AI: more and more readers use it to get informed

A chatbot is useful for understanding a news story, much less so for writing it instead of a journalist. This is the only apparent paradox emerging from the new report by the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford. The most interesting finding is the growing number of people turning to artificial intelligence to navigate current affairs and the world of news, while mistrust of machine-produced information remains strong. Technology is nevertheless gaining ground in readers’ habits without obtaining, at least for now, a free pass into newsrooms. The third edition of the “Generative AI and News Report”, published on 29 October, is based on an online survey conducted by YouGov between 14 August and 28 September 2026 in nine countries: Argentina, Australia, Denmark, Finland, France, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. Italy is not included. In the six countries also covered by previous surveys, the proportion of respondents who say they used AI to access news in the past week rose from 3% in 2024 to 6% in 2025 and 9% this year. Across all nine countries, the figure is 8%. It remains a minority habit, then, but one that has tripled in two years within the comparable group.

But what findings emerge? Rather than an alternative newspaper, artificial intelligence seems to function as a tool for exploring issues in greater depth. Among those who use it for news, 49% ask follow-up questions about a story, while 46% seek the latest updates. Dialogue, in other words, becomes part of the news experience. It is not just about knowing what happened, but asking for explanations, clarifying a point and reconstructing the context.

The report explains that this trend is part of a broader change. In the six countries monitored since 2024, weekly use of AI to obtain information in general, not necessarily news, has risen from 11% to 38%. Weekly use of generative systems for any purpose reaches 51%, compared with 34% in 2025. Adoption, as was evident, is greater among young people, those with higher incomes and levels of education, and people in skilled occupations. The main reasons given for using these tools are the convenience of obtaining a faster, simpler answer, cited by 64%, and the ability to interact in natural language, mentioned by 56%. Only 21% say they receive more reliable information than from other sources. The perceived advantage is primarily practical: fewer steps, less effort and an immediate answer. It is a warning bell that should prompt traditional media, and “human” journalists in particular, to reflect. Outsourcing information to machines creates enormous risks.

But there is also a positive aspect to this picture. When the question concerns who should produce the news, the public changes its attitude. Across the nine countries, just 12% say they are very or somewhat comfortable with journalistic content produced entirely by AI. The proportion rises to 19% when human oversight is provided. These assessments have remained broadly stable since 2024, despite the rapid growth in the use of generative tools. This is therefore not an indiscriminate rejection of every application, but a particularly pronounced resistance to replacing journalistic work. The boundary also runs through individual tasks. Translation and spelling or grammar corrections find greater acceptance. It is harder to accept AI producing news reports and features, and even more problematic to entrust it with commentary and opinion. In short, the public distinguishes between technology that assists journalists and technology that takes their place. The decisive word, if we may offer our own interpretation, is trust. Respondents tend to favour news that is less expensive to produce and more up to date. For publishers, the challenge is therefore not just introducing new tools: it concerns the ability to explain how they are used and what human control over content remains. The report finds that pessimism about AI use in the media is linked above all to a perception of insufficient honesty in disclosing its use. Readers more readily accept technological assistance than an opaque delegation: they want more convenient answers, but do not seem willing to give up the safeguards of “human” journalism.