Transparency in AI usage within fact-checking platforms in Spain and its ethical challenges
Article Sidebar
814)How to Cite
2215
Abstract
Transparency –encompassing methodological, financial, and source-related aspects, as well as the tools employed– is central to the operations of professional fact-checking platforms. However, the growing adoption of artificial intelligence tools in fact-checking introduces new ethical challenges. This research investigates the extent to which these platforms believe they should disclose their use of AI and assesses the current practices on their websites regarding this technology. The study employs a qualitative methodology, including semi-structured interviews with professionals from accredited Spanish verification platforms and content analysis of these organizations’ websites. The findings indicate that transparency in AI usage is widely regarded as an ethical imperative. Nevertheless, the application of this standard often becomes ambiguous when addressing specific practices and cases. Many professionals question the necessity of explicitly disclosing AI usage when the technology primarily supports the verification and is overseen by human reviewers. Additionally, a lack of understanding of AI’s functionality sometimes hinders the ability to identify whether the tools employed incorporate AI. The content analysis also reveals that explicit mentions of AI use on the websites are rare and that platforms lack open-access manuals or protocols that outline and regulate their AI practices.
References
Agencia EFE (2024). Nuevo libro del estilo urgente. Retrieved from https://recursos.efe.com/objetos_app/libroestilo/libroDelEstiloUrgente.pdf
Arias-Jiménez, B., Rodríguez-Hidalgo, C., Mier-Sanmartín, C. & Coronel-Salas, G. (2023). Use of chatbots for news verification. In P. C. López-López, D. Barredo, A. Torres-Toukoumidis, A. De-Santis & O. Avilés (Eds.), Communication and applied technologies. Smart innovation, systems and technologies, vol. 318 (pp. 133-143). Singapur: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6347-6_12
Beckett, C. & Yaseen, M. (2023). Generating Change. A global survey of what news organisations are doing with AI. The London School of Economics and Political Science, Google News Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.journalismai.info/research/2023-generating-change
Bélair-Gagnon, V., Larsen, R., Graves, L. & Westlund, O. (2023). Knowledge Work in Platform Fact-Checking Partnerships. International Journal of Communication, 17, 1169-1189. Retrieved from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/19851/4044
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (2024, February 7). BBC AI Principles. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/supplying/working-with-us/ai-principles/
Castellet, A., Varona, D. & Álvarez García, S. (2023). Capítulo 6. Verificadores en España: una visión de su lógica de negocio. Espejo De Monografías De Comunicación Social, 13, 119-136. https://doi.org/10.52495/c6.emcs.13.p99
Cotino-Hueso, L. (2022). Transparencia y explicabilidad de la inteligencia artificial y “compañía” (comunicación, interpretabilidad, inteligibilidad, auditabilidad, testabilidad, comprobabilidad, simulabilidad...). Para qué, para quién y cuánta. In L. Cotino-Hueso & J. Castellanos-Claramunt (Eds.), Transparencia y explicabilidad de la inteligencia artificial (pp. 25-67). Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch Monografías. Retrieved from https://www.uv.es/cotino/publicaciones/libroabiertotp22.pdf
Cuartielles, R. & Carral, U. (In Press). Herramientas de IA contra la desinformación populista. In F. Guerrero-Solé & L. Pérez-Altable (Eds.), La democracia en riesgo. ¿Internet e IA al servicio de los populismos? Barcelona: UOC.
