tv stations news coverage's credibility

8/14/2019 TV Stations News Coverage's Credibility

1/50

Nicklas WallbergTV-stations news coverages credibility

Content

Content_______________________________________________________________1

1.0 ABSTRACT................................................................................................................3

2.0 Rationale___________________________________________________________4

3.0 Literature Review____________________________________________________6

4.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND LIMITATIONS......................................10

3.1 PART 1- ON-LINESURVEY............................................................................................10

3.2 PART 2- FOCUSGROUP................................................................................................10

LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................................11

5.0 Summary and considerations of primary research________________________12

5.1 BALANCEDVIEWOFTHENEWSFROM TV?.....................................................................12

5.2 THEMOSTCREDIBLENEWS-SOURCE................................................................................12

5.3 IMPORTANTDETAILSFORACREDIBLENEWSSTATION..........................................................12

5.4 CREDIBILITYOF BBC.................................................................................................13

5.5 CREDIBILITYOF CHANNEL 7.........................................................................................13

5.6 CREDIBILITYOF FOX NEWS..........................................................................................14

5.7 CORPORATEIMAGESTRATEGYOF BBC..........................................................................14

5.8 CORPORATEIMAGESTRATEGYOF CHANNEL 7..................................................................15

5.9 CORPORATEIMAGESTRATEGYOF FOX NEWS...................................................................15

5.11 GOVERNMENTALOWNEDCHANNELSNEWSVERSUSPRIVATEOWNEDCHANNELSNEWS..........15

6.0 Highlights of findings________________________________________________17

6.1 EMPLOYEES................................................................................................................17

6.2 CREDIBILITY..............................................................................................................17

6.3 GOVERNMENTALVERSUSPRIVATECHANNELS....................................................................18


2/50


2(50)

7. References__________________________________________________________20

7.1 PICTURES...................................................................................................................21

8. APPENDICES............................................................................................................22

8.1 STATISTICSFROMCHOSENREPORTS.................................................................................22

8.2 ON-LINESURVEYDATA.................................................................................................25

8.3 FOCUSGROUPTRANSCRIPT............................................................................................28

Moderator.............................................................................................................................................. ..... ....28

8.4 VIDEOCLIPFROM BBC AND FOX NEWS.......................................................................44

8.5 ON-LINESURVEYQUESTIONS.........................................................................................45


3/50


3(50)

1.0 Abstract

The research, regarding TV-stations news coverages credibility, produced clear results

from two sources, a focus group and an on-line survey. The results from the two sources

were close to identical.

The most important points were:

- Governmental channels news are seen as more credible compared to private

channels news

- Channels key values should be supported by its employees in order to create a

effective corporate image

- A channel should question their own news coverage to be considered credible

- Any company has to sell the credibility of its product, but a media company has

nothing else to sell (Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J., 2006)

- The selection of news is important in order to be seen as a credible news station

- High ratings and high credibility doesnt go hand in hand

The results received from the primary research reflect the secondary research used in

this report (see 3.0 Literature review)


4/50


4(50)

2.0 Rationale

Corporate reputation management has always been important. But in todays market

where consumer trust is at an all-time low, discerning companies are acknowledging the

importance of their own corporate reputations as corporate assets. But a lot of what

makes a corporate image is how the company is presented in the media. So how does

the media manage their corporate image, while still remaining credible as a news

source?

The aim of this study is to gain data about TV-stations news coverages credibility. The

qualitative part of the study is designed to international students in Australia, from

Sweden, while the quantitative part has a wider base of selection.

The additional aims are to:

Find out what our target group think of television stations corporate reputation

strategies in reference to their news coverages credibility.

Find out what corporate image strategy that makes a news station credible

Compare the credibility between governmental and private news channels

To narrow down the study we chose three different stations from three different

countries to focus our study on:

BBC UK (Governmental)

Channel 7 Australia (Private)

Fox News USA (Private)


5/50


5(50)

The study used the following material:

Refereed articles handling the subjects of corporate brand personality, media

bias and reputation along with corporate social performance and corporate

reputation.

A case study exploring the link between culture and strategy in media

organisations (King, L, 2000)

Data collected from an 17-question on-line survey of more than 85 respondents,

conducted in September 2007

Focus group of five international students in Australia, from Sweden (aged 20-

24), conducted in September 2007


6/50


6(50)

3.0 Literature Review

The success with branding, of a company or organisation, can be defined by who it is

and whatit does (Keller, K. 2006). Brand personality has been defined as the human

characteristics or traits that can be attributed to a brand. (Keller, K. 2006). Corporate

Brand personality can therefore be seen as brand personality to a certain corporation.

Keller (2006) presents corporate brand personality in three dimensions with two traits

each:

Heart (passionate and compassionate)

Mind (creative and disciplined)

Body (agile and collaborative)

The effects of each pair of traits are improved by each other, which means they have a

multiple or interactive effect. When all employees in a company act with heart,

mind and body the company will have better chances to do well in the 21st century

(Keller, K. 2006).

