Who dominates the discourse on text-generative artificial intelligence? The presence of performative, epistemic and evaluating experts in German newspaper coverage of an emerging technology

Table of contents

Bibliographic information

Cover of Volume: SCM Studies in Communication and Media Volume 15 (2026), Issue 2
Open Access Full access

SCM Studies in Communication and Media

Volume 15 (2026), Issue 2

Authors:
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Copyright Year
2026
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
ISSN-Print
2192-4007

Chapter information

Open Access Full access

Volume 15 (2026), Issue 2

Who dominates the discourse on text-generative artificial intelligence? The presence of performative, epistemic and evaluating experts in German newspaper coverage of an emerging technology

Authors:
ISSN-Print
2192-4007
ISSN-Online
2192-4007
Preview:

The public AI discourse is shaped by visions and interpretations that influence how this emerging technology is perceived, assessed, developed and applied in society. Generating acceptance for a particular vision has thus become a central objective for various societal actors engaging with the new technology. Recently, (tech) entrepreneurs appear to have been more successful than others in advancing their visions of AI. Assuming a powerful journalism in selecting actors and presenting their statements to the public, several scholars attribute this disproportionate influence to an economically biased media coverage of AI. We propose a conceptual framework that distinguishes actors according to their AI-related expertise and apply it in a semi-automated content analysis of the media coverage of text-generative AI tools such as ChatGPT in German print media. Within the articles published between November 2022 and April 2024 in ten newspapers, scientists and entrepreneurs were the most frequently represented groups. Business-related practical expertise regarding AI development dominated the debate compared to science-related epistemic knowledge about the technology’s functionality or its professional impact assessment. Our findings nuance the presumed dominance of economic actors in the mediated AI discourse by revealing a nearly balanced appearance of scientists and entrepreneurs. The results point to a shortage of independent evaluations of the technology’s functionality in the form of epistemic expertise.

