Abstract：In the context of systemic transformation of mainstream media and the deep integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology in the journalism industry, China’s mainstream media face the dual challenge of transforming both technological tools and organizational systems. However, existing research still falls short in theorizing the concept of “system”, dynamically analyzing transformations, and responding to institutional changes in the new technological ecosystem. Therefore, this study focuses on a core issue: how can mainstream media construct an “intelligent news dynamic collaboration system” based on the coordination of humans, technology, and institutions? What are the structural forms, operational mechanisms, and evolutionary logic of this system?
Based on in-depth interviews with 47 mainstream media professionals and grounded theory coding analysis, this study identifies multiple structural tensions arising from the application of intelligent technologies in the journalism industry. First, there is a structural misalignment between institutions and practice: generative AI has gradually evolved from individual exploration to institutionalized application, but there are differences in cognition and application across various levels and generations of professionals. Second, AI is increasingly integrated as a key node in the news production process, while also redefining professional boundaries: AI has transformed from an external tool to a key node in news production, breaking the human-centered content creation logic. This shift pushes media from being news providers to becoming intelligent network organizers, but journalists do not allow AI to take on the core tasks of writing, reinforcing the professional value and boundaries of human journalists. Third, there is the gray zone in practice due to the absence of regulations: although AI has become a regular part of the news writing process, there is a lack of clear institutional norms regarding issues such as authorship and copyright. As a result, some journalists conceal their use of AI, and editors intensify the scrutiny of content. Fourth, there is the emergence of technical intermediaries and the lack of institutional safeguards: the role of technical staff has shifted from backend support to frontline governance, but there is still a lack of clear institutional support at the organizational level. Fifth, there is the cross-organizational interaction under the platform logic: the computational power and data flow of platforms have affected the work rhythm and resource allocation within news organizations, with the technical systems gradually eroding the autonomy of content production.
These structural tensions highlight the core issue of the intelligent transformation in journalism the absence of a stable, collaborative, and dynamically adjustable intelligent news collaboration system. The ideal system should organically combine technological infrastructure, platform mechanisms, value guidance, and institutional feedback. It should exhibit dynamic network characteristics that promote flexible cooperation among diverse nodes; achieve a balance between platform and organizational systems, facilitating mutual negotiation of resources, rhythm, and logic; strengthen the authenticity and professionalism of the news system; and ensure clear role division and real-time institutional feedback regulation.
Theoretically, this paper reveals the embedding logic and structural impact of generative AI in Chinese news organizations, proposing the “intelligent news dynamic collaboration system” model. It innovatively transitions from static individual experiences to dynamic scenarios, and from functionalism to a systems theory perspective. Practically, this paper provides empirical evidences for the integration of generative AI in news organizations, emphasizing the need for professional oversight, value judgment, and ethical review in the intelligent age. It also points out that human-machine collaboration mechanisms, job responsibility configurations, and platform-dependent governance urgently require institutional regulation.