How we look at a company, and predict its future, can be viewed through two

interwoven perspectives, corporate social performance and corporate reputation

(Quevedo-Puente, de & Fuente-Sabat, d., l. & Delgado-Garcis, J., B., 2007).

Corporate social performance describes how the company have act in the past, whilst

corporate reputation is the perception of the company will do in the future (Quevedo-

Puente, de & Fuente-Sabat, d., l. & Delgado-Garcis, J., B., 2007). The process of


7/50


7(50)

legitimisation links them together and the best results are given when both disciplines

are working together.

Dr Lucy King have looked at BBCs cultural paradigm, dividing it to four assumptions

the employees had about the organisation (2000):

Public funding makes us different

The best in the business

Part of the British way of life

Defending a great heritage

The views were gathered by an in-company research conducted between 1994-1995. 21

senior members of staff were interviewed twice (qualitative method). 19 experts

interviews were also conducted with senior industry figures and academics in the UK

and US.

In an annual report from The Pew Research Center (2006) the credibility of the US

media is looked at (quantitative method). 1503 persons were included in the survey and

it has been conducted since 1985.

In the report Fox News viewers are described as mainly republicans and with a critical

view of news organisations. For example, 13% more of the Fox News viewers believe

news organisations hurt democracy compared to viewers with other main sources.

Furthermore, 12% of the viewers with Fox News as main source also believe that news

organisations cover up their mistakes compared to what viewers with other main news

source believes (see appendices 8.1).


8/50


8(50)

Any company has to sell the credibility of its product, but a media company has

nothing else to sell (Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J., 2006). The construction of a

companys product credibility is what corporate reputation strategies are largely about.

If people have faith in a companys product they will be more likely to have faith in the

company. For a news station, this is everything.

CBS President Andrew Heyward is emphasizing the importance of a reputation for truth

telling in journalism. Heyward wrote, nothing is more important to [CBS] than our

credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair,

accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. (Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J., 2006).

The study concluded that a lot of what people think of a specific news story would be

based on the prior experiences that the person had had with the station and also what

beliefs and ideology the station represented. A survey showed that nearly 30 percent of

respondents who described themselves as conservative indicated that they thought

they could believe all or most of what the Fox Cable News Network says. In contrast,

less than 15 percent of self-described liberals said that they could believe all or most of

what the network reports. (See appendices 8.1, figure 4.10). Another factor for the

credibility of the media was the competition with other media in same market. A station

competing with another news outlet runs the risk that, if it distorts its signal, the

competitors report will expose the inaccuracy and thus reduce consumers assessments

of the distorting firms quality (Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J., 2006).


9/50


9(50)

Another study also concluded, credibility is a state of mind with the individual that

deals with emotional expectations surrounding trust and truth (Westlund, 2006).

An American study states the television news credibility factor emphasizes fairness and

currency. The dominant factor centers on fairness. Other strong-loading scale items are

balance, trustworthy, accurate, and objective (Abdulla, Garrison, Salwen, Driscoll, and

Casey, 2002).

Other literature included news articles from print media and Internet sites regarding, for

example, the two Swedish national broadcasting channels (SVT) and its problem with

reaching out to its core audience because lack of funding for especially sport-events.

This would allegedly be because SVT does not have commercials and can therefore not

pay as much money for the events as other private medias.


10/50


10(50)

4.0 Research methodology and limitations

The study was divided into two parts:

1. An on-line survey

2. A focus group

3.1 Part 1- On-line survey

For the on-line survey, the targets where chosen from a broad mass. Two personal mail-

lists were created with 200 persons all together, both female and male. On private

communities, such as Facebook, links to the survey was presented. Participants were

chosen from groups of friends and family, fellow students, colleagues and university

staff. With this approach a broad diversity of the society was possible. A total of 86

answers were received. The majority of the participants in the on-line survey were

people 19-25. The survey was created in August 2007, approximately one month before

the focus group.

The survey was non-probability because of the non-existing control over who answered

the survey.

3.2 Part 2- Focus group

The focus group was conducted in the home of Henrik Wessman (ECU

Communications undergraduate) on 16 September 2007. The authors role was to

moderate the discussion while, Henrik Wessman recorded and took notes. The

discussion took about 60 minutes.

The focus group targeted the following categories:


11/50


11(50)

MixedGender

Age. 20-24

Education. All participants were under graduate students (Bachelor of

Communications) with a direct interest or engagement in the field of news

broadcasting.

Nationality. The participants were all Swedish citizens with international

experience. The participants are chosen because of their knowledge of the

different TV-channels.

Using a qualitative method in addition to the survey enabled the use of more detailed

answers and in-depth questions. The qualitative method also targeted a group of people

that knew more about the subjects, which enabled more complex discussions. The

transcript of the focus group can be found under appendices (8.3)

Limitations

Following limitations have been factors for this study:

- Sampling limited to one focus group within a small area, which makes the

representation only stand for a small sampling of the population

- Participants different levels of understanding of the issue

- Time restriction

- No budget

- Inexperience of conducting a focus group

- Inexperience of conducting research


12/50


12(50)

5.0 Summary and considerations of primary research

The on-line the survey and the focus group indicated the same results, with a few

exceptions. For more details, see appendices 8.2 (on-line survey statistics) and 8.3

(transcript of focus group).

