Algorithmic Journalism and the “Black Box”

Abstract

Applications of Artificial Intelligence in news industries use algorithms to select, prioritise, and generate news content. While these technologies enhance speed, efficiency, and audience engagement, they also introduce concerns regarding transparency, accountability, bias, and democratic communication. This article critically examines the relationship between algorithmic journalism and the “black box” phenomenon, referring to the opacity of algorithmic systems whose internal workings remain hidden from users and even from journalists. Drawing upon theories of political economy, platform studies, and critical algorithm studies, the paper explores how opaque algorithmic systems shape public discourse, influence journalistic practices, and redefine media power. The article argues that the black-box nature of algorithmic journalism challenges traditional journalistic norms of gatekeeping and editorial policy. It concludes by emphasising the need for algorithmic transparency and ethical governance to ensure democratic accountability in digital journalism.

REFERENCES

1. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211

2. Ali, W., & Hassoun, M. (2019). Artificial intelligence and automated journalism: Contemporary challenges and new opportunities. International Journal of Media, Journalism and Mass Communications, 5(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-9479.0501004

3. Arora, C., & Sarkar, D. (2023). Auditing artificial intelligence as a new layer of mediation: Introduction of a new black box to address another black box. Hipertext.net, 26, 65–68.

4. Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147

5. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity Press.

6. Bishop, S. (2019). Managing visibility on YouTube through algorithmic gossip. New Media & Society, 21(11–12), 2589–2606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819854731

7. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.

8. Cools, H., & Koliska, M. (2024). News automation and algorithmic transparency in the newsroom: The case of The Washington Post. Journalism Studies, 25(6), 662–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2326636

9. Diakopoulos, N. (2014). Algorithmic accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976411

10. 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

11. Di Salvo, P. (2025). Dealing with the black box: European journalists and the threats of spyware. Digital Journalism, 13(10), 1715–1734. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2378122

12. Dörr, K. N., & Hollnbuchner, K. (2017). Ethical challenges of algorithmic journalism. Digital Journalism, 5(4), 404–419.

13. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.

14. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.

15. Helberger, N., Diakopoulos, N., & Klais, Y. (2020). Debating the role of news recommender systems in democracy. Digital Journalism, 8(8), 997–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1760981

16. Jones, B., Jones, R., & Luger, E. (2022). AI ‘Everywhere and Nowhere’: Addressing the AI intelligibility problem in public service journalism. Digital Journalism, 10(10), 1731–1755. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2145328

17. Napoli, P. M. (2014). Automated media: An institutional theory perspective on algorithmic media production and consumption. Communication Theory, 24(3), 340–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12039

18. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.

19. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishing Group.

20. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.

21. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.

22. Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. Routledge.

23. Suzor, N. P. (2019). Lawless: The secret rules that govern our digital lives. Cambridge University Press.

24. Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 13(2), 203–218.

25. Tufekci, Z. (2018, March 10). YouTube, the great radicalizer. The New York Times.

26. van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.

27. Venkatraj, K. P., Morosoli, S., Cools, H., Naudts, L., de Vreese, C., Helberger, N., Cesar, P., & El Ali, A. (2025). Understanding AI disclosure needs for news production and journalism. In S. Sorce, P. Elagroudy, & M. Khamis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (pp. 202–208). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3771882.3771899

28. Waardenburg, L., & Huysman, M. (2022). From coexistence to co-creation: Blurring boundaries in the age of AI. Information and Organization, 32(4), Article 100432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2022.100432