When doctoral student Jamie Gentry G’27 covered politics as a local news reporter for the weekly Navarre Press in northwest Florida, she turned potentially complicated issues into easy-to-understand stories.

But Gentry was amazed at how often people would misinterpret, misconstrue or misremember the information presented in her articles. She overheard many conversations in person and online where citizens, equipped with this misinformation, carried out emotional arguments on a topic using incorrect information.

“I started wondering why I wasn’t able to reach as many people as I could with the actual facts of a story,” Gentry says. “It was frustrating because my job is to give people the best possible information. People need good information to make good decisions, and journalists are supposed to do that. But I found the system wasn’t working.”

Gentry knew there was a disconnect between how political news was being reported and how it was being talked about in her community. She vowed to become part of the solution.

How to Fix a Broken System

Driven by her reporting experiences, Gentry transitioned from journalism to higher education and began pursuing a doctoral degree in mass communications from the .

With a grant from the University’s , Gentry’s ongoing research explores how artificial intelligence (AI) tools used by journalists impact how politics are discussed online and in the real world.

Gentry is comparing how people respond to and discuss a complicated news topic among their communities and on their social media channels under two different scenarios.

Out of 400 online survey respondents, one group is tasked with reading a traditional news story about unemployment, while another digests the information with the help of an AI-generated key takeaways breakout box. Half of the participants are told to share their impressions of the article with someone they know face-to-face, while the other half are tasked with sharing a post about the topic on social media.

At each step, from the journalist sharing their reporting to the survey participant consuming the content to the person receiving the news, there’s an opportunity for the message to change from the original reporting.

“Generally, people tend to accept facts, but we still see arguments over facts online, and we see that people become very polarized,” Gentry says.

An important trend in the political communications research field—combining the study of media and political science—is examining how, in an increasingly polarized country, being divided politically impacts the quality of political reporting.

Especially during this “explosion of media choice” where people have more ways to consume the news, Gentry says this increase in choice means people are opting for stories they want to consume that align with their political ideology.

“That has a real impact on how people engage with politics and how they interpret the news they receive,” Gentry says when identifying an area for future research. “It’s not so much that people are blatantly believing misinformation and don’t care about facts. It’s more that partisanship is impacting how people receive messages and what stories they do and do not see.”

Can AI Be Trusted?

As informers, journalists are charged with breaking down complex topics into digestible content, and they make decisions about what information to include, which sources to interview and which stories to cover.

When she was covering the news, Gentry says it was easy to think she knew what the most important angles were, but as more journalists use AI to produce story summaries, Gentry says it’s natural to wonder whether AI can convey this important information.

“Journalists influence how people learn about and understand a subject matter. Should we be trusting these AI tools to reliably make decisions about what is the most important part of a story?” Gentry says. “Whatever AI decides is the most important snippet of information is being pushed out and that has real implications for how people are getting the news and what they actually know about a story.”

Gentry expects to receive data from her survey participants later this semester. Among her anticipated findings: story summaries make the facts more accessible and easier to process, retain and share.

“My goal is to make journalists better by giving them the tools to better understand how their work impacts the public,” Gentry says. “By sharing data on what works and what doesn’t, hopefully we can make big improvements in the way the news is shared.”

Merrill Brown, a veteran news executive and media consultant, has been named a visiting professionals fellow for spring 2026 by the (IDJC).

He plans to use his fellowship to study existing and evolving business models across the media landscape and new ways to sustain quality journalism.

The founding editor in chief of MSNBC.com (now ms.now), Brown brings decades of experience at the intersection of journalism, media innovation and business strategy.

He also served as senior vice president at RealNetworks, editorial director at G/O Media, founder and CEO of the News Project, co-founder of the Online News Association and inaugural director of the School of Communication and Media at Montclair State University.

In addition, Brown has served in roles at The Washington Post and Court TV, and with numerous nonprofit and advisory boards related to journalism, media and civic engagement.

Exploring Sustainable Journalism Models

Brown’s fellowship project will examine revenue strategies, emerging technologies, artificial intelligence and opportunities for innovation to support high-quality journalism, particularly at the local level.

Brown, who holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from Washington University in St. Louis, has also served as a judge for the Newhouse School’s��.

