A new study by media intelligence firm CARMA and the global communications network IPREX reveals a widening gap between the speed of AI adoption and the public accountability that organizations are prepared to offer. The research, which analyzed coverage across 500 tier-one media outlets, surveyed more than 6,300 people in 19 markets, and gathered practitioner input from 14 countries, was presented at the 2026 IPREX Annual Global Conference in Singapore. The findings show that while media narratives remain optimistic, public concern about AI operating without human oversight surged 63% between the first and second half of 2025.
Optimism covers deeper anxieties
Global media coverage of AI remains strongly positive, framed around productivity, efficiency, and economic growth. The doomsday scenarios that once dominated early debate have not taken hold. Audiences are more curious than afraid. But the study shows that this optimism rests on fragile ground. The public's fear is not about science fiction scenarios. It is about losing control of systems that are already embedded in decisions affecting their lives.
Concern about cybercrime, fraud, misinformation, and election interference consistently outweighs the high-level governance narratives that media outlets tend to emphasize. People are worried about practical, immediate consequences. Many organizations, meanwhile, are still communicating about long-term capability and vision. That disconnect is a communications problem, and it is growing.
CEOs lead the narrative, but trust requires more
CEOs account for 43% of the commentator share in global AI coverage and are the most consistently positive voice across all surveyed groups. That reflects a deliberate investment in putting leaders at the forefront of the AI story. But a CEO articulating what AI can achieve is different from an organization demonstrating that it has thought seriously about what happens when the technology falls short.
When the public was asked what builds confidence in AI, safety and misuse prevention ranked higher than accuracy and reliability. People want to know who is accountable, how decisions are made, and whether human judgment remains part of the process. The conversations that dominate AI communications in many markets-announcements, investment figures, claims of regional leadership-do not answer the questions that are actually forming in the public mind.
Gulf states show a split that points forward
The UAE ranked second only to the United States in media interest around AI testing and governance progress. That reflects a market that is not just enthusiastic about adoption but increasingly attentive to how it is managed and validated. Saudi Arabia sits among the most strongly pro-AI markets globally in public opinion data, alongside India, China, and Brazil, with excitement levels among the highest recorded anywhere.
That the UAE leads in governance interest while its neighbor leads in public enthusiasm suggests the region is moving in the right direction. The appetite for AI is real, but so is the expectation that organizations will show they are in control of what they are deploying. Positive sentiment is not self-sustaining. Coverage spikes are event-driven, tied to model launches, investment announcements, and major conferences. Between those moments, underlying anxiety accumulates quietly.
The communications profession's role
Across 14 markets, the most common AI communications challenge cited by practitioners was managing trust, risk, and regulation. Clients are moving faster with adoption than with governance, and the gap between what they are doing internally and what they can credibly say publicly is widening. Many have not yet defined how AI fits into their communications approach, leaving their external messaging reactive and inconsistent. This is a core challenge for professionals working in AI for PR & Communications.
The communicator's role is to help organizations work out what they actually believe, what safeguards they have in place, and how they will account for decisions made with or by AI systems. That requires internal clarity before external messaging. An organization that cannot answer basic questions about accountability and oversight has not earned the right to talk about leadership. The organizations that emerge from this phase with their reputations intact will be the ones who recognized early that trust is not incidental to what they are building-it is the foundation.
Why this matters for PR and communications professionals
The study confirms that the trust gap is not a technical problem. It is a communications one. Professionals must help their organizations close the distance between what they are deploying and what they can explain publicly. That means working internally to define lines of accountability, building governance narratives that match the pace of adoption, and preparing for the moments when things go wrong. The organizations that do this will have a credibility reserve to draw on. Those that continue to lean on capability announcements alone will find themselves exposed when the public's quiet anxiety turns into active scrutiny.
Your membership also unlocks:
