This study explores how Chinese journalists perceive, use, and report on artificial intelligence (AI) amid the global discourse of AI hype. Drawing on qualitative analysis of 18 in-depth interviews with journalists from a range of Chinese news organisations, this research examines (1) journalists’ algorithmic imaginaries and their role in shaping AI narratives, (2) perceptions of AI hype and strategies for responsible reporting, and (3) the journalistic roles reflected. The findings show that journalists predominantly frame AI as a pragmatic tool for enhancing newsroom efficiency, while also acknowledging its broader societal significance. Although aware of speculative discourses, they reject the label of “media hype,” portraying their coverage as balanced, event-driven, and aligned with public interest. Situated within China’s distinctive political and media environment, this study highlights the complexities of journalistic practice in the algorithmic age and calls for a contextualised theorisation of media hype and AI’s discursive construction in non-Western settings.

Coverage of artificial intelligence and algorithms has been largely examined by scholars studying countries in the Global North that have historically supported conditions for critical journalism and watchdog journalistic role performances. However, it is unclear if the findings from such work would be applicable to authoritarian contexts that do not share those conditions. This study addresses this gap through a textual analysis of 23 journalistic investigations of AI and algorithmic systems published in Chinese news media between 2019 and 2023. We found that Chinese journalists were critical of multiple aspects of algorithmic systems and called for urgent AI governance at the nation-state level. Despite the technical nature of the issue, those journalists overwhelmingly employed traditional reporting techniques to uncover political and economic intersections-namely those resulting from the rise of tech companies and the algorithms they implement. Chinese journalists simultaneously performed the roles of being watchdogs and loyal facilitators by highlighting the risks posed by private platforms and their algorithms while casting the state as a protector and responsible steward of technological development. The study thus highlights the intricate roles necessary to perform critical journalism in authoritarian contexts, and the possibilities that the case of AI permits.

Digital platforms, with their ever-increasing reach and power, are reshaping many aspects of society. China is experiencing a platformization of society akin to what has occurred in the West. By mapping the algorithmic news distribution field in China, this study shows how the key players (including digital platforms, news organizations, and state regulators) compete, collaborate, and work symbiotically with each other in this changing ecology. We explore a particularly key player-Jinri Toutiao, led by ByteDance (parent company of the popular app TikTok)-as a case that exemplifies the platform logic in China's news ecosystem and how it involves a delicate dance with the public and regulators in a politically restrictive environment. We find that the mutual shaping of platforms and society is not a given but rather a dynamic process. Indeed, we show that Toutiao's tremendous success is partially because of the state's laissez-faire policy in the earlier years, and that its move to assume greater social responsibility is a response to recent tightening of regulations. Amid widespread questions about the role and influence of Big Tech and platforms in society, the case of China enriches our understanding of the platformization of news outside the Western context.

Journalism and other institutions clash over automated news generation, algorithmic distribution and content ownership worldwide. AI policies are the main mechanisms that establish and organise the hierarchies among these institutions. Few studies, however, have explored the normative dimension of AI in policymaking in journalism, especially beyond the West. This case study inspects the copyright law's impact on AI innovation in newsrooms in the unexamined Chinese context. Using neo-institutional theory and policy network theory, the study investigates the Third Amendment to the Chinese Copyright Law, exemplary court cases regarding automated journalism copyright disputes (such as Tencent v. Yingxun and Film v. Baidu), and other supporting documents. The findings show how China's copyright legal framework separates authorship and ownership; defines "originality" and "creativity" in human-machine collaboration; and prioritises tech companies while undermining journalistic autonomy. We argue that the law's eager embrace of AI may give tech companies an advantage over news organisations that do not necessarily have a strategy to adopt AI. Moreover, it favours state-owned, resource-rich official media over the private sector. An implication of this shifting power dynamic is the possibility of privately owned news media being marginalised, resulting in even stronger state control over media production and information flow.

This study adopts a multiple-case study design to address 'Does copyright law protect automated news, and if so, how' in three jurisdictions: the United States, the European Union and China. Through doctrinal legal analysis of the copyright laws and document analysis of policy reports, corporate responses and other empirical evidence, this study has found that the three copyright regimes differ substantively with regard to both formal texts and informal enforcement of copyright claims to artificial intelligence (AI)-generated news. In the United States, there has been a policy silence. In the European Union (EU), eager regulators have rushed to enact premature laws and failed policy patchwork. In China, the state is instrumentalising both laws and journalism to further its own interests. These findings suggest that current regulatory frameworks in all cases have led to a weakening of the institution of copyright, which, in turn, has contributed to the deinstitutionalisation of journalism and the institutionalisation of algorithms.