Auditing LLM Editorial Bias in News Media Exposure

TL;DR

This paper audits how large language models influence news media exposure, revealing they curate information differently from traditional news aggregators, with biases and uneven outlet diversity affecting public discourse.

Contribution

It provides the first comparative analysis of LLMs versus Google News in media diversity, ideology, and reliability, highlighting their agentic editorial policies.

Findings

LLMs surface fewer unique news outlets than Google News.

LLMs exhibit ideological biases, favoring certain political leanings.

Patterns of bias are robust across different prompts and benchmarks.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly act as gateways to web content, shaping how millions of users encounter online information. Unlike traditional search engines, whose retrieval and ranking mechanisms are well studied, the selection processes of web-connected LLMs add layers of opacity to how answers are generated. By determining which news outlets users see, these systems can influence public opinion, reinforce echo chambers, and pose risks to civic discourse and public trust. This work extends two decades of research in algorithmic auditing to examine how LLMs function as news engines. We present the first audit comparing three leading agents, GPT-4o-Mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet, and Gemini-2.0-Flash, against Google News, asking: \textit{How do LLMs differ from traditional aggregators in the diversity, ideology, and reliability of the media they expose to users?} Across 24 global topics, we find that, compared to Google News, LLMs surface significantly fewer unique outlets and allocate attention more unevenly. In the same way, GPT-4o-Mini emphasizes more factual and right-leaning sources; Claude-3.7-Sonnet favors institutional and civil-society domains and slightly amplifies right-leaning exposure; and Gemini-2.0-Flash exhibits a modest left-leaning tilt without significant changes in factuality. These patterns remain robust under prompt variations and alternative reliability benchmarks. Together, our findings show that LLMs already enact \textit{agentic editorial policies}, curating information in ways that diverge from conventional aggregators. Understanding and governing their emerging editorial power will be critical for ensuring transparency, pluralism, and trust in digital information ecosystems.