A joint initiative of the and the , the IDJC engages in research, teaching, experiential learning and industry partnerships to address challenges to democracy related to the information environment.

“I’m thrilled to have the opportunity to become a fellow at the IDJC,” Brown says. “I’ve been an admirer of the research and teaching done at Newhouse and the Maxwell School. Joining with the experts at the two schools and with [IDJC Kramer Director] to explore media business models and new ways to sustain quality journalism is a timely and important opportunity.”

As part of the fellowship, Brown will engage with students through guest lectures and public programming. His goal is to develop a long-term structure for studying media business models within an academic setting.

“I look forward to being able to conduct research on this vital topic and to share that work and my news industry experience with the University community,” Brown says. “Syracuse is at the center of the urgent future of news research and experimentation, and I look forward to contributing to those efforts.”

Talev sayd Brown’s work and experience will complement two trailblazing initiatives announced recently by the University, including IDJC’s own .

Led by , associate professor of communications, Local NeXT Lab is the first project of its kind that will connect newsrooms, funders and academics to pioneer journalism innovations, with the goal of strengthening local news.

Brown’s work will also be instrumental to the development of the University’s��. The center, which is led by Newhouse and the , is building real-world skills in media, entrepreneurship and digital strategy to prepare students for the 21st-century economy.

“We are proud to host Merrill this year as he develops this important work,” Talev says. “Merrill’s research and engagement with students will focus on developing and sustaining the media and communications industries of the future.”

About IDJC’s Visiting Fellow Program

The IDJC’s fellowship program for visiting professionals reflects the institute’s broader mission to connect students with leading voices in journalism and civic life. Through public events, classroom visits and collaborative projects, fellows contribute to a dynamic learning environment that prepares students to become thoughtful, engaged communicators and citizens.

Story by Emma Hudson

Americans increasingly see the country as more divided than at any time since the Civil War. a sharp rise in partisan hostility: in 2022, 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats viewed the opposing party as more immoral than other Americans—up dramatically from 47% and 35% in 2016.

, research director at the University’s and professor of political science at the ,��studies this divide and its threat to democracy. Her research, supported by a 2024 Carnegie Fellowship, provides insights into how America reached this point and what recent government dysfunction reveals about our country’s political health.

Dunaway points out several key factors, starting with a fundamental misperception problem, for why America has become so politically divided. ��

“Much of the polarization that escalated in recent decades was largely driven by misperceptions people have about ordinary partisans on the other side—the everyday people in your neighborhood or office who happen to support the other party. The political leaders who receive the most media attention are usually the more extreme members of their party, left or right. As a result, people tend to assume ordinary partisans hold the same views as their party’s leaders. This is rarely the case except among the most extreme voters.”

Most Americans still fall closer to the center, she says. “Yet when people are asked to evaluate the opposing party, they often feel considerable animosity based on what they hear from that party’s elite and governing members. They tend to assume members of the opposing party are more extreme than they are, which creates the perception of greater policy differences between Democrats and Republicans in the public than truly exist.”

The division also results from genuine frustrations with government, the economy, and inequalities of wealth and opportunity, according to Dunaway.

“Government often seems out of touch or unresponsive, which is one reason trust in government and institutions has reached historical lows. When you combine these conditions with politically motivated leaders, charged rhetoric and a difficult-to-parse digital information environment, it becomes easy for people to blame everything they’re experiencing on the other side,” she says.

Some members of the press, political pundits and researchers have voiced the belief that politically polarized media are exacerbating the opinion divide, according to IDJC research.

Dunaway says her interpretations of the research on this issue “is that media effects exist, but they don’t work the way people often assume—with media doing all the persuading. Media in all forms respond to audience preferences and behaviors as much as the other way around. Unfortunately, the patterns of information we end up being exposed to still exacerbate divisions.”

She says the blame is tied to the economic model of today’s media landscape. “Underlying media emphasis on the extreme and outrageous is that most digital media relies on attention metrics like clicks and because competition for the public’s attention is so intense. Media outlets face strong economic incentives to publish and promote the most attention-grabbing content,” she says.

Many believe the government shutdown is evidence of partisanship beyond typical political disagreement—to the point of mutual delegitimization.

