FAccT-Checked: A Narrative Review of Authority Reconfigurations and Retention in AI-Mediated Journalism

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.21864v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 17:00:15 GMT
• Title: FAccT-Checked: A Narrative Review of Authority Reconfigurations and Retention in AI-Mediated Journalism
• Abstract summary: We provide a comprehensive theoretical framework for addressing how concerns on fairness, accountability and transparency emerge.<n>We identify and describe two concurrent authority reconfigurations driven by AI adoption.<n>We examine participatory approaches to AI design and deployment in journalism as potential mechanisms for retaining or reclaiming editorial authority.
• Score: 3.9613087041271573
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Building on recent interpretivist approaches, we conduct a critical narrative review across journalism studies, human-computer interaction, and FAccT scholarship, conceptualizing editorial authority as the conjunction of decision rights, epistemic warrant, and responsibility. We provide a comprehensive theoretical framework for addressing how concerns on fairness, accountability and transparency emerge, interact, and persist within AI mediated journalistic practice. We identify and describe two concurrent authority reconfigurations driven by AI adoption. First, an internal migration of authority, in which editorial judgment is progressively deferred to large language models (LLMs) embedded within newsroom workflows. This migration occurs not through explicit policy decisions, but through interactional, cognitive, and organizational mechanisms that legitimize AI generated outputs while obscuring responsibility and weakening individual and professional agency. Second, we analyze an external migration of authority, whereby decision making power shifts from news organizations toward platforms, vendors, and infrastructural providers that supply AI systems and distribution channels, exacerbating existing power asymmetries within the media ecosystem. Unaddressed, these reconfigurations risk rendering fairness hard to maintain, accountability difficult to assign and transparency performative. We examine participatory approaches to AI design and deployment in journalism as potential mechanisms for retaining or reclaiming editorial authority. We critically assess both their promise and their structural limitations, highlighting how participation can either meaningfully redistribute authority or function as a tokenistic practice that leaves underlying power relations intact.

Related papers

• The Authority Resolution Framework: A Five-Domain Ontology for Governing Who and What Decides, at Scale [0.0]
  This paper introduces the Authority Resolution Framework (ARF), a five-domain ontology for representing and resolving authority.<n>ARF defines the Authority Relation (AR) as a cross-domain primitive binding an actor, action, object, bounded context, justification chain, and a calibration measure.<n>ARF is designed to support AI agents in determining the provenance, scope and contextual validity of authority before executing consequential actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-16T16:05:50Z)
• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• Agents of Chaos [50.53354213047402]
  We report an exploratory red-teaming study of autonomous language-model-powered agents deployed in a live laboratory environment.<n>Twenty AI researchers interacted with the agents under benign and adversarial conditions.<n>Our findings establish the existence of security-, privacy-, and governance-relevant vulnerabilities in realistic deployment settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:28:48Z)
• How should AI knowledge be governed? Epistemic authority, structural transparency, and the case for open cognitive graphs [10.759885069667066]
  This paper reconceptualizes educational AI as public educational cognitive infrastructure.<n>By shifting attention from access to governance conditions, the proposed framework offers a structural approach to aligning educational AI with democratic accountability and public responsibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T23:27:01Z)
• Towards Responsible and Explainable AI Agents with Consensus-Driven Reasoning [4.226647687395254]
  This paper presents a Responsible(RAI) and Explainable(XAI) AI Agent Architecture for production-grade agentic based on multi-model consensus and reasoning-layer governance.<n>In the proposed design, a consortium of heterogeneous LLM and VLM agents independently generates candidate outputs from a shared input context.<n>A dedicated reasoning agent then performs structured consolidation across these outputs, enforcing safety and policy constraints, mitigating hallucinations and bias, and producing auditable, evidence-backed decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-25T14:49:25Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems.<n>Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• AI and the Transformation of Accountability and Discretion in Urban Governance [1.9152655229960793]
  The study synthesizes insights to propose guiding principles for responsible AI integration in decision-making processes.<n>The analysis argues that AI does not simply restrict or enhance discretion but redistributes it across institutional levels.<n>It may simultaneously strengthen managerial oversight, enhance decision-making consistency, and improve operational efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T18:11:39Z)
• Aligning AI with Public Values: Deliberation and Decision-Making for Governing Multimodal LLMs in Political Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
  How AI models should deal with political topics has been discussed, but it remains challenging and requires better governance.<n>This paper examines the governance of large language models through individual and collective deliberation, focusing on politically sensitive videos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Inverse Online Learning: Understanding Non-Stationary and Reactionary Policies [79.60322329952453]
  We show how to develop interpretable representations of how agents make decisions. By understanding the decision-making processes underlying a set of observed trajectories, we cast the policy inference problem as the inverse to this online learning problem. We introduce a practical algorithm for retrospectively estimating such perceived effects, alongside the process through which agents update them. Through application to the analysis of UNOS organ donation acceptance decisions, we demonstrate that our approach can bring valuable insights into the factors that govern decision processes and how they change over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-14T17:40:42Z)
• Accountability in AI: From Principles to Industry-specific Accreditation [4.033641609534416]
  Recent AI-related scandals have shed a spotlight on accountability in AI. This paper draws on literature from public policy and governance to make two contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T16:37:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.