeijerF. (2002). The syntax and pragmatics of exclamations and other expressive/emotional utterances [The Department of English in Lund: Working Papers in Linguistics].
5.
BrecklerS. J.WigginsE. C. (1989). Affect versus evaluation in the structure of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25(3), 253–271.
6.
BoyerM. M. (2021). Aroused argumentation: How the news exacerbates motivated reasoning. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 28(1), 92–115.
7.
CareniniG.MooreJ. D. (2006). Generating and evaluating evaluative arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 170(11), 925–952.
8.
CaveS.DihalK. (2019). Hopes and fears for intelligent machines in fiction and reality. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(2), 74–78.
9.
CollaoK. (2024). OK Computer? Public attitudes to the uses of generative AI in news. Craft & Reuters Institute, University of Oxford.
10.
CoolsH.DiakopoulosN. (2024). Uses of generative AI in the newsroom: Mapping journalists’ perceptions of perils and possibilities. Journalism Practice, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2024.2394558
11.
CotterK.ReisdorfB. C. (2020). Algorithmic knowledge gaps: A new horizon of (digital) inequality. International Journal of Communication, 14, 745–765.
12.
DanaherJ. (2022). Techno-optimism: An analysis, an evaluation and a modest defence. Philosophy & Technology, 35, 54.
13.
DövelingK.Von ScheveC.KonijnE. A. (2011). Emotions and mass media: An interdisciplinary approach. In DövelingK.Von ScheveC.KonijnE. A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of emotions and mass media (pp. 1–12). Routledge.
14.
FletcherR.NielsenR. K. (2019). Generalised scepticism: How people navigate news on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 22(12), 1751–1769.
15.
HallinD. C.ManciniP. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge University Press.
16.
HanitzschT.Van DalenA.SteindlN. (2018). Caught in the nexus: A comparative and longitudinal analysis of public trust in the press. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(1), 3–23.
17.
HeiselbergL.BlomJ.Van DalenA. (2022). Automated news reading in the neural age: Audience reception and perceived credibility of a news broadcast read by a neural voice. Journalism Studies, 23(8), 896–914.
18.
HeiselbergL.StępińskaA. (2023). Transforming qualitative interviewing techniques for video conferencing platforms. Digital Journalism, 11(7), 1353–1364.
19.
HenestrosaA. L.GrevingH.KimmerleJ. (2023). The effects of AI authorship and evaluative information on the perception of a science journalism article. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107445.
20.
JangW.ChunJ. W.KimS.KangY. W. (2023). The effects of anthropomorphism on how people evaluate algorithm-written news. Digital Journalism, 11(1), 103–124.
21.
JangW.KwakD. H.BucyE. (2022). Knowledge of automated journalism moderates evaluations of algorithmically generated news. New Media & Society, 26(10), 5898–5922.
22.
JungJ.SongH.KimY.ImH.OhS. (2017). Intrusion of software robots into journalism: The public’s and journalists’ perceptions of news written by algorithms and human journalists. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 291–298.
23.
KimD.KimS. (2018). Newspaper journalists’ attitudes towards robot journalism. Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 340–357.
24.
KiritchenkoS.MohammadS. M. (2017). The effect of negators, modals, and degree adverbs on sentiment composition. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1712.01794
25.
LekkasD.GyordaJ. A.PriceG. D.WortzmanZ.JacobsonN. C. (2022). Using the COVID-19 pandemic to assess the influence of news affect on online mental health-related search behavior across the United States: Integrated sentiment analysis and the circumplex model of affect. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(1), e32731.
26.
LongoniC.FradkinA.CianL.PennycookG. (2022). News from generative Artificial Intelligence is believed less. FAccT ’22.
27.
LünenborgM.MaierT. (2018). The turn to affect and emotion in media studies. Media and Communication, 6(3), 1–4.
28.
MøllerL. A.Van DalenA.SkovsgaardM. (2024). A little of that human touch: How regular journalists redefine their expertise in the face of Artificial Intelligence. Journalism Studies, 26(1), 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2412212
29.
MalterudK. (2012). Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 40(8), 795–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494812465030
30.
MartinJ. R.WhiteP. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
MeijerI. C. (2020). Understanding the audience turn in journalism: From quality discourse to innovation discourse as anchoring practices 1995–2020. Journalism Studies, 21(16), 2326–2342.
32.
MenaP. (2025). Reducing misinformation credibility: How explanations impact the effectiveness of social media warning labels and fact-checking source recall. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990251347657
33.
MoriM. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35.
34.
MorosoliS.ResendezV.NaudtsL.HelbergerN.de VreeseC. (2024). “I Resist”: A study of individual attitudes towards generative AI in journalism and acts of resistance, risk perceptions, trust and credibility. Digital Journalism, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2435579
35.
Noain-SánchezA. (2022). Addressing the impact of Artificial Intelligence on journalism: The perception of experts, journalists and academics. Communication & Society, 35(3), 105–121.
36.
OlsenR.Blach-ØrstenM.WilligI. (2020). News in Denmark: From monopoly to multiplicity. In NielsenN.HellesR. (Eds.), Media and communication in Denmark (pp. 47–66). Routledge.
37.
OrgeretK. S. (2020). Discussing emotions in digital journalism. Digital Journalism, 8(2), 292–297.
38.
PattonM. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage.
39.
PosnerJ.RussellJ. A.PetersonB. S. (2005). The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 17(3), 715–734. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050340
40.
RemingtonN. A.FabrigarL. R.VisserP. S. (2000). Reexamining the circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 286–300.
41.
RosenfeldA.RichardsonA. (2019). Explainability in human–agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 33, 673–705.
42.
RussellJ. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178.
43.
SamuelJ.KhannaT.SundarS. (2024). Fear of artificial intelligence? NLP, ML and LLMs based discovery of AI-phobia and fear sentiment propagation by AI News [Working paper].
44.
SchrøderK. C.Blach-ØrstenM.EberholstM. K. (2024). Denmark. In NewmanN.FletcherR.RobertsonC. T.ArguedasA. R.NielsenR. K. (Eds.), Digital News Report 2024 (pp. 76–77). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
45.
ShinD. (2020). User perceptions of algorithmic decisions in the personalized AI system: Perceptual evaluation of fairness, accountability, transparency, and explainability. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(4), 541–565.
46.
ShinD. (2021). Why does explainability matter in news analytic systems? Proposing explainable analytic journalism. Journalism Studies, 22(8), 1047–1065.
47.
ShinD. D. (2022). How do people judge the credibility of algorithmic sources?AI & Society, 31, 81–96.
48.
ShinD. D. (2023). Algorithms, humans, and interactions: How do algorithms interact with people? Designing meaningful AI experiences. Routledge.
49.
ShinD. D.AkhtarF. (2024). Algorithmic inoculation against misinformation: How to build cognitive immunity against misinformation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 68(2), 153–175.
50.
ShinD. D.KoerberA.LimJ. S. (2024). Impact of misinformation from generative AI on user information processing: How people understand misinformation from generative AI. New Media & Society, 27(7), 4017–4047.
51.
ShinD. D.ZhouS. (2024). A value and diversity-aware news recommendation systems. Can algorithmic gatekeeping nudge readers to view diverse news?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990241246680
SundarS.WaddellT.JungE. H. (2016). The Hollywood robot syndrome media effects on older adults’ attitudes toward robots and adoption intentions [Conference session]. ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction (HRI), pp. 343–350.
54.
TaboadaM. (2016). Sentiment analysis: An overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2(1), 325–347.
55.
TandocE. C.Jr.YaoL. J.WuS. (2020). Man vs. machine? The impact of algorithm authorship on news credibility. Digital Journalism, 8(4), 548–562.
56.
ToffB.SimonF. M. (2023). “Or they could just not use it?” The paradox of AI disclosure for audience trust in news. SocArXiv Papers. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/mdvak
57.
ToulminS. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1958)
58.
van AtteveldtW.van der VeldenM. A. C. G.BoukesM. (2021). The validity of sentiment analysis: Comparing manual annotation, crowd-coding, dictionary approaches, and machine learning algorithms. Communication Methods and Measures, 15(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1869198
59.
van DalenA. (2023). Algorithmic gatekeeping for professional communicators: Power, trust, and legitimacy. Routledge.
60.
van DalenA. (2024). Revisiting the algorithms behind the headlines: How journalists respond to professional competition of Generative AI. Journalism Practice, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2024.2389209
61.
van EemerenF. H.HenkemansF. S. A. (2017). Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation. Routledge.
62.
WaddellT. F. (2018). A robot wrote this? How perceived machine authorship affects news credibility. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 236–255.
63.
Wahl-JorgensenK. (2020). An emotional turn in journalism studies?Digital Journalism, 8(2), 175–194.
64.
WhiteP. R. R. (2002). Appraisal—The language of evaluation and stance. In VerschuerenJ.ÖstmanJ.-O.BlommaertJ.BulcaenC. (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 1–3). John Benjamin.
65.
WölkerA.PowellT. E. (2018). Algorithms in the newsroom? News readers’ perceived credibility and selection of automated journalism. Journalism, 22(1), 86–103. (Original work published 2021)
66.
WuY. (2020). Is automated journalistic writing less biased? An experimental test of auto-written and human-written news stories. Journalism Practice, 14(8), 1008–1028.
67.
ZhengY.ZhongB.YangF. (2018). When algorithms meet journalism: The user perception to automated news in a cross-cultural context. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 266–275.