“Yes and no,” Dunaway says. “I don’t think it marks the arrival of that kind of shift. Instead, the shutdown is a symptom of the fact that we’ve already experienced that shift—from political disagreement and polarization to more serious issues like mutual delegitimization. We are, and have been for quite some time, at the point where the two opposing entities are systematically and intentionally undermining each other’s legitimacy.”

Dunaway thinks calmer voices may eventually tamp down political rancor and return more civility to public discourse.

“I think it will depend on if we can get back to the notion of all politics being local. ��and research��shows that the negative effects of polarization are less evident among local public officials and local communities. Local governments are in a unique position to cooperate and compromise across party lines.

She observes: “Both local news and local politics are less polarizing than their national counterparts. Our [IDJC] research on polarized voting behavior [PDF]��and affective polarization [PDF]��shows local news is less politically polarizing [and] more trusted relative to national news. Because local news is more focused on local issues of more immediate daily concern rather than national politics, it contains fewer partisan cues, which tend to activate partisan sentiment.

Also encouraging, Dunaway says, is a broadening research and investment initiative to help bolster how media outlets operate and cover political news.

“The other reason for optimism is that there is broadening philanthropic interest in funding efforts to shore up local news. And in many states, there are policy efforts to address the challenges facing local news. My colleague ’s work with our new ��is a perfect example of the kind of work philanthropists are helping to fund as we test different ways of restoring and supporting local news.”

The IDJC is a joint initiative of the and the Maxwell School. It conducts nonpartisan research, teaching and public dialogue aimed at strengthening trust in news media, governance and society.

Maxwell School alumna Denise Kalette ’68 got her first byline at age 12, under a poem titled “The Poor Taxpayer” that she submitted to her local newspaper. In a few paragraphs of playful prose, she drew attention to an issue that seemed far beyond her years—the financial plight of many working-class Americans.

Two years later, in 1960, Kalette sent a letter to the White House that elicited a response from Vice President Richard Nixon. “I am glad to know you are taking an active interest in our government and its elected officials,” Nixon wrote, “and I trust that you will continue this excellent foundation for good citizenship.”

Given Kalette’s love of writing and unwavering support for the underdog, it was no surprise to her loved ones that she would go on to become a highly accomplished journalist. Over more than four decades she covered a wide range of topics, from the Olympics in Seoul to corruption in a county jail. She especially loved writing profiles of American heroes such as Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, and ordinary citizens facing extraordinary circumstances.

“What she was able to do was a result of her own drive, her persistence,” says her brother, Edward L. Chapman. “She had this innate sense of right and wrong about things and always had this place in her head and heart for everyday people.”

Kalette passed away in 2021. To honor her legacy and support students who are involved with the ������ (IDJC), Chapman and sister Dorothy Blackmon gifted $50,000 to establish the Denise F. Kalette ’68 Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship Memorial Fund. Maxwell students who are involved with research and engaged in programming at the Washington, D.C.-based institute can apply for a one-time award ranging from $1,200 to $5,000.

“Denise’s career in journalism was inspired by her interest in helping people connect with one another in hopes of building mutual understanding,” says Chapman. “She knew the media’s important role in a well-informed public to help support a healthy democracy. We know that if she were here today, she would wholeheartedly support the IDJC, and especially the students who are engaged with it.”

Blackmon adds, “Denise enjoyed her time at Maxwell and found it extremely beneficial for her path in life, and we hope it will provide the same value to other students.”

Launched in 2022, the IDJC is a joint initiative of the Maxwell School and . It promotes nonpartisan, evidence-based research and dialogue in the public interest and strives to create new knowledge, foster a more informed and engaged citizenry and equip students for success.

“I am incredibly grateful to have received the award. It gave me the financial support I needed to fully take advantage of my unpaid internship without worrying about additional expenses,” says Rebecca Akinwale ’25, one of the first three award recipients.

Akinwale, who earned a bachelor’s degree in political science, participated in events and programming at the IDJC while interning in the U.S. Capitol during her senior year. The experiences furthered her interest in a career that combines public policy and diplomacy with media literacy.

“Throughout my time at Syracuse, I’ve explored how media and civic engagement can help build public trust in institutions,” says Akinwale. “Misinformation is one of the biggest challenges in today’s digital age—it can have serious consequences for underserved communities.”

For the complete story, please visit the .

