Researchers Interviewed Twenty Science Reporters About Emerging LLM Tools The Microsoft Research team conducted in‑depth interviews with 20 science journalists and presented four hypothetical AI writing applications, revealing how each tool could reshape editorial decision‑making and professional identity [1]. Participants consistently emphasized the need to retain independent judgment as a cornerstone of democratic journalism [1]. The study highlights a growing tension between technological efficiency and the preservation of journalistic agency [1].

Automation of Data Collection and Feedback Receives Positive Reception Journalists reported that AI functions that gather information, verify facts, or provide performance feedback improve workflow speed without compromising editorial control [1]. Respondents described these supportive tasks as “helpful assistants” that free time for investigative depth [1]. The willingness to adopt such tools hinges on clear boundaries that keep core story‑crafting decisions human‑led [1].

AI‑Generated Ideas or Drafts Trigger Autonomy Concerns Tools that propose story angles or produce initial drafts were viewed as threats to skill development and professional fulfillment [1]. Journalists feared reliance on machine‑generated content could erode critical thinking and diminish relationships with sources [1]. The study notes a strong preference for maintaining full authorship over the narrative core [1].

Voice‑Manipulation Features and Design Recommendations Aim to Safeguard Agency Even subtle functions like AI‑driven voice or tone adjustments raised alarms about limiting reflective writing practices [1]. Researchers propose designing LLM‑infused applications that assist execution—such as editing or formatting—while leaving editorial choices untouched [1]. These guidelines seek to protect both moment‑to‑moment agency and long‑term professional growth [1].