5.1 Balanced view of the news from TV?

The on-line survey showed that it was almost equal in how people thought they got a

balanced view of news from TV (see appendices 8.2). The survey also showed that there

was a big number who answered maybe or dont know.

5.2 The most credible news-source

The on-line survey showed that TV is the third most credible news-source, beaten by the

Internet and Newspapers, but ahead of radio (see appendices 8.2). The participants in

the focus group agreed to the findings, presenting the following main reasons:

- The Internet and Newspapers are sources where people can select what

to read

- With both radio and TV the viewer are allocated to see and listen to all

news presented, which means the receiver is not in charge

- TV news are shorter and has it focus on updating the general public

5.3 Important details for a credible news station

The on-line survey stated that there were four major details that were important for the

credibility of a news station (see appendices 8.2)

- The length of the program

- The country the channel is from


13/50


14/50


14(50)

5.6 Credibility of Fox News

22% of the participants in the on-line survey rated Fox News as pure propaganda.

16% said not credible, 15% sometimes credible, 4% usually credible and only

1% said very credible. 42% had no opinion of Fox News credibility. Fox News had

the lowest score measuring credibility in the survey (see appendices 8.2).

The focus group stated that Fox News used drama in their news presenting and

reporting. The participants referred to the culture of attacking people and making

them uncomfortable in interviews (se attached video clip, appendices 8.4). The

participants of the focus group said Fox News was sensationalising news and that

their reporters already have an opinion before conducting a news report.

5.7 Corporate image strategy of BBC

The participants of the focus group said that BBCs image is strong because of the

following reasons:

- BBC shows different sides of a story, and counterparts get a say

- In-depth reports and analysis

- Wants people to question news

- Attracts viewers that have an interest of news

The participants also agreed to Dr Lucy Kings report that said the employees of BBC

believes they are the best in the business, and that the pride of working for the BBC

shows in the programs (King, L., 2000, p 2).


15/50


15(50)

5.8 Corporate image strategy of Channel 7

The focus group said that the corporate image strategy of channel 7 is to connect to the

general public, and to be its friend. One participant said that it is more Hi, how are

you? rather than reporting news.

5.9 Corporate image strategy of Fox News

One participant in the focus group thought Fox News tries to be serious, but fails.

Another participant (Sven) said, they (Fox News) want to be scandalous, and that

people are aware of that and go there for some entertainment.

When the moderator mentioned that Fox News slogan is, We report, you decide, the

participants laughed. They all agreed that Fox News isnt objective in its reporting.

5.11 Governmental owned channels news versus private owned channelsnews

All participants in the focus group agreed that governmentally owned stations, in

democratic countries, has the most objective and credible news reporting.

Klara: they have to question themselves because they are governmental so that

people dont think that they are bias towards the government and stuff. They have to

question themselves and prove that they are objective in a sense.

The aims of private and governmental channels were questioned, The governmental

channels question themselves whilst the private dont, they can but its not their aim for

their company.


16/50


16(50)

In the online-survey, the governmental owned stations had the highest credibility (see

appendices 8.2).


17/50


17(50)

6.0 Highlights of findings

6.1 Employees

Keller (2006) discussed how the human characteristics are important to succeed with

the branding of a company or an organisation. He states that the employees must stand

behind the values of a company to succeed in the 21st century. His findings works well

with Buzz Researchs primary data received from the focus group and the on-line

survey.

The survey showed that the participants thought that the news anchor and on-scene

reporters were on the top four of what was most important for a TV-stations credibility

(see appendices 8.2). The focus group stated:

Sven: I think that with BBC it feels like their reputation is more based on the reporters

they have, because they have very famous reporters. I think thats why BBC is such a

good channel.

Johanna: Its like that with good newspapers as well, they have very famous reporters.

6.2 Credibility

Any company has to sell the credibility of its product, but a media company has

nothing else to sell (Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J., 2006).

This quote says it all. All the news stations that were considered credible work hard to

generate objective and correct news. They often question themselves in order to evolve

its coverage.


18/50


18(50)

The selection of news is important in order to be seen as credible. BBC was seen as

more credible because they had in-depth reportage and news relating to the whole

world. On the contrary, channel 7 was seen as more entertaining (see appendices 8.3)

because of their selection of softer news.

Fox News is a successful channel when it comes to ratings and income, but several

surveys (see appendices 8.1 and 8.2) indicate their low credibility. This phenomenon is

supported by the results of our focus group, which strongly agreed that Fox News has

low credibility.

If the employees feel like they are the best in the business (King, 2000, p 2) they are

likely to produce quality news. BBC works with that notion, which means the company

values are equal to its employees values. That is what builds credibility inside a news

station, equal trust and work ethics.