Fourteen student-athletes will experience Washington, D.C., next week as part of a new Maymester program hosted by the (IDJC).

The one-week program, Democracy Playbook: DC Media and Civics Immersion for Student-Athletes, will give students an up-close look at the inner workings of the nation’s capital and prompt them to explore how they can use their skills as athletes to bring visibility to important issues.

“Athletes are born leaders and team players,” says , Kramer Director of IDJC. “This program will guide them as they take their talent, discipline and passion off the field to develop their civics muscles, with a playbook for how to navigate media, politics and policy.”

Students will arrive in Washington having chosen a policy or issue that matters to them, with the goal of learning to support and advocate for that issue. A series of instructional modules will cover topics like Representing Your Community, Media Literacy and Engagement, and Social Media, Traditional Media and Your Brand. Students will also participate in media/advocacy training sessions, and hear from various civic and business leaders based in D.C.

The week will also include tours the U.S. Capitol Building, the Department of State, the National Archives and ESPN studios, as well as social activities like the , a and a game at Audi Field.

The new program helps expand opportunities for student-athletes, whose training and game schedules often prevent them from participating in traditional semester-long programs.

The University has launched a new initiative, “,” to enhance civic engagement and civil dialogue during the 2024-25 academic year. The initiative, led by Gretchen Ritter, vice president for civic engagement and education; Margaret Talev, Kramer Director of the ; and Tina Nabatchi, director of the Maxwell School’s , will focus on developing essential skills such as active listening, communication across differences, critical thinking and advancing mutual understanding.

The inaugural event, “,” will take place on Tuesday, Oct. 22, from 6 to 8:30 p.m. in Goldstein Auditorium in the Schine Student Center. University community members, representing diverse backgrounds and perspectives, will engage in facilitated dialogue on important issues related to democracy, civic engagement, economic opportunity and the political climate. The event will feature a moderated discussion among experts, followed by small group conversations led by trained facilitators. This approach will help inform students about important election issues, encourage civic engagement and build confidence in civil dialogue.

If you are a student interested in attending and participating in the event, please . The doors will open at 5:45 p.m., and a light dinner will be provided.

To support these small dialogue groups, the����is also seeking facilitators. Faculty, staff and graduate students are invited to serve as facilitators for these small-group discussions, ensuring that all voices are heard and that conversations are respectful and productive. Those who have not facilitated group conversations before will be asked to participate in a three-hour training and all volunteer facilitators will be asked to participate in preparation meeting. Complete this to become a facilitator.

For more information, visit the .

The opening of a new ������ center in Washington, D.C., was celebrated by members of the University community at a special event Sept. 24.

“This city is a place our students want to be. It’s a place they want to live. And it’s a place they want to build their futures and careers after they graduate,” said Chancellor Kent Syverud. “Our students studying away here benefit from Syracuse’s academic strength and deep connections in policy, government, media and law.”

The center, located at 1333 New Hampshire Ave. in the Dupont Circle area of Washington, will serve students, faculty, staff and alumni. Building on an already thriving presence in the nation’s capital, the center will enhance the University’s global influence and impact.

Mike Tirico ’88, host and play-by-play commentator with NBC Sports, hosted the event. Speakers included Chancellor Syverud, Interim Vice Chancellor, Provost and Chief Academic Officer Lois Agnew, and Vice Chancellor for Strategic Initiatives and Innovation J. Michael Haynie.

The centerpiece of the event was a panel discussion examining the changing landscape of collegiate sports and public policy. Margaret Talev, Kramer Director of the ������ Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship, moderated the discussion. Panelists were James Phillips, commissioner of the Atlantic Coast Conference, Felisha Legette-Jack ’89, ������ women’s basketball coach, and Tirico.

Expanded Opportunities

The Washington, D.C., center houses the and serves as a home base for study away programs offered by the , and , through which hundreds of students live, learn and work in the city every year. Washington is home to more than 15,000 alumni, many of whom connect with students as teachers, mentors and internship supervisors.

The center will support the continued growth of study away programming across the University’s schools and colleges, as envisioned in the academic strategic plan, “.”

“We now begin a new chapter in that already successful story,” Provost Agnew said. “This space is more than just a building. It is ������’s academic home in one of the most important cities in the world. It will serve as a hub for students, faculty and staff, positioning them as change makers and thought leaders on some of the most important issues of our time.”

