Balancing Artificial Intelligence and Human Expertise: Ideal Fact-Checking Strategies for Hard and Soft News

This study compares the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI)-aided versus human-assisted fact-checking for different types of news, namely hard and soft news. To this end, an online experiment was carried out separately in Korea and the United States, employing a 2 (news type: hard news vs. soft news) × 2 (fact-checker: AI vs. human experts) between-group factorial design. Findings suggest that AI’s fact-checking, with its perceived objectivity and lack of bias, is potentially more effective for straightforward hard news, while human-assisted fact-checking appears to be more suitable for addressing misinformation within soft news, which involves more subjective aspects of information. Additionally, the study proposes that AI’s verification of hard news and human experts’ examination of soft news might trigger divergent indirect mechanisms—systematic processing driven by cognition or heuristic processing influenced by emotion—to counteract misinformation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
Published
2025-03-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990251325875
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
12.60
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Balancing Artificial Intelligence and Human Expertise: Ideal Fact-Checking Strategies for Hard and Soft News

Yunju Kim, Joonhwan Lee
3 citations
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
Misinformation and Its Impacts
12.60
article

Balancing Artificial Intelligence and Human Expertise: Ideal Fact-Checking Strategies for Hard and Soft News

Yunju Kim, Joonhwan Lee
article en
3 citations

Abstract

This study compares the effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI)-aided versus human-assisted fact-checking for different types of news, namely hard and soft news. To this end, an online experiment was carried out separately in Korea and the United States, employing a 2 (news type: hard news vs. soft news) × 2 (fact-checker: AI vs. human experts) between-group factorial design. Findings suggest that AI’s fact-checking, with its perceived objectivity and lack of bias, is potentially more effective for straightforward hard news, while human-assisted fact-checking appears to be more suitable for addressing misinformation within soft news, which involves more subjective aspects of information. Additionally, the study proposes that AI’s verification of hard news and human experts’ examination of soft news might trigger divergent indirect mechanisms—systematic processing driven by cognition or heuristic processing influenced by emotion—to counteract misinformation.

Journalism & Mass Communication QuarterlyVol. 103(1)
Seoul National University (KR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Misinformation and Its Impacts
12.60
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.