TV Stations News Coverage's Credibility

Nicklas Wallberg
TV-stations news coverage’s 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-LINE SURVEY............................................................................................10
3.2 PART 2- FOCUS GROUP................................................................................................10
LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................................11
5.0 Summary and considerations of primary research________________________12
5.1 BALANCED VIEW OF THE NEWS FROM TV?.....................................................................12
5.2 THE MOST CREDIBLE NEWS-SOURCE................................................................................12
5.3 IMPORTANT DETAILS FOR A CREDIBLE NEWS STATION..........................................................12
5.4 CREDIBILITY OF BBC.................................................................................................13
5.5 CREDIBILITY OF CHANNEL 7.........................................................................................13
5.6 CREDIBILITY OF FOX NEWS..........................................................................................14
5.7 CORPORATE IMAGE STRATEGY OF BBC..........................................................................14
5.8 CORPORATE IMAGE STRATEGY OF CHANNEL 7..................................................................15
5.9 CORPORATE IMAGE STRATEGY OF FOX NEWS...................................................................15
5.11 GOVERNMENTAL OWNED CHANNELS’ NEWS VERSUS PRIVATE OWNED CHANNELS’ NEWS..........15
6.0 Highlights of findings________________________________________________17
6.1 EMPLOYEES................................................................................................................17
6.2 CREDIBILITY..............................................................................................................17
6.3 GOVERNMENTAL VERSUS PRIVATE CHANNELS....................................................................18

Nicklas Wallberg
2(50)
7. References__________________________________________________________20
7.1 PICTURES...................................................................................................................21
8. APPENDICES............................................................................................................22
8.1 STATISTICS FROM CHOSEN REPORTS.................................................................................22
8.2 ON-LINE SURVEY DATA.................................................................................................25
8.3 FOCUS GROUP TRANSCRIPT............................................................................................28
Moderator.............................................................................................................................................. .........28
8.4 VIDEO CLIP FROM BBC AND FOX NEWS.......................................................................44
8.5 ON-LINE SURVEY QUESTIONS.........................................................................................45

Nicklas Wallberg
3(50)
1.0 Abstract
The research, regarding TV-stations news coverage’s 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 channel’s news are seen as more credible compared to private
channel’s 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 doesn’t go hand in hand
The results received from the primary research reflect the secondary research used in
this report (see 3.0 Literature review)

Nicklas Wallberg
4(50)
2.0 Rationale
Corporate reputation management has always been important. But in today’s 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 coverage’s 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 station’s corporate reputation
strategies in reference to their news coverage’s 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)

Nicklas Wallberg
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

Nicklas Wallberg
6(50)
3.0 Literature Review

The success with branding, of a company or organisation, can be defined by who it is
and what it 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-Sabaté, 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-Sabaté, d., l. & Delgado-Garcis, J., B., 2007). The process of
Nicklas Wallberg
7(50)
legitimisation links them together and the best results are given when both disciplines
are working together.
Dr Lucy King have looked at BBC’s 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).

Nicklas Wallberg
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
company’s product credibility is what corporate reputation strategies are largely about.
If people have faith in a company’s 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
competitor’s report will expose the inaccuracy and thus reduce consumers’ assessments
of the distorting firm’s quality (Gentzkow, M. & Shapiro, J., 2006).

Nicklas Wallberg
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 media’s.

Nicklas Wallberg
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 author’s 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:

Nicklas Wallberg
11(50)
• Mixed Gender
• 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

Nicklas Wallberg
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 “don’t 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

Nicklas Wallberg
13(50)
- ”On scene” reporters
- The news anchor
This question provided a good discussion in the focus group. In the end, when presented
the on-line survey results, the group agreed with the result from the survey, even if the
order of importance varied. One other point the focus group stated as important was the
selection of news, e.g. entertainment versus “hard” news pieces.
5.4 Credibility of BBC

The BBC was well viewed by the focus group. Participants mentioned the variation of
programs and objective presentation of news as reasons for credibility.
The on-line survey showed that there was 17% that didn’t have an opinion of BBC. 25%
thought BBC was very credible, 49% usually credible, 9% sometimes credible and not
one percent rated BBC as “pure propaganda” (see appendices 8.2).
5.5 Credibility of Channel 7

Channel 7 was the least known channel by the participants of the survey. 86% of the
participants had “no opinion”. On average channel 7 got the second lowest score in
credibility.
The focus group described Channel 7 as, “too much commercial” and “more like
entertainment”.
Nicklas Wallberg
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 New’s 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 BBC’s 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 King’s 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).