The center will also enhance the work of the (IVMF), which has a satellite office in the building. Haynie noted that IVMF has contributed more than 1,750 research publications, engagements and products for public benefit, with much of that work focused on the federal level.

“I am confident that with a permanent presence in Washington, the institute’s impact will grow considerably and accrue to the benefit of those who have worn the nation’s cloth and their families,” he said.

The center includes classrooms, student lounges, conference and interview rooms and a multipurpose space, as well as satellite offices for the and the Division of Advancement and External Affairs. It features the Greenberg Welcome Center, named for alumnus and Life Trustee Paul Greenberg ’65, whose philanthropy supported the 1990 opening of Greenberg House, the University’s first outpost in Washington.

More than 1,800 groups have collectively spent an estimated $15.3 million to pay for social media advertising that mentions President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump or other presidential candidates, according to a new report from ������’s (IDJC).��

Research from the project found that the millions paid for more than 24,000 ad buys and about 5,500 unique ads on Facebook and Instagram between Sept. 1, 2023, and Feb. 29, 2024. This amounts to an estimated 869 million impressions in the months leading up to, and during, the presidential primaries. The majority of ads involved Biden or Trump, the report found.����

The Biden and Trump campaigns spent another roughly $10 million on paid social media content, drawing 303 million impressions, though the incumbent outspent Trump about 7-to-1 on these platforms.����

This is the produced via by a $250,000 grant from , the world’s leading graph database and analytics company. The grant allows ElectionGraph researchers to use Neo4j’s graph database and analytics software to identify misinformation trends in the U.S. presidential election and other top 2024 contests.��

The research team’s efforts focus on dissecting misinformation themes—pinpointing origins of messages and tracing misinformation by collecting and algorithmically classifying ads run on Facebook and Instagram, as well as social media posts on Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter. The project will also gather input from journalists and the public about the 2024 presidential election, and races for U.S. Senate and key congressional districts.��

The first set of findings released today demonstrate the importance of requiring social media platforms to disclose details about election advertising and messaging, says Jennifer Stromer-Galley, senior associate dean and professor at the School of Information Studies. An expert in political campaigns and misinformation, Stromer-Galley leads the IDJC ElectionGraph research team. ��

“Revealing details about ads and messaging on social media platforms is vital to provide the public with transparency and context,” Stromer-Galley says. “Failure to do so can make voters more vulnerable to manipulation without any sort of accountability.”��

Organizations that ran ads ranged from well-known political action committees, political party groups or other candidates, to obscure players with harder-to-trace ties and agendas, the report found. The analysis identifies the top 30 spenders that each mention Biden and Trump, and examines patterns in how groups apply the honorific of “President” when referring to either candidate.��

The report captures a fraction of overall U.S. election-related content across all social media platforms. While Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, currently allows approved organizations to access ad data, it is not required to be made available—and not similarly trackable—on TikTok, Google, YouTube or Snapchat.��

“These findings give us a glimpse at the firehose of information and misinformation coming at voters from groups with a jumble of motives, ties and trustworthiness ahead of the 2024 elections,” says Margaret Talev, Kramer Director of the IDJC, professor of practice at the Newhouse School of Public Communications and a journalist.

The challenge faced by digital researchers and computational journalists in unearthing the consequences of AI-driven misinformation on democracy is enormous, says Jim Webber, chief scientist at Neo4j. ��

“Graph technology is an essential enabler to those seeking to uncover hidden patterns and networks of those looking to manipulate democratic populations,” Webber says.

“We at Neo4j are proud to support ������’s mission to help journalists and citizens separate fact from fake news so that the voting public can make informed decisions as they go to the polls.”��

can vividly recall the specific moment she knew journalism had failed to properly inform and educate a large portion of the American voting electorate.

It was Jan. 6, 2021. More than 1,000 citizens were protesting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Talev was working as managing editor at Axios, overseeing the outlet’s political coverage. During the events, one of her reporters became trapped in the chambers of the House of Representatives, while another was trapped in the Senate’s chambers.

A decorated and accomplished national political journalist, Talev prided herself on helping people understand the news, both in the short-term and big picture. Talev covered American politics and the White House for 30 years, including working the campaign trail for presidential elections in 2008, 2012 and 2016 as a White House correspondent for Bloomberg News and McClatchy Newspapers.

