The Ethical Challenges of AI Generated Political Content in Digital Media

Author

Zhang Hanyu, Mohd Haizra Hashim

Abstract

 AI-generated political content can support accessible communication while creating new opportunities for deception and misleading representation. This article examines how ethical responsibility should be allocated when audience detection and disclosure provide incomplete protection. It develops a conceptual ethical analysis informed by selected literature on political deepfakes, public trust and synthetic campaigning, using deontological ethics, utilitarianism and social responsibility theory. The discussion distinguishes the credibility of individual messages from broader uncertainty about authentic evidence and separates experimental findings from normative arguments. It also considers why clearly labelled content can still harm the people represented and why technical capacity for personalised persuasion does not establish greater effectiveness. The article argues that responsibilities should reflect control over production and distribution, capacity to prevent harm, and the ability to provide correction. Campaigns, platforms and journalists therefore carry different but connected duties, while audiences retain a reasonable role in checking sources. Transparency should accompany verification, proportionate intervention and identifiable human accountability. The analysis does not establish the prevalence or electoral effects of synthetic media. It offers a practical basis for assessing political AI use while protecting public access to reliable information and legitimate political expression.

Keywords

AI-generated political content; media ethics; political communication; deepfakes; public trust; accountability

Full Text:

Download Paper PDF

References

• Ahmed, S. (2023). Examining public perception and cognitive biases in the presumed influence of deepfakes threat: Empirical evidence of third person perception from three studies. Asian Journal of Communication, 33(3), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2023.2194886
• Appel, M., & Prietzel, F. (2022). The detection of political deepfakes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(4), Article zmac008. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac008
• Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Gubler, J. R., Lyman, A., Olcott, J., Pond, J., & Wingate, D. (2025). Testing theories of political persuasion using AI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(18), Article e2412815122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412815122
• Barari, S., Lucas, C., & Munger, K. (2025). Political deepfakes are as credible as other fake media and (sometimes) real media. The Journal of Politics, 87(2), 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1086/732990
• Chomanski, B., & Lauwaert, L. (2025). Automated propaganda: Labeling AI-generated political content should not be required by law. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 42(3), 994–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.70002
• de Ruiter, A. (2021). The distinct wrong of deepfakes. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 1311–1332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00459-2
• Groh, M., Sankaranarayanan, A., Singh, N., Kim, D. Y., Lippman, A., & Picard, R. (2024). Human detection of political speech deepfakes across transcripts, audio, and video. Nature Communications, 15, Article 7629. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-51998-z
• Gutiérrez-Caneda, B., Lindén, C.-G., & Vázquez-Herrero, J. (2024). Ethics and journalistic challenges in the age of artificial intelligence: Talking with professionals and experts. Frontiers in Communication, 9, Article 1465178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1465178
• Hameleers, M., van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Dobber, T. (2024a). Distorting the truth versus blatant lies: The effects of different degrees of deception in domestic and foreign political deepfakes. Computers in Human Behavior, 152, Article 108096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108096
• Hameleers, M., van der Meer, T. G. L. A., & Dobber, T. (2024b). They would never say anything like this! Reasons to doubt political deepfakes. European Journal of Communication, 39(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231231184703
• Jungherr, A., Rauchfleisch, A., & Wuttke, A. (2026). Artificial intelligence in election campaigns: Perceptions, penalties, and implications. Political Communication, 43(4), 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2025.2611913
• Kant, I. (2012). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals(M. Gregor & J. Timmermann, Eds. & Trans.; Rev. ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511919978 (Original work published 1785)
• Kelani, Z. A., & Lepadatu, D. (2026). Generative artificial intelligence, misinformation and political polarization: A content analysis of deepfake propaganda during the 2024 US presidential election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2026.2652897
• Langguth, J., Pogorelov, K., Brenner, S., Filkuková, P., & Schroeder, D. T. (2021). Don't trust your eyes: Image manipulation in the age of deepfakes. Frontiers in Communication, 6, Article 632317. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.632317
• Lu, H., & Yuan, S. (2024). "I know it's a deepfake": The role of AI disclaimers and comprehension in the processing of deepfake parodies. Journal of Communication, 74(5), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqae022
• Mill, J. S. (2014). Utilitarianism(2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139923927 (Original second edition published 1864)
• Momeni, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence and political deepfakes: Shaping citizen perceptions through misinformation. Journal of Creative Communications, 20(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/09732586241277335
• Pawelec, M. (2022). Deepfakes and democracy (theory): How synthetic audio-visual media for disinformation and hate speech threaten core democratic functions. Digital Society, 1(2), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-022-00010-6
• Pawelec, M., & Łabuz, M. (2026). Are softfakes really "soft"? Semantic, ethical, and legal perspectives on deepfakes and AI-generated visualizations in political campaigning. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-026-09579-z
• Peters, C. S., McGinnis, A. J., Im, S., & Hennessey, H. L. (2025). Satire versus illicit: Policy issues regarding the creation of deepfakes using AI technology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 43(4), 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2726
• Raemy, P., Bendahan Bitton, D., Ötting, H., Hoffmann, C. P., Godulla, A., & Puppis, M. (2025). Deepfakes and journalism: Normative considerations and implications. Journalism Studies, 26(14), 1724–1744. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2025.2547300
• Siebert, F. S., Peterson, T., & Schramm, W. (1956). Four theories of the press: The authoritarian, libertarian, social responsibility, and Soviet communist concepts of what the press should be and do. University of Illinois Press.
• Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023). Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-127
• Ternovski, J., Kalla, J., & Aronow, P. M. (2022). The negative consequences of informing voters about deepfakes: Evidence from two survey experiments. Journal of Online Trust and Safety, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v1i2.28
• Tulin, M., Pantazi, M., Starke, C., Sivolap, M., & Dobber, T. (2025). Echoes of doubt: Exposure to information about generative AI decreases believability of news. International Journal of Communication, 19, 3712–3735. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/24772
• Wack, M., & Prochaska, S. (2026). Making sense of AI-generated disinformation: How audience interpretations influence the impact of deepfakes in Kenya. Social Media + Society, 12(3), Article 20563051261462092. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051261462092