Nicklas Wallberg
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 New’s slogan is, “We report, you decide”, the
participants laughed. They all agreed that Fox News isn’t objective in its reporting.
5.11 Governmental owned channels’ news versus private owned channels’

news
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 don’t 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 don’t, they can but it’s not their aim for
their company.”
Nicklas Wallberg
16(50)
In the online-survey, the governmental owned stations had the highest credibility (see
appendices 8.2).
Nicklas Wallberg
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 Research’s 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-station’s 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 that’s why BBC is such a
good channel.”
Johanna: “It’s 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.
Nicklas Wallberg
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:

Nicklas Wallberg
19(50)
- They have a mission to broadcast quality news that are objective and
correct. e.g. ABC’s 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 doesn’t 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.

Nicklas Wallberg
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 Casey D. (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 går. Medieförtroende – en
framgångsfaktor? [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.
Nicklas Wallberg
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-Sabaté, 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 värld. Medieförtroendets 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
Nicklas Wallberg
22(50)
8. Appendices
8.1 Statistics from chosen reports
QuickTime och en
TIFF (LZW)-dekomprimerare
krvs fr att kunna se bilden.
QuickTime och en
(Figure 3.2 Pew Research Center, 2006)
QuickTime och en
Figure 3.1 (Pew Research Center, 2006)

Nicklas Wallberg
23(50)
QuickTime och en
QuickTime och en
QuickTime och en

Nicklas Wallberg
24(50)
QuickTime och en
QuickTime och en

Nicklas Wallberg
25(50)
8.2 On-line survey data

Nicklas Wallberg
26(50)
Nicklas Wallberg
27(50)
Question 17
Credibility in TV stations news
5 - Very credible, 4 - Usually credible, 3 - Sometimes credible,
2 - Not credible, 1 - Pure Propaganda
5
4,5 4,19 4,31

4,15
4 3,81
3,68
3,5 BBC (UK)
2,91 Fox (US)
3
Channel 7 (AUS)
2,5 SVT (SWE)
2,07
2
Credibility CNN (US)
1,5 ABC (AUS)

