30 opartiska minuter? – en samtalsanalys

Abstract

Title: 30 impartial minutes? A conversation analysis. Authors: Erik Jakobsson, August Olofsson, Jesper Stomberg Level: Bachelor thesis in Journalism Term: HT 2024 Supervisor: Bengt Johansson The aim of this study is to identify potential bias from journalists in “30 minuter”, a Swedish interview program aired on SVT. The program features politicians and others with power and influence. According to the Swedish public service broadcasting license SVT are required to produce television that is objective and unbiased. Previous research has repeatedly concluded that the state-financed broadcasting enterprise SVT complies with those requirements. Still, some accuse SVT of biased reporting. This study uses Shoemaker and Reese’s “Hierarchy of influences model”, explaining the existence of different levels of influence on media to give a background on what can affect journalistic content – and therefore create or contribute to bias. The theoretical framework in this study also consists of theories about structural bias and partisan bias. That has helped us understand both bias and our material, and to look for answers to our research questions. It gave an opportunity for more extensive analysis and discussion – which led to clearer conclusions. The method used is conversation analysis (CA). CA is used to study conversations both of institutional origin and everyday conversations. By seeing language as a resource to act out specific scenarios, the method investigates how the conversation is conducted, what its participants do and how different roles and relationships take shape in the interaction. Conversations are dynamic because they are formed by the interaction and negotiation that occurs between two or several people. The method has distinct patterns and rules to abide by, such as turn-taking. The content analysed with CA is authentic, for it has been acted out in a natural situation without direct influence of the researcher. When the conversation is recorded, it is later transcribed and used as a basis for analysis with different questions and perspectives. In the results chapter we showcase examples subtracted from our empirical evidence to demonstrate the different patterns of bias in questioning we have identified: “Oppositional positioning”, “Questioning of reasoning” and “Evaluative comments”. We also found a difference between the questioning of incumbent politicians and their non-incumbent opponents. The results are explained and discussed with the theoretical framework and previous research as a basis.