6.3 Governmental versus private channels

Governmental channels, in democratic countries, are the most credible according to our

primary data. Swedish SVT, Australian ABC and British BBC were all rated top three

out of the seven channels used in the on-line survey. Last were the private channels Fox

News and channel 7 (see appendices 8.2). Throughout the focus group, similar data was

collected (see appendices 8.3).

This study came up with three main reasons why governmental channels are seen as

more credible news sources compared to private channels:


19/50


19(50)

- They have a mission to broadcast quality news that are objective and

correct. e.g. ABCs key values are, Honesty, Fairness, Independence and

respect (ABC, 2007)

- The parliament and public of the country are continuously questioning a

governmental channel.

- Governmental channels have a steady income without using commercial

Private channels are always in need of funding, which doesnt give them much

independence. They must keep their advertisers happy as well as their audience, which

makes them fragile in editorial decisions. There is less time to build a reputation or

base, results must come fast, or they will be out of business.


20/50


20(50)

7. References

ABC. (2007).Editorial Policies. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from

http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/edpol02.pdf

Abdulla, R., Garrison, B., Salwen, M., Driscoll, P. and CaseyD. (2005) Online News

and the Public. The credibility of newspapers, television news, and online news. New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boman, B. (2007). Tittarna vill ha reklam i SVT[Transl: The viewers want commercials

in SVT]. Retrieved August 20, 2007, from

http://aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article420348.ab

Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, M., J. (2005) Media Bias and Reputation.Issued in Journal

of Political Economy, Vol. 114 No. 2, 280-316

Holmberg, S. & Weibull, L. (2005)Lyckan kommer, lyckan gr. Mediefrtroende en

framgngsfaktor? [Transl. Trust for the media a reason for success?]. Gothenburg:

SOM-institutet.

Keller, K., & Richey, R. (2006). The importance of corporate brand personality traits to

a successful 21st century business.Issued in Brand Management, vol 14, 74-81.


21/50


21(50)

King, L. (2000). Exploring the link between culture and strategy in media organisations:

the cases of the BBC and CNN.Issued in The International Journal on Media

Management, Volume 2, No. 2.

Quevedo-Puente, d., E. & Fuente-Sabat, d., l., J., M. & Delgado-Garcia, B., J. (2007)

Corporate Social Performance and Corporate Reputation: Two Interwoven

Perspectives.Issues in Corporate Reputation Review, vol. 10 No. 1, 60-72.

Westlund, O. (2006)Du stora nya vrld. Mediefrtroendets betydelse. [Transl. The

importance of the trust for the media]. Gothenburg: SOM-institutet.

The Pew Research Center (2006) Maturing Internet News Audience- Broader than deep.

Retrieved August 15, 2007, from

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1069

The Radio and Television News Directors Foundation (2001) The America Radio News

Audience Survey. Retrieved August 15, 2007, from http://www.rtndf.org/radio/

7.1 Pictures

BBC. (2007).Logo. Retrieved August 12, 2007, from: http://www.bbc.co.uk

Channel 7. (2007).Logo. Retrieved August 12, 2007, from

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/tv/seven/

Fox News. (2007).Logo. Retrieved August 12, 2007, from www.foxnews.com


22/50


22(50)

8. Appendices

8.1 Statistics from chosen reports

QuickTime och enTIFF (LZW)-dekomprimerarekr vs fr att kunna se bilden.

(Figure 3.2 Pew Research Center, 2006)

QuickTime och enTIFF (LZW)-dekomprimerarkr vs fr att kunna se bilde

Figure 3.1 (Pew Research Center, 2006)


Fi ure 3.3 Pew Research Center 2006


23/50


23(50)

QuickTime och en

TIFF (LZW)-dekomprimerarekr vs fr att kunna se bilden.







24/50


24(50)





25/50


25(50)

8.2 On-line survey data


26/50


26(50)


27/50


27(50)

Question 17

Credibility in TV stations news

5 - Very credible, 4 - Usually credible, 3 - Sometimes credible,

2 - Not credible, 1 - Pure Propaganda

4,19

2,07

2,91

4,31

3,68

4,15

3,81

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

1

Station

BBC (UK)

Fox (US)

Channel 7 (AUS)

SVT (SWE)

CNN (US)

ABC (AUS)

TV4 (SWE)


28/50


28(50)

8.3 Focus group transcript

The names in the transcript are not the real names of the participants.

Participants:

Moderator

Sven

JohannaLina

KlaraAnnica

Moderator:Hi and welcome to this focus group where we will discuss how TV-stations get

credibility for their news.We have some rules we would like you to follow in order to make sure that thediscussion will be useful.

The first rule is to only speak English. All the questions and all the discussion will be inEnglish.

We are gonna talk for around 40-60 minutes. Something Like that. After, we will go to

the Flying Scotsman for some pizza and beer.

SVEN:Sweet

Moderator:As I said we are gonna look at TV-stations news credibility, and we want you guys to

think of them as organisations and corporations, so we are gonna look at them from thatperspective. And look at their reputation and so forth. We are not after any right or

wrong answers; we just want your views and opinions on the subject. So its just to talk

as much as you can and want. Just dont interrupt each other and make sure that you leteverybody talk. Also be careful with the table to avoid interfering with the microphone.

