Framing Generative AI: An Analysis of Impact,Quoted Sources,and Attributions of Responsibilities in U.S. Elite Media

Abstract

This article examined how elite news media frame the impact of generative AI on the cultural, social, economic, and political domains of life. We also analyzed the different types of ethical concerns surrounding generative AI and to whom the media attribute responsibility for creating and solving these ethical concerns. A content analysis of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal show that societal and economic impacts were the most frequently discussed when reporting about generative AI, while societal-level attributions were mentioned more often than individual-level attributions for responsibilities. We discuss theoretical implications and future research directions.

Keywords

generative AI framing theory responsibility attributions elite media media bias

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aarøe

(2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226.

Ali

S. M. A.

Gill

D. A.

(2022). Media framing and agenda setting (tone) in news coverage of Hurricane Harvey: A content analysis of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Houston Chronicle from 2017 to 2018. Weather, Climate, and Society, 14(2), 637–649.

Altheide

D. L.

(1987). Format and symbols in TV coverage of terrorism in the United States and Great Britain. International Studies Quarterly, 31(2), 161–176.

Bakke

N. A.

Barland

(2022). Disruptive innovations and paradigm shifts in journalism as a business: From advertisers first to readers first and traditional operational models to the AI factory. Sage Open, 12(2), Article 21582440221094819.

Baldassarre

M. T.

Caivano

Fernandez Nieto

Gigante

Ragone

(2023). The social impact of generative AI: An analysis on ChatGPT. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (pp. 363–373). Association for Computing Machinery.

Bennett

W. L.

(1993). Constructing publics and their opinions. Political Communication, 10(2), 101–120.

Brennen

J. S.

Howard

P. N.

Nielsen

R. K.

(2018). An industry-led debate: How UK media cover artificial intelligence. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

Brynjolfsson

(2022). The Turing trap: The promise & peril of human-like artificial intelligence. Daedalus, 151(2), 272–287.

Brynjolfsson

McAfee

(2016). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company.

10.

Bughin

Seong

Manyika

Chui

Joshi

(2018, September 4). Notes from the AI Frontier: Modeling the impact of AI on the World Economy. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/artificial-intelligence/notes-from-the-ai-frontier-modeling-the-impact-of-ai-on-the-world-economy

11.

Bughin

Hazan

Lund

Dahlström

Wiesinger

Subramaniam

(2018, May 23). Skill shift: Automation and the future of the workforce. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/skill-shift-automation-and-the-future-of-the-workforce

12.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Anderson

A. A.

Choi

D.-H.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Liang

Ladwig

P. J.

Xenos

Dudo

(2012). Coverage of emerging technologies: A comparison between print and online media. New Media & Society, 14(6), 1039–1059.

13.

Chuan

C.-H.

Tsai

W.-H. S.

Cho

S. Y.

(2019). Framing artificial intelligence in American newspapers. Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 339–344). Association for Computing Machinery.

14.

Conway

B. A.

Kenski

Wang

(2015). The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363–380.

15.

Cools

Van Gorp

Opgenhaffen

(2024). Where exactly between utopia and dystopia? A framing analysis of AI and automation in US newspapers. Journalism, 25(1), 3–21.

16.

D’Alessio

Allen

(2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50(4), 133–156.

17.

de-Lima-Santos

M.-F.

Ceron

(2022). Artificial intelligence in news media: Current perceptions and future outlook. Journalism and Media, 3(1), 13–26.

18.

Duffy

(2022). Framing the Green New Deal and climate change: A content analysis of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Portland State University.

19.

Entman

R. M.

(1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.

20.

European Parliament. Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union. (2020). The use of artificial intelligence in the cultural and creative sectors: Concomitant expertise for INI report : research for CULT Committee. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/602011

21.

Farina

Lavazza

(2025). Ethical considerations and policy interventions concerning the impact of generative AI tools in the economy and in society. AI and Ethics, 5(1), 737–745.

22.

Farrow

(2023, August 21). Elon Musk’s shadow rule. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-shadow-rule

23.

Feezell

J. T.

Glazier

R. A.

Boydstun

A. E.

(2021). Framing, identity, and responsibility: Do episodic vs. thematic framing effects vary by target population? Politics, Groups, and Identities, 9(2), 347–368.

24.

Gamson

W. A.

(1989). News as framing: Comments on Graber. American Behavioral Scientist, 33(2), 157–161.

25.

Ghosh

Venkit

P. N.

Gautam

Wilson

Caliskan

(2024). Do Generative AI Models Output Harm while Representing Non-Western Cultures: Evidence from A Community-Centered Approach (Version 3). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2407.14779

26.

Gilens

(1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. University of Chicago Press.

27.

Gilliam

F. D.

Iyengar

(2000). Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), 560–573.

28.

Ginosar

Reich

(2022). Obsessive-activist journalists: A new model of journalism. Journalism Practice, 16(4), 660–680.

29.

Goldman

Gupta

Israelsen

(2024). Political polarization in financial news. Journal of Financial Economics, 155, 103816.

30.

Goodman

J. R.

Goodman

B. P.

(2006). Beneficial or biohazard? How the media frame biosolids. Public Understanding of Science, 15(3), 359–375.

31.

Gross

(2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192.

32.

Hart

P. S.

Feldman

(2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on U.S. network news. Science Communication, 36(3), 325–351.

33.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

34.

Hubbell

A. P.

Dearing

J. W.

(2003). Local newspapers, community partnerships, and health improvement projects: Their roles in a comprehensive community initiative. Journal of Community Health, 28(5), 363–376.

35.

(2023, February 2). ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base. https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/

36.

