ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Commun.
Sec. Science and Environmental Communication
Volume 10 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2025.1599854
This article is part of the Research TopicAI and CommunicationView all 6 articles
Voices and Media Frames in the Public Debate on Artificial Intelligence: Comparing Results from Manual and Automated Content Analysis
Provisionally accepted
- 1Université de Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
- 2University of Bern, Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has been accompanied by extensive reporting by news media, serving as a forum for public debate about its risks and potential for society. This study sheds light on this AI debate in news media by using the theoretical concepts of standing and framing and by combining manual and automated content analysis (reversed Joint Sentiment Topic model (rJST) and Named Entity Recognition (NER)). Based on news articles published in Swiss, German, UK, and US quality and tabloid outlets between November 2020 and November 2022, we examine which actors have standing in the AI debate, which frames they use, and which positions they hold. We also compare manual and automated methods as a methodological contribution. We see that economic and scientific actors have a high standing in reporting and journalists themselves provide a considerable part of contextualization as speakers. As in previous studies, the progress and economic consequences frames dominate, with mostly pro positions. The ethics and morality frame, however, is underrepresented. More diverse voices could enrich the AI debate. Comparing the two methods, we see that the automated analysis (via rJST) detects topics relatively reliably. By contrast, there are differences between the results of the two methods regarding the framing of these topics which are mainly due to the lack of sensitivity of the automated analysis regarding nuanced contextual information such as individual positions. Further, the automated analysis overestimates political actors in the debate and underestimates journalistic actors, as named entities do not necessarily act as speakers.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, framing, standing, Public debate in the media, Manual content analysis, Automated content analysis
Received: 25 Mar 2025; Accepted: 02 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Zai, Rohrbach and Hänggli Fricker. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Florin Zai, Université de Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.