Are there any questions about the rules?

Lina:

So we are basically just keeping a discussion here?

Moderator:Yes, I got a couple of questions, and the you guys just talk about what you think. We are

also gonna show you some video clips and see what youre thoughts are of them and we

also got a few statistics that we are going to show you. But its all gonna come prettyeasily, its straight forward everything.

So to start with, we have to define what we are talking about. We are gonna talk aboutcredible news station. So whats a credible news station to you? Whats a credible news

station from your point of view?

Lina:


29/50


29(50)

I reckon that the ABC makes pretty credible news here. I find that Channel 9 and 7 are

pretty bias. Probably because they are after more entertainment and they wanna havelike scandalous headlines and things like that.

Moderator:

So a good news station for you is when feel that they try to be objective? [3 min]

Lina:Yeah. At least that they are trying.

Annica:

I think that its important that you have a format, I think it was one of our teachers that

was talking about it before, when you talk about the most important stories first and youhave the less important stories in the end just shortly.

Moderator:Ok, so you dont try to hook them with first story?

Annica:

Yeah, I think its too much entertainment news on some channels and its really

irrelevant.

Lina:I also think that there is a lot of focus on sports here. I feel like there is more important

things in the world than whos injured after the weekends game or whatever, you know.

Annica:And the people presenting as well. They have to look credible.

Moderator:

Ok. Can you, how would a credible person look like?

Johanna:Just sincere. Sincere and like not having to much make-up. Just look ordinary.

Klara:So that the general impression isnt that its gonna be a show.

SVEN:

ABCs Media Watch I dont like, I think that Monica Atter is a good interviewer but I

dont think that she is credible as a person.

Moderator:Because?

SVEN:She looks like shes trying to, eh, no she doesnt look convincing she looks more like

she is trying to lure people to say strange things.

Moderator:


30/50


30(50)

Ok. So like trying to trick them to get a headline?

SVEN:

Yeah.

[5 min]

Lina:

I dont know if any of you have seen Sunrise on Channel 7s morning show. Its not like

youre use to from back home. Its more of an entertainment show and the news is just avery small part of it. They spend so much time having Monique travelling around the

country meeting people who have done something extraordinary. And its just like itsnot that sort of program that entertain you in an educational way. And I dont know who

they are aiming at and whos gonna watch that because I think it starts like 7oclock

until nine or something, and its all like drinking beer and who is gonna win that littlecontest and things like that.

Moderator:

Are they trying to make it as a news show?

Lina:

Well I think that was the aim from the beginning, but as they show it now its more likethey take a 5 minutes break for some news and then just chatter on about nothing really.

Moderator:

So if Ive understood you correctly, a credible news station need, there should be, thenews should be in a specific order, the news anchor should be credible and what newsthey are choosing?

Johanna:I also think that its about how much time you spend on each kind of news. To like

world serious news and even local news that are more like serious, if you dedicate mosttime to that, and maybe like business and stuff, and then you can have a little

entertainment and sports news. But you spend most time on the more serious stuff.

SVEN:

Yeah. When I was going back to Sweden this summer and saw Aktuellt or Rapport[Swedish news shows on SVT, state owned channel] I thought they were bad shows

because they just had this little about the world and then a lot of national news that

wasnt important at all.

Johanna:Well I think thats the thing about them, I dont remember which one but I think it is

Rapport that has more national news and Akuellt more international. If you watch them

both you get both international and national.

Klara:

I suppose also what pictures they show affect the credibility as well.


31/50


31(50)

Moderator:

So if its their own picture or someone elses or?

Klara:

Well, Like what type of pictures theyre showing. Like the war in Iraq, you can tell fromthe pictures they are showing if its credible or not

[8 min]

Johanna:

You can tell their point of view depending on what kind of pictures they are showing, if

they are showing pictures of soldiers that are like yeah victory or something, they areprobably on the USs side. Depends on like the angle of the camera.

Moderator:From the survey we did, we had one question that was about what was important for the

credibility of a news station. The highest rating was for which country the channel wasfrom. The second one was the length of the news program. The third one was on scene

reporters and the fourth one was the news anchor. What do you think about that?

Annica:

I think that when you talk about international news and you see news from maybe Foxor something your not gonna think that its unbiased.

Klara:

Yeah. No matter the nationality you have to keep in mind that this is from a specificcountry and they have their views about it.

Annica:

Yeah, and their political views as well. I think most people have a good sense of whichpolitical view each channel has. According to at least the big international channels.

Lina:

I think its important to have like an independent or someone that is trying to be an

objective expert. Back home in Sweden they always have if it is a political issue they tryto bring in an objective expert or someone who has one research on the subject. But

here it is more of the people who try to be experts.

Moderator:

So do you think that these numbers are correct?

SVEN:To me the news anchor should be more important.

Klara:To me, thats more just a machine that reads a text.

SVEN:Still.