TV4 (SWE)
1
0,5
0
1
Station
Nicklas Wallberg
28(50)
8.3 Focus group transcript

The names in the transcript are not the real names of the participants.
Participants:
Moderator
Sven
Johanna
Lina
Klara
Annica
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 the
discussion will be useful.
The first rule is to only speak English. All the questions and all the discussion will be in
English.
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 that
perspective. 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 it’s just to talk
as much as you can and want. Just don’t interrupt each other and make sure that you let
everybody 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 you’re thoughts are of them and we
also got a few statistics that we are going to show you. But it’s all gonna come pretty
easily, it’s straight forward everything.
So to start with, we have to define what we are talking about. We are gonna talk about
credible news station. So what’s a credible news station to you? What’s a credible news
station from your point of view?
Lina:
Nicklas Wallberg
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 have
like 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 it’s 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 you
have the less important stories in the end just shortly.
Moderator:
Ok, so you don’t try to hook them with first story?
Annica:
Yeah, I think it’s too much entertainment news on some channels and it’s 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 who’s injured after the weekend’s 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 isn’t that it’s gonna be a show.
SVEN:
ABC’s Media Watch I don’t like, I think that Monica Atter is a good interviewer but I
don’t think that she is credible as a person.
Moderator:
Because?
SVEN:
She looks like she’s trying to, eh, no she doesn’t look convincing she looks more like
she is trying to lure people to say strange things.
Moderator:
Nicklas Wallberg
30(50)
Ok. So like trying to trick them to get a headline?
SVEN:
Yeah.
[5 min]
Lina:
I don’t know if any of you have seen Sunrise on Channel 7’s morning show. It’s not like
you’re use to from back home. It’s more of an entertainment show and the news is just a
very small part of it. They spend so much time having Monique travelling around the
country meeting people who have done something extraordinary. And it’s just like it’s
not that sort of program that entertain you in an educational way. And I don’t know who
they are aiming at and who’s gonna watch that because I think it starts like 7o’clock
until nine or something, and it’s all like drinking beer and who is gonna win that little
contest 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 it’s more like
they take a 5 minutes break for some news and then just chatter on about nothing really.
Moderator:
So if I’ve understood you correctly, a credible news station need, there should be, the
news should be in a specific order, the news anchor should be credible and what news
they are choosing?
Johanna:
I also think that it’s 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 most
time 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
wasn’t important at all.
Johanna:
Well I think that’s the thing about them, I don’t 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.
Nicklas Wallberg
31(50)
Moderator:
So if it’s their own picture or someone else’s or?
Klara:
Well, Like what type of pictures they’re showing. Like the war in Iraq, you can tell from
the pictures they are showing if it’s 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 are
probably on the US’s 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 was
from. 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 Fox
or something your not gonna think that it’s unbiased.
Klara:
Yeah. No matter the nationality you have to keep in mind that this is from a specific
country and they have their views about it.
Annica:
Yeah, and their political views as well. I think most people have a good sense of which
political view each channel has. According to at least the big international channels.
Lina:
I think it’s 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 try
to 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, that’s more just a machine that reads a text.
SVEN:
Still.
Nicklas Wallberg
32(50)
Klara:
Yeah, it definitely affects the credibility of the news but for me it’s 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 it’s a good top four though. You can probably change around but, it’s 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 don’t
need 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. Isn’t that Channel 7? I’m not thinking very serious thoughts about Channel
7. More entertainment. That’s just my perception of it.
Johanna:
I haven’t watched it that much, just a few times. But yeah, entertainment.
Lina:
I watch Channel 7 quite a lot actually. I don’t 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, It’s Current Affairs on Channel 9 that is kind of the same type of show as Today
Tonight.
Klara:
I think it’s 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.
Nicklas Wallberg
33(50)
Lina:
It’s very annoying when you watch a film and there is like 20 or 25 commercial breaks.
Annica:
I think that’s the biggest difference from Swedish Television, that there are so much
commercials. And that they are so crappy as well.
Klara:
Yeah, it’s so crappy because there is no intelligence behind them. Just some typical guy
screaming [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 don’t think so actually, if it’s a channel that doesn’t have ads it’s probably a state
owned channel. And then you have to wonder if the state has anything to with what
they’re showing. So I think it’s better if it’s an independent channel. Of course they will
have commercials but so does everybody. As long as it’s moral and they don’t show
bad, just regular adverts I don’t mind. As long as they don’t have breaks in the middle of
like the international news, like ‘Yeah, going to commercials’. That’s no good. But it’s
ok with before and after.
Moderator:
What do you think about how Channel 7 have their economic news presented by
someone 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 it’s just
stupid, but you can’t throw it in like, you can be to commercial in order to make it
credible.
SVEN:
But when you say it like that, that’s there an expert on the stock market. If he comes
from the commonwealth, it’s like saying this is Ian from SMHI [Swedish
meteorological institute] who is gonna tell the weather, it’s the same thing.
Nicklas Wallberg
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 it’s always in someone’s interest around the channel. In one way or another I think
it’s more about if you are aware that, we from another country think more about their
coverage compared to what we’re use to.
Klara:
I think that governmental channels have a higher credibility.
Johanna:
I think that it’s because you trust the Swedish government.
[17,5 min]
Klara:
Yeah, and we’re lucky to be so as well.
Moderator:
We’re gonna come back to these issues later on so keep your thoughts about them. If we
just continue to BBC, what’s 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 it’s a British channel, and it’s kind of angle for a British audience, but I
like to watch them because you see a lot from the world that I hasn’t seen before.
Annica:
They also question things. I think it’s pretty important from other channels. They
question what is told to them. That’s why I trust them. They also get a lot of different
opinions 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 it’s
because British English sounds more credible than American English.
Moderator:
Nicklas Wallberg
35(50)
Ok, is that for international people or do you think that American people find BBC more