Cuartielles, R., Ramon-Vegas, X. & Pont-Sorribes, C. (2023). Retraining fact-checkers: The emergence of ChatGPT in information verification. Profesional de la información, 32(5), e320515. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.sep.15
Deuze, M. (2005). What is Journalism?: Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism, 6(4), 442-464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884905056815
Diakopoulos, N. & Koliska, M. (2017). Algorithmic Transparency in the News Media. Digital Journalism, 5(7), 809-828. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1208053
Diakopoulos, N. (2015). Algorithmic Accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 398-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976411
European Commission, High-Level Expert Group on AI (2019, April 8). Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Retrieved from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
European Fact-Checking Standards Network (2022, Summer). Code of Standards. Retrieved from https://efcsn.com/code-of-standards/
Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A. & Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights-based Approaches to Principles for AI. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Retrieved from https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/42160420
Flores-Vivar, J. M. (2020). Datos masivos, algoritmización y nuevos medios frente a desinformación y fake news. Bots para minimizar el impacto en las organizaciones. Comunicación y hombre, 16, 101-114. https://doi.org/10.32466/eufv-cyh.2020.16.601.101-114
Franganillo, J. (2022). Contenido generado por inteligencia artificial: oportunidades y amenazas. Anuario ThinkEPI, 16. https://doi.org/10.3145/thinkepi.2022.e16a24
Graves, L. (2018). Understanding the promise and limits of automated fact-checking. Reuters Institute, University of Oxford. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-02/graves_factsheet_180226%20FINAL.pdf
Graves, L. (2016). Deciding what’s True. The rise of political fact-checking in American journalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Graves, L. & Cherubini, F. (2016). The rise of fact-checking sites in Europe. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/rise-fact-checking-sites-europe
Guo, Z., Schlichtkrull, M. & Vlachos, A. (2022). A survey on automated fact-checking. Transactions of the association for computational linguistics, 10, 178-206. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00454
Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and machines, 30(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8
Herring, S. C. (2010). Web content analysis: Expanding the paradigm. In J. Hunsinger, L. Klastrup & M. Allen (Eds.), International handbook of Internet research (pp. 233-249). Dordrecht/ Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9789-8
International Fact-Checking Network (2020, April). Code of Principles. Retrieved from https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/know-more/the-commitments-of-the-code-of-principles
Jobin, A., Ienca, M. & Vayena, E. (2019). The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Kovach, B. & Rosenstiel, T. (2007). The Elements of Journalism: What Newspeople Should Know and the Public Should Expect, Completely Updated and Revised. New York: Three Rivers Press.
La-Barbera, D., Roitero, K. & Mizzaro, S. (2022). A hybrid human-in-the-loop framework for fact checking. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on natural language for artificial intelligence (NL4AI 2022), 3287. Retrieved from https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3287/paper4.pdf
Larraz, I., Míguez, R. & Sallicati, F. (2023). Semantic similarity models for automated fact-checking: ClaimCheck as a claim matching tool. Profesional de la Información, 32(3), e320321. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.may.21
López-Pan, F. & Rodríguez-Rodríguez, J. M. (2020). El fact-checking en España. Plataformas, prácticas y rasgos distintivos. Estudios sobre el mensaje periodístico, 26(3), 1045-1065. https://doi.org/10.5209/esmp.65246
Mantelero, A. (2022). Beyond Data: Human Rights, Ethical and Social Impact Assessment in AI. Berlin: Springer, Information Technology and Law Series.
Moreno-Gil, V., Ramon-Vegas, X., Rodríguez-Martínez, R. & Mauri-Ríos, M. (2023). Explanatory Journalism within European Fact Checking Platforms: An Ally against Disinformation in the Post-COVID-19 Era. Societies, 13, 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13110237
Moreno-Gil, V., Ramon-Vegas, X. & Mauri-Ríos, M. (2022). Bringing journalism back to its roots: examining fact-checking practices, methods, and challenges in the Mediterranean context. Profesional de la Información, 31(2), e310215. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2022.mar.15
Moreno-Gil, V., Ramon-Vegas, X. & Rodríguez-Martínez, R. (2021). Fact-checking interventions as counteroffensives to disinformation growth: Standards, values, and practices in Latin America and Spain. Media and Communication, 9(1), 251-263. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3443
Noain-Sánchez, A. (2022). Addressing the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Journalism: the perception of experts, journalists and academics. Communication & Society, 35(3), 105-121. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.35.3.105-121
Pasquetto, I. V., Jahani, E., Atreja, S. & Baum, M. (2022). Social debunking of misinformation on WhatsApp: the case for strong and in-group ties. In Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, 6 (pp. 1-35). https://doi.org/10.1145/3512964
Pérez-Curiel, C., Rúas-Araújo, J. & Paiagua-Rojano, F. J. (2023). Desinformación y verificación de noticias políticas en las aulas: DEBATrue como aplicación digital para la educación mediática. In C. Hervás-Gómez, P. Román Graván, J. García Jiménez & C. Argüello Gutiérrez (Coords.), Conexiones digitales: las tecnologías como puentes de aprendizaje (pp. 67-83). Madrid: Dykinson.