Bibliography

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Power and progress: Our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity. Basic Books. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  2. Akbik, A., Blythe, D., & Vollgraf, R. (2018). Contextual string embeddings for sequence labeling. 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1638–1649. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  3. Albæk, E., Christiansen, P. M., & Togeby, L. (2003). Experts in the mass media: Researchers as sources in Danish daily newspapers, 1961–2001. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(4), 937–948. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900308000412 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  4. Albæk, E. (2011). The interaction between experts and journalists in news journalism. Journalism, 12(3), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884910392851 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  5. Banholzer, V. M. (2015). Das Politische des Technikjournalismus. Zur gesellschaftlichen Bedeutung ganzheitlicher Technikberichterstattung in Massenmedien. [The political of technology journalism.] Schriftenreihe der Technischen Hochschule Nürnberg Georg Simon Ohm, 3–38. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  6. Bareis, J., & Katzenbach, C. (2022). Talking AI into being: The narratives and imaginaries of national AI strategies and their performative politics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 47(5), 855–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211030007 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  7. Bartsch, A., Neuberger, C., Stark, B., Karnowski, V., Maurer, M., Pentzold, C., Quandt, T., Quiring, O., & Schemer, C. (2024). Epistemic authority in the digital public sphere. An integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. Communication Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtae020 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  8. Beck, U. (2003 [1998]). Politics of risk society. In D. Pepper, F. Webster, & G. Revill, Environmentalism. Critical concepts (pp. 256–266). Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  9. Beckers, K., & Van Aelst, P. (2019). Look who’s talking: An analysis of actors in television news (2003–2016). Journalism Studies, 20(6), 872–890. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1463169 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  10. Bengio, Y., Russell, S., Selman, B., Musk, E., Wozniak, S., Harari, Y. N., Mostaque, E., Yang, A., & 33.706 signees (2023, March 22). Pause giant AI experiments: An open letter. Future of Life Institute. Retrieved December 2024, from https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  11. Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2014). Wer ist ein Experte? Wissenssoziologische Grundlagen des Expertinneninterviews. [Who is an expert?] In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz, Interviews mit Experten (pp. 9–15). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19416-5_2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  12. Boyce, T. (2006). Journalism and expertise. Journalism Studies, 7(6), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616700600980652 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  13. Boykoff, J. (2012). US media coverage of the Cancún climate change conference. PS: Political Science & Politics, 45(2), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909651100206X Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  14. Brantner, C., & Saurwein, F. (2021). Covering technology risks and responsibility: Automation, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms in the media. International Journal of Communication, 15, 5074–5098. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  15. Brennen, J. S., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2018). An industry-led debate: How UK media cover artificial intelligence (Oxford Martin Programme on Misinformation, Science and Media, pp. 1–10). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  16. Brennen, J. S., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2022). What to expect when you’re expecting robots: Futures, expectations, and pseudo-artificial general intelligence in UK news. Journalism, 23(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920947535 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  17. Buz, C., Promies, N., Kohler, S., & Lehmkuhl, M. (2021). Validierung von NER-Verfahren zur automatisierten Identifikation von Akteuren in deutschsprachigen journalistischen Texten. [Validation of NER methods for the automated identification of actors in journalistic German texts.] Studies in Communication and Media, 10(4), 590–627. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2021-4-590 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  18. Carvalho, A., & Burgess, J. (2005). Cultural circuits of climate change in the U.K. broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1457–1469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00692.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  19. Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2017). Artificial intelligence and the ‘Good Society’: The US, EU, and UK approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  20. 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, 339–344. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314285 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  21. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  22. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2015). Expertise revisited, part I – Interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 54, 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.07.004 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  23. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2018). A sociological/philosophical perspective on expertise: The acquisition of expertise through socialization. In K. A. Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (2nd ed., pp. 21–32). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316480748.002 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  24. Conrad, P. (1999). Uses of expertise: Sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science, 8(4), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/302 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  25. Cools, H., Van Grop, B., & Opgenhaffen, M. (2024). Where exactly between utopia and dystopia? A framing analysis of AI and automation in US newspapers. Journalism, 25(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849221122647 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  26. Fischer, S., & Puschmann, C. (2021). Wie Deutschland über Algorithmen schreibt. Eine Analyse des Mediendiskurses über Algorithmen und Künstliche Intelligenz (2005–2020). [How Germany writes about algorithms.] Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved from https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/user_upload/Diskursanalyse_2021_Algorithmen.pdf Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  27. Flynn, J. (2014). System and lifeworld in Habermas’ theory of democracy. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 40(2), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453713518326 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  28. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13(12), 1881–1885. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620131203 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  29. Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news: The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336500200104 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  30. Gamer, M., Lemon, J., Fellows, I., & Singh, P. (2019). irr: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement (Version 0.84.1). https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.irr Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  31. Gärtner, L. (2023). Who builds the media agenda? Actors’ influence over German newspaper coverage of climate change. Universität Mannheim. Retrieved from https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bsz:180-madoc-643362 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  32. Gerhards, J., & Neidhardt, F. (1990). Strukturen und Funktionen moderner Öffentlichkeit: Fragestellungen und Ansätze. [Structures and functions of the modern public.] WZB Discussion Paper, No. FS III, 90–101. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  33. Gerhards, J./Schäfer, M. S. (2009). Two normative models of science in the public sphere: human genome sequencing in German and US mass media. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507082891 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  34. Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Polity Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  35. Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen [Expert interviews and qualitative content analysis as instruments for reconstructing studies] (4th ed.). VS Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  36. Grunwald, A. (2019). The inherently democratic nature of technology assessment. Science and Public Policy, 46(5), 702–709. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scz023 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  37. Habermas, J. (1998). Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats [Between facts and norms] (1st ed.). Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  38. Hagen, L. M. (1993). Opportune witnesses: An analysis of balance in the selection of sources and arguments in the leading German newspapers’ coverage of the census Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  39. issue. European Journal of Communication, 8(3), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323193008003004 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  40. Harroch, D. A., & Harroch, R. D. (2025, April 25). 15 quotes on the future of AI. Retrieved from https://www.allbusiness.com/quotes-on-the-future-of-ai Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  41. Hart, P. S., Chinn, S., & Soroka, S. (2020). Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication, 42(5), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020950735 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  42. Hauser, C. (2013). Ein Teilerfolg der Nanowissenschaften? Eine Inhaltsanalyse zur Nanoberichterstattung in repräsentativen Medien Österreichs, Deutschlands und der Schweiz. [A partial success of nanosciences?]. http://doi.org/10.1553/ITA-ms-12-04 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  43. Henschel, A. (2023, November 7). Kommunizieren wir an der KI-Forschung vorbei? [Do we talk past the AI research?] wissenschaftskommunikation.de. Retrieved from https://www.wissenschaftskommunikation.de/kommunizieren-wir-an-der-ki-forschung-vorbei-72093/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  44. Huber, B. (2014). Öffentliche Experten: Über die Medienpräsenz von Fachleuten. [Public experts.] Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-05405-2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  45. Kieslich, K., Došenović, P., & Marcinkowski, F. (2022). Everything, but hardly any science fiction: A topic analysis of German media coverage of AI. MeMo:KI, 7, 1–12. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  46. Kleemans, M., Schaap, G., & Hermans, L. (2017). Citizen sources in the news: Above and beyond the vox pop? Journalism, 18(4), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915620206 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  47. Köstler, L., & Ossewaarde, R. (2022). The making of AI society: AI futures frames in German political and media discourses. AI & SOCIETY, 37(1), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01161-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  48. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis.: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  49. Laursen, B., & Trapp, N. L. (2021). Experts or advocates: Shifting roles of central sources used by journalists in news stories? Journalism Practice, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1695537 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  50. Lehmkuhl, M., & Leidecker-Sandmann, M. (2019). „Visible scientists revisited“: Zum Zusammenhang von wissenschaftlicher Reputation und der Präsenz wissenschaftlicher Experten in der Medienberichterstattung über Infektionskrankheiten. [„Visible scientists revisited“: The correlation between scientific reputation and the presence of scientific experts in the media coverage of infectious diseases.] Publizistik, 64(4), 479–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-019-00530-1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  51. Leidecker-Sandmann, M., Attar, P., Schütz, A., & Lehmkuhl, M. (2022). Selected by expertise? Scientific experts in German news coverage of COVID-19 compared to other pandemics. Public Understanding of Science, 31(7), 847–866. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221095740 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  52. Leidecker-Sandmann, M., & Lehmkuhl, M. (2022). Politisierung oder Aufklärung? Analysen der Akteur:innen- und Aussagenstruktur in medialen Diskursen über gesundheitliche Risikophänomene und die Rolle wissenschaftlicher Expert:innen. [Politicisation or enlightenment?] Studies in Communication and Media, 11(3), 337–393. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2022-3-337 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  53. Luhmann, N. (1987). Die Differenzierung von Politik und Wirtschaft und ihre gesellschaftlichen Grundlagen. [The differentiation of politics and economy and its social basis.] In N. Luhmann, Soziologische Aufklärung 4: Beiträge zur funktionalen Differenzierung der Gesellschaft (pp. 32–48). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-01341-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  54. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  55. Marcinkowski, F., & Flaßhoff, F. G. (2024). Exploring the common wisdom on artificial intelligence and its political consequences. In M. W. Bauer & B. Schiele (Eds.). AI and common sense. Ambitions and frictions (pp. 127–142). Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  56. Meyer, M. (2010). The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication, 32(1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009359797 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  57. Milde, J., & Ruhrmann, G. (2006). Molekulare Medizin in deutschen TV-Wissenschaftsmagazinen. Ergebnisse von Journalisteninterviews und Inhaltsanalysen. [Molecular medicine in German TV science magazines.] Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 54(3), 430–456. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2006-3-430 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  58. Moore, A., & Stilgoe, J. (2009). Experts and anecdotes: The role of “anecdotal evidence” in public scientific controversies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(5), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243908329382 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  59. Mustaklem, M. (2024). What’s wrong with the robots? An Oxford researcher explains how we can better illustrate AI news stories [Interview by Adami, M.]. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Reuters Institute. Retrived from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/whats-wrong-robots-oxford-researcher-explains-how-we-can-better-illustrate-ai-news-stories Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  60. Neuberger, C., Bartsch, A., Reinemann, C., Fröhlich, R., Hanitzsch, T., & Schindler, J. (2019). Der digitale Wandel der Wissensordnung. Theorierahmen für die Analyse von Wahrheit, Wissen und Rationalität in der öffentlichen Kommunikation. [The digital transformation of the knowledge order.] Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 67(2), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2019-2-167 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  61. Nguyen, D., & Hekman, E. (2022). The news framing of artificial intelligence: A critical exploration of how media discourses make sense of automation. AI & SOCIETY, 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01511-1 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  62. Niemi, M. K., & Pitkänen, V. (2017). Gendered use of experts in the media: Analysis of the gender gap in Finnish news journalism. Public Understanding of Science, 26(3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515621470 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  63. Nisbet, M. C., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Biotechnology and the American media: The policy process and the elite press, 1970 to 1999. Science Communication, 23(4), 359–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300401 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  64. Nölleke, D. (2009). Die Konstruktion von Expertentum im Journalismus. [The construction of expertise in journalism.] In B. Dernbach & T. Quandt (Eds.), Spezialisierung im Journalismus (pp. 97–110). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91582-1_7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  65. Nölleke, D. (2013). Experten im Journalismus: Systemtheoretischer Entwurf und empirische Bestandsaufnahme [Experts in journalism.] (1st ed.). Nomos. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  66. Ouchchy, L., Coin, A., & Dubljević, V. (2020). AI in the headlines: The portrayal of the ethical issues of artificial intelligence in the media. AI & SOCIETY, 35(4), 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00965-5 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  67. Pedersen, T. L. (2024). patchwork: The composer of plots (Version 1.2.0, p. 1.2.0) [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.patchwork Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  68. Peters, H. P. (1994). Wissenschaftliche Experten in der öffentlichen Kommunikation über Technik, Umwelt und Risiken. [Scientific experts in the public communication about technology, environment, and risks.] In F. Neidhardt (Ed.), Öffentlichkeit, öffentliche Meinung, soziale Bewegungen. Sonderheft 34 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (pp. 162–190). Westdeutscher Verlag. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  69. Peters, H. P. (2014). Scientists as public experts. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (2nd ed., pp. 70–82). Routledge. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  70. Priaulx, N., Weinel, M., & Wrigley, A. (2016). Rethinking moral expertise. Health Care Analysis, 24(4), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-014-0282-7 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  71. R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.2). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  72. Reed, M. I. (1996). Expert power and control in late modernity: An empirical review and theoretical synthesis. Organization Studies, 17(4), 573–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069601700402 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  73. Roßmann, M. (2021). Vision as make-believe: How narratives and models represent sociotechnical futures. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8(1), 70–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1853395 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  74. Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2015). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy, 44(10), 1827–1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  75. Ryazanov, I., Öhman, C., & Björklund, J. (2024). How ChatGPT changed the media’s narratives on AI: A semi-automated narrative analysis through frame semantics. Minds and Machines, 35(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-024-09705-w Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  76. Schäfer, M. S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30(4), 475–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008326943 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  77. Scharkow, M. (2012). Automatische Inhaltsanalyse und maschinelles Lernen. [Automated content analysis and machine learning.] epubli. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  78. Scheufele, B., & Engelmann, I. (2013). Die publizistische Vermittlung von Wertehorizonten der Parteien: Normatives Modell und empirische Befunde zum Value-Framing und News Bias der Qualitäts- und Boulevardpresse bei vier Bundestagswahlen. [The journalistic communication of parties’ value horizons: Normative model and empirical findings on value framing and news bias in quality and tabloid press during four federal elections.] Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2013-4-532 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  79. Schimank, U. (2005). Die Entscheidungsgesellschaft. [The decision society.] VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80606-2 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  80. Schneider, S. (2019). The takeover of science communication: How science lost its leading role in the public discourse on carbon capture and storage research in daily newspapers in Germany. Geoscience Communication, 2(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-69-2019 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  81. Signorell, A. (2024). DescTools: Tools for descriptive statistics (Version 0.99.54). https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.DescTools Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  82. Singer, P. (2006). Moral experts. In E. Selinger & R. P. Crease (Eds.), The philosophy of expertise (pp. 187–190). Columbia University Press. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  83. Solomonoff, R. J. (1985). The time scale of artificial intelligence: Reflections on social effects. Human Systems Management, 5(2), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-1985-5207 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  84. Steele, J. E. (1995). Experts and the operational bias of television news: The case of Persian Gulf War. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(4), 799–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909507200404 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  85. Sun, S., Zhai, Y., Shen, B., & Chen, Y. (2020). Newspaper coverage of artificial intelligence: A perspective of emerging technologies. Telematics and Informatics, 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101433 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  86. Takahashi, B. (2011). Framing and sources: A study of mass media coverage of climate change in Peru during V ALCUE. Public Understanding of Science, 20(4), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509356502 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  87. Tavares, A. O., Areia, N. P., Mendes, J. M., & Pinto, H. (2022). The media coverage of climate change in Portugal. In A. N. Martins, G. Lizarralde, T. Egbelakin, L. Hobeica, J. M. Mendes, & A. Hobeica (Eds.), Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience (pp. 237–256). Elsevier. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  88. Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Discourse as interaction in society. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (Reprint, pp. 1–37). SAGE. Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  89. Vergeer, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence in the Dutch press: An analysis of topics and trends. Communication Studies, 71(3), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1733038 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  90. Vogelgesang, J., & Scharkow, M. (2012). Reliabilitätstests in Inhaltsanalysen: Eine Analyse der Dokumentationspaxis in Publizistik und Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft. [Reliability tests in content analyses.] Publizistik, 57(3), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-012-0154-9 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  91. Vrabič Dežman, D. (2024). Promising the future, encoding the past: AI hype and public media imagery. AI and Ethics, 4(3), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00474-x Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  92. Weinstein, B. D. (1993). What is an expert? Theoretical Medicine, 14(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993988 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  93. Weinstein, B. D. (1994). The possibility of ethical expertise. Theoretical Medicine, 15(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999220 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  94. Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T., Miller, E., Bache, S., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D., Spinu, V., … Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43). https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  95. Zhai, Y., Yan, J., Zhang, H., & Lu, W. (2020). Tracing the evolution of AI: Conceptualization of artificial intelligence in mass media discourse. Information Discovery and Delivery, 48(3), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-01-2020-0007 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  96. Zhu, H. (2021). kableExtra:Construct complex table with ‘kable’ and pipe syntax (Version 1.3.4). https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.kableExtra Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  97. Zorthian, J. (2023, May 16). OpenAI CEO Sam Altman asks congress to regulate AI. Retrieved from https://time.com/6280372/sam-altman-chatgpt-regulate-ai/ Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006
  98.   Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/2192-4007-2026-2-006

Citation

Download RIS Download BibTex

Downloads

Download chapter (PDF) Full download (PDF)

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Share via email

Media