Yapay Zekâ Kirliliği Çağında Eşik Gözlemciliği: AA Teyit Hattı Doğruluk Kontrollerinin Dönemsel Nicel İçerik Analizi (2022–2026)

Abstract

Yapay zekâ araçlarının yaygınlaşmasıyla birlikte sentetik içeriklerin dolaşıma girmesi, bilgi ekosisteminde ‘yapay zekâ kirliliği’ olarak tanımlanabilecek yeni bir risk alanı oluşturmuştur. Dijital içeriklerin doğruluğunu ayırt etmeyi zorlaştıran bu durum, medya profesyonelleri açısından eşik gözlemciliği rolünü dezenformasyonla mücadelede daha kritik bir sorumluluk hâline getirmektedir. Ancak, yapay zekânın doğrulama gündemindeki görünürlüğünün zaman içinde nasıl değiştiğini dönemsel karşılaştırmalarla nicel olarak ortaya koyan çalışmalar sınırlıdır. Bu çalışma, Anadolu Ajansı Teyit Hattı web arşivinde yayımlanan içerikler üzerinden, doğruluk kontrolü gündeminde yapay zekâ kaynaklı dezenformasyonun dönemler ilerledikçe artıp artmadığını ve bu içeriklerin temel özelliklerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nicel içerik analizi yaklaşımına dayanan tekrarlanan kesitsel bir tasarımla yürütülen araştırmada veriler, Anadolu Ajansı Teyit Hattı web arşivinden doküman incelemesi yoluyla toplanmış; 2022–2026 arasındaki dört dönemde yayımlanan toplam 666 içerik içinden doğruluk kontrolü işlevi taşıyan 563 içerik analiz kapsamına alınmıştır. Verilerin analizinde frekans ve yüzde dağılımları, çapraz tablolar, ki-kare testi ve lojistik regresyon kullanılmıştır. Bulgular, yapay zekâ faktörü taşıyan dezenformasyon içeriklerinin doğruluk kontrolü gündeminde dönemler ilerledikçe daha görünür hâle geldiğini göstermektedir. Ayrıca yapay zekâ ile ilişkili içeriklerin özellikle görsel ve video temelli uydurma içeriklerde yoğunlaştığı ve bu durumun doğrulama süreçlerini daha karmaşık hâle getirdiği anlaşılmaktadır. Çalışma, yapay zekâ kirliliğinin yoğunlaştığı güncel medya ekosisteminde eşik gözlemciliğinin medya profesyonelleri için kritik bir sorumluluk alanına dönüştüğünü ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Yapay Zekâ
• Yapay Zekâ Kirliliği
• Dezenformasyon
• Teyit
• Doğruluk Kontrolü
• Eşik Gözlemciliği
• Nicel İçerik Analizi

Gatewatching in the Age of AI Slop: A Periodic Quantitative Content Analysis of AA Teyit Hattı Fact-Checks (2022–2026)

Abstract

With the widespread adoption of AI tools, the circulation of synthetic content has created a new area of risk in the information ecosystem, described as ‘AI slop’. By making it more difficult to assess the accuracy of digital content, this development has increased the importance of gatewatching as a new responsibility for media professionals. However, studies that quantitatively demonstrate, through periodical comparisons, how the visibility of AI within the fact-checking agenda changes over time remain limited. This study examines whether the share of AI-related disinformation within the fact-checking agenda increases across periods and identifies the main characteristics of such content through items published in the Anadolu Agency’s Teyit Hattı (Verification Line) web archive. In the study, which was conducted with a repeated cross-sectional design based on quantitative content analysis, data were collected through document analysis from the archive, and 563 fact-checking items were analyzed out of 666 items published across four periods between 2022 and 2026. Frequency and percentage distributions, cross-tabulations, chi-square analysis, and logistic regression were used. Findings show that the share of disinformation involving an AI factor increased significantly across periods. AI-related content was concentrated particularly in fabricated visual- and video-based items, making verification processes more complex. The study demonstrates that, in a media ecosystem increasingly marked by AI slop, gatewatching has become a critical responsibility for media professionals.

Keywords

• Artificial Intelligence
• AI Slop
• Disinformation
• Verification
• Fact-checking
• Gatewatching
• Quantitative Content Analysis

References

1. AA Teyit Hattı. (2025, Aralık 25). Kamu Yapay Zekâ Genel Müdürlüğü kuruldu. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/teyithatti/aktuel/kamu-yapay-zekâ-genel-mudurlugukuruldu/1819790
2. AA Teyit Hattı. (2026, Şubat 6). Yapay zeka kirliliği (AI slop) nedir? Anadolu Ajansı. AA Teyit Hattı. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/teyithatti/teyit-sozlugu/yapay-zekakirliligi-ai-slop-nedir/1819901
3. Apple. (2024). Apple Intelligence is available today on iPhone, iPad, and Mac. Apple Newsroom. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2024/10/apple-intelligence-isavailable-today-on-iphone-ipad-and-mac/
4. Bañon Castellón, L. (2021). Audiovisual verification in the evolution of television newsrooms: Al Jazeera and the transition from satellite to the cloud. Anàlisi, 85-102. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/analisi.3414
5. Bastick, Z. (2021). Would you notice if fake news changed your behavior? An experiment on the unconscious effects of disinformation. Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106633
6. Bermes, A. (2021). Information overload and fake news sharing: A transactional stress perspective exploring the mitigating role of consumers’ resilience during COVID-19. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102555
7. Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., & Tang, R. (2024). User correction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 56, 101786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101786
8. Borel, B. (2016). The Chicago guide to fact-checking. The University of Chicago Press.