Plaisance, P. L. (2007). Transparency: An Assessment of the Kantian Roots of a Key Element in Media Ethics Practice. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2–3), 187-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/08900520701315855
Ramon-Vegas, X. & Mauri-Ríos, M. (2020). Participación de la audiencia en la rendición de cuentas de los medios de comunicación: instrumentos de accountability y su percepción por parte de los ciudadanos españoles (Audience participation for media accountability: instruments and their perception by Spanish citizens). RAEIC, Revista de la Asociación Española de Investigación de la Comunicación, 7(13), 50-76 https://doi.org/10.24137/raeic.7.13.3
Redondo, M. (2018). Verificación digital para periodistas. Manual contra bulos y desinformación internacional. Barcelona: UOC.
Reporters sans frontières, RSF (2023, November 10). Paris Charter on AI and Journalism. Retrieved from https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/medias/file/2023/11/Paris%20Charter%20on%20AI%20and%20Journalism.pdf
Rúas-Araújo, J. & Fontenla-Pedreira, J. (2024). Contra la desinformación en red: la necesidad de una mirada crítica y enfoque multidisciplinar [Against online disinformation: the need for a critical look and multidisciplinary approach]. Infonomy, 2(2) e24024. https://doi.org/10.3145/infonomy.24.024
Rubin, V. L. (2022). Misinformation and Disinformation: Detecting Fakes with the Eye and AI. Cham: Springer.
Singer, J. B. (2021). Border patrol: the rise and role of fact-checkers and their challenge to journalists’ normative boundaries. Journalism, 22(8), 1929-1946. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920933137
Thorne, J. & Vlachos, A. (2018). Automated fact checking: task formulations, methods and future directions. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 3346-3359). Retrieved from https://aclanthology.org/C18-1283
UNESCO (2022). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
Ventura Pocino, P. (2021). Algoritmes a les redaccions: Reptes i recomanacions per dotar la intel·ligència artificial dels valors ètics del periodisme. Consell de la Informació de Catalunya. Retrieved from https://fcic.periodistes.cat/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/algorismes_a_les_redaccions_CAT_.pdf
Vizoso, A. & Vázquez-Herrero, J. (2019). Fact-checking platforms in Spanish. Features, organisation and method. Communication & Society, 32(1), 127-142. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.32.37819
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
Wimmer, R. D. & Dominick, J. R. (2013). Mass media research: an introduction. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Section
Rights transfer
By submitting the article for evaluation and subsequent publication in Communication & Society, the AUTHOR grants exclusive economic and/or exploitation rights: reproduction, distribution, public communication, transformation/translation/creation of derivative works, and commercialisation to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, for the maximum legal period in force -the author's lifetime and seventy years after his or her death or declaration of death-, in any country, and in any of the current and future publishing modalities, both in print and electronic versions.
In the event that the article is not accepted for publication, this transfer of rights lapses with the communication of the refusal to the AUTHOR.
The AUTHOR affirms that the article is unpublished, that it has not been sent simultaneously to another publication medium and that the rights have not been transferred exclusively previously. He is responsible to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service for the authorship and originality of his work, as well as for all pecuniary charges that may arise for the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, in favor of third parties due to actions, claims or conflicts arising from the breach of obligations by the AUTHOR.
Dissemination Policy
The authors agree to the Publisher Policy, published at Open policy finder - Jisc, whereby the editor allows the author to exclusively disseminate the final editorial version through the institutional repository, once the embargo period (1 year) of the journal has expired. Dissemination of the submitted version (preprint) or the version evaluated prior to the editorial version (postprint) is not allowed. The objective of this policy is to avoid the loss of citations that are received from the data of versions different from those of the final and definitive version, which is published and indexed in the databases. If the citation received contains any minimal difference with the indexed data, it will be registered as a reference instead of being considered as a computable citation, which could be detrimental to the journal and the author. Therefore, it is important to follow this policy and share only the final version of the article.