32/50


32(50)

Klara:Yeah, it definitely affects the credibility of the news but for me its more important to

think of the country original news and the angle of the news rather than the person that

are telling the news.

Annica:I think its a good top four though. You can probably change around but, its a good top.

[11 min]

Moderator:These were pretty much the ones in the top, the other ones had much lower ratings so

these were the ones that really stood out.

If we continue, we would like to her your views about these three channels, you dontneed to know everything about them just your perceptions of them. We can start with

for example Channel 7 here in Australia. Just, what pops up in your head?

Klara:

Big Brother. Isnt that Channel 7? Im not thinking very serious thoughts about Channel7. More entertainment. Thats just my perception of it.

Johanna:

I havent watched it that much, just a few times. But yeah, entertainment.

Lina:I watch Channel 7 quite a lot actually. I dont like the way that they present the news,

but I think that they are better than Channel 9 if I should compare them. Because they

have their news on at the same time. Today Tonight and Current Affairs at the same time

as well so I usually watch Channel 7.

Klara:Today Tonight is Channel 7 right and Sunrise Channel 9?

Lina:No Sunrise is Channel 7 as well.

Moderator:

Yeah, Its Current Affairs on Channel 9 that is kind of the same type of show as Today

Tonight.

Klara:I think its too much commercial in general. That just makes me sick of it.

Moderator:So commercials is a big issue for you?

Klara:Yeah, that just makes me turn the TV off.


33/50


33(50)

Lina:Its very annoying when you watch a film and there is like 20 or 25 commercial breaks.

Annica:

I think thats the biggest difference from Swedish Television, that there are so much

commercials. And that they are so crappy as well.

Klara:

Yeah, its so crappy because there is no intelligence behind them. Just some typical guyscreaming [deep voice] you can buy two and three for huy huy with bla bla

[13,5 min]

Lina:

Yeah very low budget.

Klara:If they showed that in Sweden it would be ironic.

Moderator:Do you feel that it affects the credibility when you see ads on the channel?

Klara:

Yes. If you watch the channel and they have a lot of crappy ads you think less of the

channel.

Johanna:I dont think so actually, if its a channel that doesnt have ads its probably a state

owned channel. And then you have to wonder if the state has anything to with what

theyre showing. So I think its better if its an independent channel. Of course they willhave commercials but so does everybody. As long as its moral and they dont show

bad, just regular adverts I dont mind. As long as they dont have breaks in the middle oflike the international news, like Yeah, going to commercials. Thats no good. But its

ok with before and after.

Moderator:

What do you think about how Channel 7 have their economic news presented bysomeone from the Commonwealth Bank and stuff like that?

Annica:I think you have to be very careful with that. If you are gonna talk to someone that

works in a bank, of course you have to say where they work but, otherwise its juststupid, but you cant throw it in like, you can be to commercial in order to make it

credible.

SVEN:

But when you say it like that, thats there an expert on the stock market. If he comes

from the commonwealth, its like saying this is Ian from SMHI [Swedishmeteorological institute] who is gonna tell the weather, its the same thing.


34/50


34(50)

Lina:But I think, like you said before Karin, someone needs to support the channel, they need

to get money from somewhere. So you need to be objective, or you need to be aware

that its always in someones interest around the channel. In one way or another I thinkits more about if you are aware that, we from another country think more about their

coverage compared to what were use to.

Klara:

I think that governmental channels have a higher credibility.

Johanna:I think that its because you trust the Swedish government.

[17,5 min]

Klara:Yeah, and were lucky to be so as well.

Moderator:Were gonna come back to these issues later on so keep your thoughts about them. If we

just continue to BBC, whats your perception of the BBC?

Everybody:

Credible.

Moderator:Ok, anyone who has anything else to say about them? Any connotations?

Lina:I like to watch them because they show a lot of international news. I mean, you need to

be aware that its a British channel, and its kind of angle for a British audience, but Ilike to watch them because you see a lot from the world that I hasnt seen before.

Annica:They also question things. I think its pretty important from other channels. They

question what is told to them. Thats why I trust them. They also get a lot of differentopinions from different people. Usually from both sides in a conflict.

Johanna:They can question without giving an answer, so people can decide by themselves.

SVEN:

I think BBC is more credible because they have a broad range of shows with nature and

travel and so on. And in these shows they have very credible reporters. I think that itsbecause British English sounds more credible than American English.

Moderator:


35/50


35(50)

Ok, is that for international people or do you think that American people find BBC more

credible to?

SVEN:

Dont know.

Annica:I think it depends on which Americans you are talking about. Perhaps the liberal people

rather have the BBC.

Moderator:

Ok, the last channel is Fox news.

Everybody:

[Laughing]

[21 min]

Moderator:

Just to speak up if you wanna say anything here.

SVEN:I havent watched it that much but I read in a book by Malcolm Gladwell that they made

a survey on a reporter in Fox News and he used more positive words for the thing that

he was supporting. But that was for that reporter.

Annica:I think from all the interviews Ive seen on Fox News they are really bias and they

always try to attack people in their interviews to make them squirm and be

uncomfortable. And it doesnt matter who it is because Ive seen interviews with BillClinton and stuff and they always just attack.