credible to?
SVEN:
Don’t 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 haven’t 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 I’ve 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 doesn’t matter who it is because I’ve seen interviews with Bill
Clinton and stuff and they always just attack.
Klara:
Drama?
Annica:
Yeah.
Johanna:
It’s most sensation news and they wanna people to come in a certain view, like showing
this 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 that’s not how it is.” Not credible at all.
Moderator:
Is it the drama thing? Is that what they are aiming for?
Nicklas Wallberg
36(50)
Lina:
I think it’s quite strange in some ways because Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdochs
company, 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 they’re aiming for the broad majority of the Australian people. Like being
entertaining and being something for everyone. Families sitting down together watching
the news. I don’t think they put any emphasis on anything really. They just give a little
bit on everything and don’t go in depth on anything. I feel like the level they have on
their news is a very low educational level.
[24,5 min]
Johanna:
Maybe they’re just trying to give people a broad perspective on everything and not go in
depth because many people aren’t interested in getting the news in details, they only
wanna know what’s happening. A lot of channel has this and like if you wanna know
more details you can go to their website. I think it’s 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 that’s their aim then to get
Johanna:
Yeah, to get a little bit on everything.
Moderator:
Let’s continue to BBC then, what’s their strategy or what’s their aim?
Klara:
Credibility, to get credibility.
Johanna:
Like going into depth on issues and getting people to question what’s happening.
Showing different point of views so people can make up their own minds.
Annica:
I think it’s good because they always go so in depth, which makes you watch it because
you get invested in the story. And by showing all the different angles forces you to think
about what your view is.
Lina:
Nicklas Wallberg
37(50)
I think they are definitely targeting a different audience than channel 7. The news are
longer and more in depth so it’s for an audience that has an interest already.
Moderator:
This is taken from a report by Dr. Lucy King which is called BBC’s 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 best
in 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 it’s really important for the English and
the 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 don’t 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 doesn’t think as much about persuading you.
Moderator:
So do you think that there’s a difference with making the best news and attracting
viewers?
Klara:
I think it’s 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 in
our 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 in
the Middle East and you could see how different everybody reported on it and you saw
Nicklas Wallberg
38(50)
all the different angles. That’s 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 the
article 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 you’re not interested in but
things that are good to know.
Johanna:
But it’s harder to find information with the Internet because you really gotta want to
find 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:
That’s 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 aren’t 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 different
information 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 for
some entertainment.
Johanna:
I think they want to be serious but they fail. They don’t know how to attract an audience
so they have to go with the scandalous and sensationalistic stories, but they want to be
serious.
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:
Nicklas Wallberg
39(50)
Yeah, exactly.
Annica:
I think they’re approaching it in the wrong way because as I said with their interviews,
they only attack people and don’t let them finish talking, I think they want to be seen as
very 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 an
audience with their outrageousness.
Moderator:
Their slogan is actually “We report, You decide”.
Everyone:
[Laughter]
Moderator:
Now we have two clips we’re gonna watch. One is about the BBC and their coverage on
the 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. We’ll start with BBC.
[Clips showing]
[35min]
Moderator:
So the question here is, is there a difference between the credibility of a governmental
channel and a private channel? Not to say that all private channels are like Fox News,
but you know that.
SVEN:
Well he wasn’t credible, [in reference to the Fox-clip] because he didn’t ask any
questions or state any facts. He just said, “you’re a lunatic”.
Johanna:
He’s saying “you’re wrong”, he’s only saying his point of view or the channels point of
view. He can’t say that she’s a lunatic, that’s just stupid. And the main difference is that
BBC questions them selves. Like how to cover this fight. But he’s just screaming at her,
like “you’re wrong”, “this doesn’t exist” and “you’re a lunatic” you can’t say that.
SVEN:
I thought it was pretty good with the BBC that first you saw the numbers and then they
explained 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:
Nicklas Wallberg
40(50)
Questioning themselves?
Moderator:
Yeah.
SVEN:
No, not really.
Johanna:
No.
Annica:
They could, but they don’t.
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 a
governmental channel in credibility?
SVEN:
The governmental channels question themselves whilst the private don’t, they can but
it’s 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 don’t 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 that’s very different in different countries. I think our government
[Sweden’s] aims for having a neutral news source. When I think there are a lot of
countries where the government doesn’t feel that way.
Annica:
If the people don’t trust the channel they don’t trust the government. So they have to try
to be neutral.
Nicklas Wallberg
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 that’s why BBC is such a
good channel.
Moderator:
Do you think that it’s the people in the organisation that builds up the brand as well?
SVEN:
Yeah, especially for the BBC.
Johanna:
It’s 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 would
you 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:
I’m not familiar with that news channel actually so it would be BBC.
SVEN:
It’s easy to trust a channel that’s 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 it’s not like we
trust 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 it’s 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 BBC’s 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 in
it’s more emotional based than rational based. So if we were in Sweden we would
Nicklas Wallberg
42(50)
probably watch on Swedish channels news because we are on the same emotional level
because it happened to us.
Klara:
Yeah, I don’t know if it’s because BBC is English and it’s a European perspective and
we 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 it’s just everyday look up news, or not everyday but when you generally look up
news?
Klara:
Two, one Swedish and one Australian.
Johanna:
If it’s something special I wanna go into depth on I would probably go to four or five.
[55min]
Annica:
Yeah if it’s 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 don’t 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!
Nicklas Wallberg
43(50)
Moderator:
Okay, thank you very much!
Everybody:
Thank you!
[End 56min]
Nicklas Wallberg
44(50)
8.4 Video clip from BBC and Fox News