Talev watched the events unfold and was left wondering how thousands of her fellow citizens could stage a protest based on misinformation.

Unsure of her future in journalism, Talev wanted to focus her career efforts on the relationship between the news that was being produced and consumed by voters and how that was impacting their views on democracy and governance.

She was immediately interested in serving as the Kramer Director of the Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship (IDJC), a joint effort of the . Based in Washington, the institute promotes nonpartisan, evidence-based research and dialogue in the public interest, striving to create new knowledge, foster a more informed and engaged citizenry and better equip students for success.

“I cared about focusing on the governance and the information piece of this, which is, how is democracy working for people? What do people believe democracy is? And why are a segment of Americans so upset with the process that they’re willing to resort to violence or willing to believe conspiracy theories? That became the central question that I was interested in reporting on, and the chance to build an institute that would really be dedicated to looking at the connection between news and government, between journalism and politics, between how people perceive the way their country is working and the news they’re ingesting,” Talev says of the IDJC, which will formally open its headquarters in Washington later this spring.

On this “’Cuse Conversation,” Talev discusses the mission and vision for the IDJC, how distrust in election results and politicians is at an all-time high, the role citizens can play to address issues facing our democracy and the challenges artificial intelligence poses.

Check out episode 158 of the featuring Talev. A transcript [PDF] is also available.

The (IDJC) has been awarded a $250,000 research grant from and use of the company’s graph database technology as part of an initiative to identify misinformation trends in the U.S. presidential election and other top 2024 contests.

, senior associate dean and professor at the and a nationally recognized expert in political campaigns and misinformation, will lead a team of researchers across the University and work with the Washington-based IDJC to illuminate hidden trends and actors spreading and influencing inaccurate information targeting U.S. voters through social media.

“Millions of Americans’ voting decisions are shaped by what they see on social media or hear from friends basing their own information on non-news sources,” says Kramer Director of the IDJC and a professor of practice in the Newhouse School of Public Communications.

“These areas are ripe for misinformation and disinformation campaigns from domestic and foreign actors,” Talev says. “Neo4j’s technology can allow us to see commonalities and hidden connections in a way that can shed light on these practices and help the public make fact-based decisions.”

The Neo4j award represents the first competitive grant for IDJC, a joint University initiative of the and .

The research team’s efforts focus on dissecting misinformation themes, pinpointing origins of messages and tracing misinformation by collecting and algorithmically classifying ads run on Facebook and Instagram as well as social media posts on Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter. The project will also gather input from journalists and the public about the 2024 presidential election, and races for U.S. Senate and key congressional districts.

“One of the things we want to know is how the information environment and misinformation might be making people doubt the electoral process and whether it’s working properly,” says , research director for IDJC and a political science professor in the Maxwell School.

“Misinformation could not just affect whether voters turn out in the current election, but whether they turn out in future elections,” Dunaway said.

Stromer-Galley’s previous work on the project cataloged social media ad campaigns during the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. The Neo4j award is intended to collect similar data and to enhance the visual display for user interactions.

“I don’t think these kinds of opportunities would be possible without the institute to coalesce and bring together a set of scholars from across the university who all share a common passion and concern about the health and state of our democracy and journalism,” Stromer-Galley says.

Story by Emma Hudson

Two ������ institutes are welcoming researchers, academic leaders, policymakers and journalists for discussions in Washington, D.C., about innovations, vulnerabilities and the future of artificial intelligence.

The two-day AI Policy Symposium that begins today in the nation’s capital is organized by the (IDJC) and the (ASPI).

The event also serves as the venue to launch the Academic Alliance for AI Policy, an academic advisory body formed to serve as a resource for lawmakers, policymakers and others seeking to regulate and better understand AI.

“AI is affecting more and more aspects of daily life in America and beyond,” says , director of ASPI and a University Professor. He will lead the alliance.

“Unlike the early decades of its development, when it was the intellectual curiosity of a small number of academics, AI is nobody’s monopoly anymore,” Ekbia says. “If there is a benefit from AI, it should apply to everyone, and if there is harm, someone should be held accountable. This needs oversight and regulation.”