Klara:

Drama?

Annica:

Yeah.

Johanna:

Its most sensation news and they wanna people to come in a certain view, like showingthis is how it is. If someone says the opposite they start attacking them.

Annica:

Yeah they never let them finish talking. When they answer they just interrupt them

saying no no no thats not how it is. Not credible at all.

Moderator:

Is it the drama thing? Is that what they are aiming for?


36/50


36(50)

Lina:

I think its quite strange in some ways because Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdochscompany, and I find it strange that he will do that because it weakens the credibility

about everything else he owns like all the papers and so. It weakens his reputation all

over his brand.

Moderator:What do you think that the different channels aim with their strategy is? We can start

with channel 7.

Lina:

I think theyre aiming for the broad majority of the Australian people. Like beingentertaining and being something for everyone. Families sitting down together watching

the news. I dont think they put any emphasis on anything really. They just give a little

bit on everything and dont go in depth on anything. I feel like the level they have ontheir news is a very low educational level.

[24,5 min]

Johanna:Maybe theyre just trying to give people a broad perspective on everything and not go in

depth because many people arent interested in getting the news in details, they onlywanna know whats happening. A lot of channel has this and like if you wanna know

more details you can go to their website. I think its good if their aiming for families. It

can be good for young people as well that they get a little on everything and then find

out more for yourself, to see the big picture.

Moderator:

So thats their aim then to get

Johanna:

Yeah, to get a little bit on everything.

Moderator:

Lets continue to BBC then, whats their strategy or whats their aim?

Klara:Credibility, to get credibility.

Johanna:Like going into depth on issues and getting people to question whats happening.

Showing different point of views so people can make up their own minds.

Annica:

I think its good because they always go so in depth, which makes you watch it becauseyou get invested in the story. And by showing all the different angles forces you to think

about what your view is.

Lina:


37/50


37(50)

I think they are definitely targeting a different audience than channel 7. The news are

longer and more in depth so its for an audience that has an interest already.

Moderator:

This is taken from a report by Dr. Lucy King which is called BBCs cultural paradigm,which is what the organisation think about themselves. She pinpointed four major

assumptions that the employees at BBC had, Public funding makes us different, the bestin the business, part of the British way of life and defending a great heritage. What do

you feel when you hear this?

Johanna:

Sounds like the BBC.

SVEN:

Yeah it really sounds like the BBC. They say its really important for the English andthe UK

[27,5min]

Moderator:Do you think that the employees at Channel 7 and Fox News have the same views on

their company?

Annica:

No I dont think so.

Moderator:In what way?

Klara:I think Channel 7 wants to be your friend, like good morning how are you.. Whilst the

BBC are just reporting and doesnt think as much about persuading you.

Moderator:

So do you think that theres a difference with making the best news and attractingviewers?

Klara:

I think its more about being professional and not only trying to entertain.

Moderator:

Okay. This is from a fairly new report and the results were the same as what we got inour survey, which is the most credible medium. TV is the third credible source of news

with the Internet and newspaper ahead of it. What do you think about that?

Annica:

I think the Internet is a really good source for news because you can go into different

channels and get different point of views. Like when I was reading about the conflict inthe Middle East and you could see how different everybody reported on it and you saw


38/50


38(50)

all the different angles. Thats why the Internet is really good because you can get all the

angels and make up your own mind.

Klara:

Yeah, you can go into depth. On newspapers you can read the headline and then thearticle whereas with TV you basically just get the headline.

SVEN:

If you look at TV you must listen to what they say if you watch the channel. With the

Internet you can choose for yourself if you want to read something.

Klara:TV is good to keep you updated, you know with things youre not interested in but

things that are good to know.

Johanna:

But its harder to find information with the Internet because you really gotta want tofind it. And there are a lot of bad sources on the Internet that you have to be aware of.

You have to know where to look.

[31min]

Annica:

Thats a good thing as well because when you see the bad sources you get more

motivated to find credible sources.

Lina:I think that a problem is that all people arent as aware that we are about the differences

between them, so people just go in and trust what they believe. I remember I saw a story

of a murder and I checked out four different news outlets and they all had differentinformation on the story, so it was difficult to know what to believe.

Moderator:

We missed one thing, what would be the aim for Fox News.

Lina:

I think they want to be scandalous, and that people are aware of that and go there forsome entertainment.

Johanna:I think they want to be serious but they fail. They dont know how to attract an audience

so they have to go with the scandalous and sensationalistic stories, but they want to beserious.

Moderator:So they do the scandalous because they want to have more viewers but they want to be

serious but they took a shortcut?

Johanna:


39/50


39(50)

Yeah, exactly.

Annica:

I think theyre approaching it in the wrong way because as I said with their interviews,

they only attack people and dont let them finish talking, I think they want to be seen asvery questioning and aggressive, and they always question the same thing and the

always angles the things in one direction, I think they want to be, as well as attracting anaudience with their outrageousness.