Nicklas Wallberg
45(50)
8.5 On-line survey questions
A.
Nicklas Wallberg
46(50)
Nicklas Wallberg
47(50)
Nicklas Wallberg
48(50)
Nicklas Wallberg
49(50)
Nicklas Wallberg
50(50)

TV Stations News Coverage&#39;s Credibility

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TV Stations News Coverage&#39;s Credibility

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Nicklas Wallberg

TV-stations news coverage’s credibility

3.0 Literature Review____________________________________________________6

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

3.1 PART 1- ON-LINE SURVEY............................................................................................10

3.2 PART 2- FOCUS GROUP................................................................................................10

5.0 Summary and considerations of primary research________________________12

5.1 BALANCED VIEW OF THE NEWS FROM TV?.....................................................................12

5.2 THE MOST CREDIBLE NEWS-SOURCE................................................................................12

5.3 IMPORTANT DETAILS FOR A CREDIBLE NEWS STATION..........................................................12

5.4 CREDIBILITY OF BBC.................................................................................................13

5.5 CREDIBILITY OF CHANNEL 7.........................................................................................13

5.6 CREDIBILITY OF FOX NEWS..........................................................................................14

5.7 CORPORATE IMAGE STRATEGY OF BBC..........................................................................14

5.8 CORPORATE IMAGE STRATEGY OF CHANNEL 7..................................................................15

5.9 CORPORATE IMAGE STRATEGY OF FOX NEWS...................................................................15

6.0 Highlights of findings________________________________________________17

6.3 GOVERNMENTAL VERSUS PRIVATE CHANNELS....................................................................18

8.1 STATISTICS FROM CHOSEN REPORTS.................................................................................22

8.2 ON-LINE SURVEY DATA.................................................................................................25

8.3 FOCUS GROUP TRANSCRIPT............................................................................................28

8.4 VIDEO CLIP FROM BBC AND FOX NEWS.......................................................................44

8.5 ON-LINE SURVEY QUESTIONS.........................................................................................45

were close to identical.

The most important points were:

- Governmental channel’s news are seen as more credible compared to private

- 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

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 doesn’t go hand in hand

this report (see 3.0 Literature review)

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:

strategies in reference to their news coverage’s credibility.

• Compare the credibility between governmental and private news channels

countries to focus our study on:

• Channel 7 – Australia (Private)

• Fox News – USA (Private)

The study used the following material:

• Refereed articles handling the subjects of corporate brand personality, media

organisations (King, L, 2000)

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

conducted in September 2007

24), conducted in September 2007

3.0 Literature Review

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.

• Heart (passionate and compassionate)

• Mind (creative and disciplined)

• Body (agile and collaborative)

interwoven perspectives, corporate social performance and corporate reputation

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

are working together.

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’

it has been conducted since 1985.

TV Stations News Coverage's Credibility

TV Stations News Coverage's Credibility