PropertyValue
?:about
?:abstract
  • This meta-analysis summarizes evidence on how readers perceive the credibility, quality, and readability of automated news in comparison to human-written news. Overall, the results, which are based on experimental and descriptive evidence from 12 studies with a total of 4,473 participants, showed no difference in readers’ perceptions of credibility, a small advantage for human-written news in terms of quality, and a huge advantage for human-written news with respect to readability. Experimental comparisons further suggest that participants provided higher ratings for credibility, quality, and readability simply when they were told that they were reading a human-written article. These findings may lead news organizations to refrain from disclosing that a story was automatically generated, and thus underscore ethical challenges that arise from automated journalism. (xsd:string)
?:contributor
?:dateModified
  • 2020 (xsd:gyear)
?:datePublished
  • 2020 (xsd:gyear)
?:doi
  • 10.17645/mac.v8i3.3019 ()
?:duplicate
?:hasFulltext
  • true (xsd:boolean)
is ?:hasPart of
?:inLanguage
  • en (xsd:string)
?:isPartOf
?:issn
  • 2183-2439 ()
?:issueNumber
  • 3 (xsd:string)
?:linksDOI
is ?:mainEntity of
?:name
  • Automated Journalism: A Meta-Analysis of Readers’ Perceptions of Human-Written in Comparison to Automated News (xsd:string)
?:provider
?:publicationType
  • Zeitschriftenartikel (xsd:string)
  • journal_article (en)
?:sourceInfo
  • GESIS-SSOAR (xsd:string)
  • In: Media and Communication, 8, 2020, 3, 50-59 (xsd:string)
rdf:type
?:url
?:volumeNumber
  • 8 (xsd:string)