Moderator:

Their slogan is actually We report, You decide.

Everyone:

[Laughter]

Moderator:

Now we have two clips were gonna watch. One is about the BBC and their coverage onthe conflict between Israel and Lebanon. The program is pretty much like media watch.

The other clip is from Fox News. What I would like you to think about is that one is

governmental and the other private. Well start with BBC.

[Clips showing]

[35min]

Moderator:So the question here is, is there a difference between the credibility of a governmentalchannel and a private channel? Not to say that all private channels are like Fox News,

but you know that.

SVEN:

Well he wasnt credible, [in reference to the Fox-clip] because he didnt ask anyquestions or state any facts. He just said, youre a lunatic.

Johanna:Hes saying youre wrong, hes only saying his point of view or the channels point of

view. He cant say that shes a lunatic, thats just stupid. And the main difference is thatBBC questions them selves. Like how to cover this fight. But hes just screaming at her,

like youre wrong, this doesnt exist and youre a lunatic you cant say that.

SVEN:

I thought it was pretty good with the BBC that first you saw the numbers and then theyexplained why they had covered it as they had, because there's more victims there. And

that was good I think.

Moderator:

Do you think that could happen in a private channel?

Johanna:


40/50


40(50)

Questioning themselves?

Moderator:

Yeah.

SVEN:

No, not really.

Johanna:

No.

Annica:They could, but they dont.

Klara:I think she did a really good job of defending herself and her point. That was Fox News

right?

Moderator:

Yeah.

Klara:If Fox News really want to get their point across and get people to agree with their

opinion, they should have picked another girl who were worse, because she really made

Fox news come out in a real bad light.

[48min]

Moderator:

So to the question, what do you think is the biggest difference between a private and agovernmental channel in credibility?

SVEN:

The governmental channels question themselves whilst the private dont, they can but

its not their aim for their company.

Johanna:I think the governmental channel has to, they have to question themselves because they

are governmental so that people dont think that they are bias towards the government

and stuff. They have to question themselves and prove that they are objective in a sense.

Klara:But I think thats very different in different countries. I think our government

[Swedens] aims for having a neutral news source. When I think there are a lot of

countries where the government doesnt feel that way.

Annica:

If the people dont trust the channel they dont trust the government. So they have to tryto be neutral.


41/50


41(50)

SVEN:I think that with BBC it feels like that their reputation is more based on the reporters

they have, because they have very famous reporters. I think thats why BBC is such a

good channel.

Moderator:Do you think that its the people in the organisation that builds up the brand as well?

SVEN:

Yeah, especially for the BBC.

Johanna:

Its like that with newspapers as well, they have very famous reporters.

Moderator:

Okay, so two quick questions, the first one, if something happens in USA who wouldyou trust most, Fox News or the BBC?

Everybody:BBC

Moderator:

Okay, and if something happened in the Middle East who would you trust most,

Al-Jazeera or the BBC?

[52min]

Lina:

Im not familiar with that news channel actually so it would be BBC.

SVEN:Its easy to trust a channel thats not in that country. If the channel is from the country

where something has happened they are gonna show it in a particular way.

Annica:

Of course Britain is bias as well, we have learnt to question every news its not like wetrust BBC like every word they say, one has to look at it and think for yourself. But yeah

probably BBC anyway. But if you want more in depth you have to look on different

channels and see what the differences are.

Moderator:Just in reference to that its not as trustworthy when the reporting is from a channel that

is from a country where the news has happened, if something happened in Sweden,

would you trust BBCs coverage of that more then say the coverage from SVT?

SVEN:

Yeah, maybe, because when it comes from a channel in the country it has happened inits more emotional based than rational based. So if we were in Sweden we would


42/50


42(50)

probably watch on Swedish channels news because we are on the same emotional level

because it happened to us.

Klara:

Yeah, I dont know if its because BBC is English and its a European perspective andwe are European so we can relate to that.

Moderator:

So if you look up things on he Internet how many pages do you go to?

Lina:

Four.

SVEN:

Yeah, four or five.

Annica:I depend on which news it is.

Moderator:Say its just everyday look up news, or not everyday but when you generally look up

news?

Klara:

Two, one Swedish and one Australian.

Johanna:If its something special I wanna go into depth on I would probably go to four or five.

[55min]

Annica:Yeah if its something you want to read more about, otherwise maybe two.

SVEN:I try to everyday look at, at least five. BBC, News.com.au, But I dont really like that

page, SVT, DN and The Australian, sometimes the West Australian.

Moderator:

Is there anything you want to add to the discussion?

[Silence]

Moderator:

Are you ready for some pizza and bear then?

Everybody:

YES!


43/50


43(50)

Moderator:

Okay, thank you very much!

Everybody:

Thank you!

[End 56min]


44/50


44(50)

8.4 Video clip from BBC and Fox News


45/50


45(50)

8.5 On-line survey questions

A.


46/50


46(50)


47/50


47(50)


48/50


48(50)


49/50


49(50)


50/50


50(50)

tv stations news coverage's credibility

Documents