The new alliance and AI policy will be the focus of discussions Thursday at the symposium. How AI will affect the future of work, and its impact on the 2024 presidential election are topics to be discussed Friday.

“Connecting top AI researchers with policymakers��and journalists thinking about AI regulation and impacts on society is key to informing regulation, news coverage and the public’s understanding of these emerging issues,” says , Kramer Director of the Washington-based IDJC. “The symposium also is an opportunity to bring journalists from a range of news organizations together as they navigate coverage and use of AI.”

Still in formation, the alliance will be comprised of academic leaders representing K-12 schools, community colleges and research universities. It is guided by a steering committee that includes representatives from Cornell University, Duke University, Indiana University, Oregon State University, Purdue University, The Ohio State University, the University of California and the University of Illinois.

Joining Ekbia in representing Syracuse is , assistant professor of English in the College of Arts and Sciences.

Ekbia, who joined the University in January 2023, says the alliance will serve as a platform for the exchange of ideas among academics from various backgrounds and as an advisory body for lawmakers as they grapple with the increasing number of challenges arising from AI.

The alliance will also connect AI experts with journalists reporting on related issues to help distill the implications for greater public understanding.

Ekbia says the regulation of AI in the U.S. is lagging and has enabled rampant gaps in information, knowledge and accountability. This, he says, has allowed the economic agendas of a few to take priority over public interest. “Academics can, and should, help correct this state of affairs,” adds Ekbia. “The Academic Alliance for AI Policy is a step in that direction.”

Based at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, ASPI is a Universitywide initiative focused on the intersection of technology, policy and society that boasts dozens of affiliated faculty researchers across disciplines.

The IDJC engages in nonpartisan research, teaching and public dialogue aimed at strengthening trust in news media, governance and society.��It is a joint initiative of the and the .

In addition to the symposium, the institutes are co-sponsors of the Axios-Generation Lab-������ AI Experts Survey. The found that a majority of computer science experts at top U.S. research universities wanted to see the creation of a new federal agency or global organization to govern artificial intelligence.��The next wave of findings is to be released in November.

A new survey co-sponsored by two ������ institutes finds that a majority of computer science experts at top U.S research universities want to see the creation of a new federal agency or global organization to govern artificial intelligence (AI).

The Axios-Generation Lab-������ of computer science professors found that 37% favored a new “Department of AI” to regulate AI, while 22% thought a global organization or treaty was the best option. These findings compared with 16% of respondents who said Congress was the best entity to regulate AI, while 4% said the responsibility falls on the White House and 3% mentioned the private sector. About 14% of respondents said AI cannot be regulated, while 3% said AI should not be regulated.

The survey results were released Tuesday.

Generation Lab conducted the survey for Axios in partnership with ������’s (IDJC) and the (ASPI).

Margaret Talev, Kramer Director of the IDJC, says the survey offered a different and important perspective on the expanding conversation about the uses and proliferation of AI.

“While larger general-population surveys can provide broad insights into most Americans’ hopes, fears and understanding of AI, this new survey offers an in-depth look at how computer science professors with significant subject-matter expertise are thinking about the same issues,” says Talev, who is also an Axios senior contributor.

“This survey provides valuable information about the current state of AI because it is based on the views of those who are closely involved in the development of AI techniques and systems. We are glad to be part of this effort, which also informs our own initiatives, including our plan to launch the Academic Alliance on AI Policy next month in Washington, D.C.,” adds Hamid Ekbia, director of the ASPI.

IDJC is a joint initiative of and the , while ASPI is a Universitywide initiative housed in the Maxwell School that focuses on the intersection of technology, society and policy.

Some other key survey findings:

• About 62% predict AI will increase racial, gender and economic disparities.
• Respondents also predict that customer service; art, design or content creation; and administrative and support services are most likely to experience job losses due to AI over the next five years.
• No single person is highly trusted to deal with AI issues; President Biden ranked higher than individual tech CEOs.

The Axios-Generation Lab-������ AI Experts Survey was conducted July 15 – Aug. 6. Results are based on interviews with 213 computer science professors from 65 of the top 100 computer science programs in America, as defined by . Experts from ������ were among those surveyed.

A listing of the participating institutions and additional details about the methodology may be found on the .

For more information, contact Margaret Talev at metalev@syr.edu.