9. Bruns, A. (2005). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. P. Lang.
10. Chatterji, A., Cunningham, T., Deming, D., Hitzig, Z., Ong, C., Shan, C., & Wadman, K. (2025). How People Use ChatGPT. https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/a253471f-8260-40c6-a2cc-aa93fe9f142e/economic-research-chatgpt-usage-paper.pdf
11. Chesney, B., & Citron, D. (2019). Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38RV0D15J
12. Deloitte. (2026). State of AI in the enterprise: The untapped edge. https://www.deloitte.com/content/dam/assets-shared/docs/about/2025/state-of-ai-2026-global.pdf
13. Dierickx, L., Sirén-Heikel, S., & Lindén, C.-G. (2024). Outsourcing, Augmenting, or Complicating: The Dynamics of AI in Fact-Checking Practices in the Nordics. Emerging Media, 2(3), 449-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543241288846
14. European Broadcasting Union. (2025). Investigative geolocation: A journalist’s guide to verifying time & place. https://spotlight.ebu.ch/p/investigative-geolocationa-journalists
15. European Union. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Act: Article 50, Transparency obligations for providers and deployers of certain AI systems. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/50/
16. Flew, T. (2008). New media: An introduction (3. ed., repr). Oxford Univ. Press.
17. Hameleers, M. (2023). Disinformation as a context-bound phenomenon: Toward a conceptual clarification integrating actors, intentions and techniques of creation and dissemination. Communication Theory, 33(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtac021
18. Hirst, M. (2011). News 2.0: Can journalism survive the Internet? (1. publ). Allen & Unwin.
19. Hsiao, S. (2024, Şubat 8). Bard becomes Gemini: Try Ultra 1.0 and a new mobile app today. Google. https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/gemini/bard-gemini-advanced-app/
20. Jamison, A. M., Broniatowski, D. A., & Quinn, S. C. (2019). Malicious Actors on Twitter: A Guide for Public Health Researchers. American Journal of Public Health, 109(5), 688-692. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.304969
21. Kavtaradze, L. (2024). Challenges of Automating Fact-Checking: A Technographic Case Study. Emerging Media, 2(2), 236-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543241280195
22. Kemp, S. (2025, Ekim 15). Digital 2026: More than 1 billion people use AI. DataReportal –Global Digital Insights. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2026-onebillion-people-using-ai
23. Köbis, N. C., Doležalová, B., & Soraperra, I. (2021). Fooled twice: People cannot detect deepfakes but think they can. iScience, 24(11), 103364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.103364
24. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
25. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
26. Machete, P., & Turpin, M. (2020). The Use of Critical Thinking to Identify Fake News: A Systematic Literature Review. Içinde M. Hattingh, M. Matthee, H. Smuts, I. Pappas, Y. K. Dwivedi, & M. Mäntymäki (Ed.), Responsible Design, Implementation and Use of Information and Communication Technology (C. 12067, ss. 235-246). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45002-1_20
27. Maslej, N., Fattorini, L., Perrault, R., Gil, Y., Parli, V., Kariuki, N., Capstick, E., Reuel, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Etchemendy, J., Ligett, K., Lyons, T., Manyika, J., Niebles, J. C., Shoham, Y., Wald, R., Walsh, T., Hamrah, A., Santarlasci, L., … Oak, S (2025). Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2025 (Versiyon 3). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2504.07139
28. McKinsey & Company. (2025, Kasım 5). The State of AI: Global Survey 2025 | McKinsey. The state of AI in 2025: Agents, innovation, and transformation. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai
29. OpenAI. (2022, Kasım 30). Karşınızda ChatGPT. https://openai.com/tr-TR/index/chatgpt/
30. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
31. Paredes, J. L., Smith, E., Druck, G., & Benson, B. (2024). More Articles Are Now Created by AI Than Humans. Five Percent. https://graphite.io/five-percent/morearticles-are-now-created-by-ai-than-humans
32. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Sampling, Qualitative (Purposeful). Içinde G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (1. bs.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeoss012.pub2
33. Roth, E. (2025, Temmuz 21). OpenAI says ChatGPT users send over 2.5 billion prompts every day. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/news/710867/openai-chatgptdaily-prompts-2-billion
34. Schneijderberg, C., Wieczorek, O., & Steinhardt, I. (2026). The Handbook of Qualitative and Quantitative Content Analysis: Introduction to Classical, Digital, AIsupported, and Automated Data Analysis (1. bs.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003496397
35. Shin, D., Perlmutter, D. D., Lim, J. S., & Jitkajornwanich, K. (2025). Fact-Checking as Epistemic Infrastructure: From Journalistic Gatekeeping to Platform Governance. Emerging Media, 3(2), 183-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543251344972
36. Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping Theory (0 bs.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203931653
37. Silverman, C. (2014). Verification handbook: A definitive guide to verifying digital content for emergency coverage. European Journalism Centre. https://verificationhandbook.com/downloads/verification.handbook.pdf
38. Unesco. (2024). 2/3 of digital content creators do not check their facts before. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/2/3-digital-content-creators-do-not-check-theirfacts-sharing-want-learn-how-do-so-unesco-survey
39. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The Network Society. SAGE Publications.
40. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making (Council of Europe Report DGI(2017)09).
41. Council of Europe. https://firstdraftnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/PREMS-162317-GBR-2018-Report-de%CC%81sinformation-1.pdf
42. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (Sixth edition). SAGE.