Iyengar

(1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12(1), 19–40.

37.

Iyengar

(1996). Framing responsibility for political issues. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546(1), 59–70.

38.

Khanjani

(2020). What matters most? Comparing coverage of Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Iran deal in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The Journal for Interdisciplinary Middle Eastern Studies, 6, 65–89.

39.

Kim

(2019). The hostile media phenomenon: Testing the effect of news framing on perceptions of media bias. Communication Research Reports, 36(1), 35–44.

40.

Kim

K. S.

(2011). Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the news media: The hostile media approach. Public Understanding of Science, 20(5), 690–705.

41.

Kim

S.-H.

Carvalho

J. P.

Davis

A. C.

(2010). Talking about poverty: News framing of who is responsible for causing and fixing the problem. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(3–4), 563–581.

42.

Kim

S.-H.

Scheufele

D. A.

Shanahan

(2002). Think about it this way: Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 7–25.

43.

Kim

S.-H.

Willis

L. A.

(2007). Talking about obesity: News framing of who is responsible for causing and fixing the problem. Journal of Health Communication, 12(4), 359–376.

44.

Langer

A. I.

Gruber

J. B.

(2021). Political agenda setting in the hybrid media system: Why legacy media still matter a great deal. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(2), 313–340.

45.

Lee

Len-Ríos

M. E.

(2014). Defining obesity: Second-level agenda setting attributes in Black newspapers and general audience newspapers. Journal of Health Communication, 19(10), 1116–1129.

46.

Lombard

Snyder-Duch

Bracken

C. C.

(2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604.

47.

Matthes

(2009). Framing responsibility for political issues: The preference for dispositional attributions and the effects of news frames. Communication Research Reports, 26(1), 82–86.

48.

McKeever

B. W.

Riffe

Carpentier

F. D.

(2012). Perceived hostile media bias, presumed media influence, and opinions about immigrants and immigration. Southern Communication Journal, 77(5), 420–437.

49.

McKinsey & Company. (2024, April 2). What is generative AI? https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-generative-ai

50.

Mortensen

D. T.

Pissarides

C. A.

(1998). Technological progress, job creation, and job destruction. Review of Economic Dynamics, 1(4), 733–753.

51.

Mortensen

(2024, December 2). How many users does ChatGPT have? Statistics & facts. https://seo.ai/blog/how-many-users-does-chatgpt-havehttps://seo.ai/blog/how-many-users-does-chatgpt-have

52.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2009). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In Communicating science (pp. 54–81). Routledge.

53.

Niven

(2003). Objective evidence on media bias: Newspaper coverage of congressional party switchers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(2), 311–326.

54.

Peffley

Glass

Avery

(2001). Public perceptions of bias in the news media: Taking a closer look at the hostile media phenomenon. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting.

55.

Press Gazette. (2025). US newspaper circulations 2024: LA Times loses quarter of print circulation in a year. https://pressgazette.co.uk/north-america/top-25-us-newspaper-circulations-2024/

56.

Reese

S. D.

Shoemaker

P. J.

(2016). A media sociology for the networked public sphere: The hierarchy of influences model. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 389–410.

57.

Reid

J. C.

Craig

M. O.

(2021). Is it a rally or a riot? Racialized media framing of 2020 protests in the United States. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 19(3–4), 291–310.

58.

Saheb

(2024). Mapping ethical artificial intelligence policy landscape: A mixed method analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 30(2), Article 9.

59.

Scheufele

D. A.

(1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122.

60.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(supplement_4), 13585–13592.

61.

Scheufele

D. A.

Tewksbury

(2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20.

62.

Schuett

(2023). Defining the scope of AI regulations. Law, Innovation and Technology, 15(1), 60–82.

63.

Shoemaker

P. J.

Reese

S. D.

(1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). Longman.

64.

Solaiman

Talat

Agnew

Ahmad

Baker

Blodgett

S. L.

Chen

Daumé, III

Dodge

Duan

Evans

Friedrich

Ghosh

Gohar

Hooker

Jernite

Kalluri

Lusoli

Leidinger

, . . . Subramonian

(2024). Evaluating the social impact of generative AI systems in systems and society (arXiv:2306.05949). arXiv.

65.

Stackpole

(2023, June 5). Why generative AI needs a creative human touch. MIT Sloan. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/why-generative-ai-needs-a-creative-human-touch

66.

Straub

A. M.

(2021). “Natural disasters don’t kill people, governments kill people:” hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico–recreancy, and “risk society.” Natural Hazards, 105(2), 1603–1621.

67.

Xiao

(2024). Intermedia attribute agenda setting between the U.S. mainstream newspapers and Twitter: A two-study analysis of the paradigm and driving forces of the agenda flow. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 101(2), 451–476.

68.

Tripathi

Kumar

(2025). Ethical practices of artificial intelligence: A management framework for responsible AI deployment in businesses. AI and Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00670-3

69.

Wirz

C. D.

Shao

Bao

Howell

E. L.

Monroe

Chen

(2022). Media systems and attention cycles: Volume and topics of news coverage on COVID-19 in the United States and China. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 99(4), 1048–1071.

70.

(2013). Framing occupy wall street: A content analysis of The New York Times and USA Today. International Journal of Communication, 7, 2412–2432.

71.

Zhang

(2018). Intermedia agenda-setting effect in corporate news: Examining the influence of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal on local newspapers. Journal of Applied Journalism & Media Studies, 7(2), 245–263

72.

Zhuo

T. Y.

Huang

Chen

Xing

(2023). Red teaming ChatGPT via jailbreaking: Bias, robustness, reliability and toxicity (arXiv:2301.12867). arXiv.