Differences between public and commercial channels

Public radio broadcasting differs from commercial radio broadcasting in both form and substance. Public radio broadcasting is a non-profit model that is publicly funded and perceived as a public good. The primary objective of public radio broadcasting is to provide educational, entertainment, and cultural content, as well as to serve as a source of important information for consumers and a platform for the expression of diverse opinions and topics of public interest [11].

The social significance of public broadcasting stems from its function as a public sphere where individuals can actively participate in community life, affect decision-making processes, and engage in civic discussions [11–13]. Public broadcasting’s responsibilities include providing information beneficial to society, educating the public on cultural matters, promoting local innovation and content, and catering to diverse audience demographics [11, 13–15].

In Israel, public broadcasting has been the dominant mass media since the establishment of the state, with the aim of providing adequate representation of all subgroups in the country and giving expression to a variety of opinions and cultures. This policy persisted in Israel until the late 1980s [1].

In the 1990s, Israel saw the development of commercial broadcasting, which emphasized the values of competitiveness and private ownership of the media [2]. This marked a transition from an ideological-service orientation to a business-profit orientation [16]. The introduction of the first commercial television channel, Channel 2, at the end of 1993 had both short-term and long-term effects. In the short term, the entry of the commercial channel had significant economic effects. However, in the long term, consumers of broadcast content were influenced by norms of competitiveness, compensation, and pricing that were expressed socially [16].

Despite the emergence of commercial channels, the public channels in Israel continued to prioritize cultural programs and reliable information, in contrast to the entertainment or commercial programs broadcast on commercial channels [1]. However, the profitability of commercial channels through advertising revenue put pressure on the government to allow the opening of additional commercial television channels [2, 17].

In the context of the development of commercial broadcasting in Israel, a process of "individual disempowerment" was created to try to reach a diverse population. Despite the development of niche channels, most consumption is still concentrated in commercial channels, leading to a distorted market of opinions and reduced media ideological diversity [2, 18]. The dominance of commercial interests also harms the competitiveness of other channels, creating a further reduction in media diversity [19]. In this context, public broadcasting channels struggle to compete with commercial channels for ratings and sometimes target programs that emphasize their "scarcity of resources" [1].

Not all news media produce similar effects. In Western Europe, individuals’ civic attitudes may vary depending on their preference for either public or commercial news [20].

In a study conducted by Jacobs et al. (2016) that examined the attitude of viewers toward immigration based on their preference for public or commercial news, evidence was found that people who prefer public news are more positive about the issue of immigration than viewers of commercial news [20]. The study also found that commercial broadcasters address television viewers as customers or consumers, while public television news broadcasters address viewers mainly as citizens [2, 20]. Moreover, TV news is predominantly negative in tone, focusing on negative outcomes and common problems. However, in public news, the frequency of negativity is lower and there is more of a positive tone compared to commercial news, although positive news is still relatively infrequent [2, 20].

Framing theory

Framing, a crucial practice in news coverage, involves selective topic choice and a subset of information that is presented to audiences, with some information remaining excluded from coverage [21, 22]. This practice limits the range of possible interpretations available to consumers and directs their attention toward what the media considers to be "important details" [23]. In traditional media, framing crises often incorporates negative words such as "panic" and "fear" to attract consumer attention, which, in turn, can affect their level of anxiety [24]. By choosing spokespersons and emphasizing risks and uncertainties, media outlets can either increase or decrease the level of panic in society. For instance, media outlets can interview experts who suggest various solutions or explain how to stop a contagion, or they can focus on speculations, blame-throwing, and risks [24].

Television news utilizes different framing practices that incorporate visual content alongside verbal content, as visual images tend to be more memorable than verbal elements. Additionally, moving images have a stronger emotional impact than still images. News content is often presented through stories that combine visual and verbal information, with visual information often having a greater impact than verbal information. Furthermore, negative information is more prominent and memorable than positive information, and counterarguments are more persuasive than professional arguments [5].

During crisis situations, decision-makers face the challenge of making critical decisions while under pressure and uncertainty, as stress and uncertainty can generate a strong public demand for information [25]. Mass media plays a crucial role in conveying information to the public, as it is responsible for creating order out of facts and stories [26]. Moreover, media coverage influences the public’s understanding of the crisis and its implications, which highlights the power of media not only in conveying facts but also in shaping the public’s perception of the crisis [21, 27].

In crisis situations, the media’s narratives and frames have a significant impact on the public’s perception of the crisis and the government’s policy, which, in turn, can affect consumer willingness to comply with government instructions [27]. As such, the media plays a critical role in either fueling criticism of government actions or mobilizing the public to support the government by providing a platform for the government’s voice [28].

During crisis events, journalism can be categorized into two types of coverage that can impact the nature of crisis reporting and journalistic practices: an inside-the-media perspective, where the crisis is described as a "surprise crisis" characterized by uncertainty and the unpreparedness of journalists. In such situations, journalists may struggle to remain objective and balanced due to their lack of preparation, leading to an adoption of the dominant government voice [27]. This is supported by the common use of official sources in crisis reporting [23]. On the other hand, an outside-the-media perspective describes the crisis from the viewpoint of external actors who provide clear and well-known stories to journalists. In such cases, it is easier for journalists to maintain balanced reporting [25].

In the contemporary era of social media, journalists have become exceedingly active on these platforms, leading to a blurring of the distinction between news producers and consumers. As a consequence, consumers are now exposed to not only the personal lives of journalists but also their personal opinions on a diverse range of issues. Consequently, in certain instances, the notion of "journalistic objectivity" has become obsolete and is no longer deemed relevant [29].

Media and trust in government

Trust in government refers to citizens’ confidence in the ability of government action to result in outcomes that align with citizens’ expectations and preferences [30]. The decline in trust in government can be attributed to a range of cultural, political, economic, and other factors [31, 32].

However, the impact of media on trust in government is a topic of ongoing debate in the research literature. The increasing superficiality of mass media content has been identified as a major contributor to the loss of public trust, as media consumers have become accustomed to viewing politics through an entertainment-focused lens. In an effort to attract media consumers and increase their exposure and ratings, news coverage places greater emphasis on sensational stories, personal intrigue, scandals, and emotional discourse rather than on "pure" politics [33].

According to malaise media theory, the media’s focus on entertainment and sensationalism leads to political alienation and cynicism among consumers, ultimately undermining trust in government [31, 34].

This is exemplified by the situation in Israel during the COVID-19 pandemic, where traditional media was the primary source of information related to the pandemic. Research suggests that these media channels work together to shape reality for consumers, negatively impacting trust in government [35].

On the other hand, virtuous circle theory posits that the availability of a large amount of information through mass media can lead to increased citizen engagement in politics and participation in public discourse, potentially resulting in higher voter turnout. This theory suggests that a higher level of political involvement leads to greater trust in democracy, political processes, and government [36]. According to this theory, there is a cyclical effect where politically active individuals consume more political content and information, leading to greater trust in government and further political involvement and consumption of media content [36].

In conclusion, media organizations play a crucial role in the dissemination of information during crises and emergencies, particularly in the case of public health crises where the public relies on media for accurate and timely information. However, the media holds significant power in deciding what information is conveyed and how it is presented, and the COVID-19 pandemic serves as an intriguing case study for exploring the differences between commercial and public communication channels.

COVID-19 coverage

During times of crisis, the general public actively seeks information, often relying on the media as their primary source. Consequently, media consumption significantly increases, emphasizing the importance of understanding the nature of media coverage. Studies investigating media consumption in relation to the coronavirus have established a correlation between consuming commercial media and heightened levels of anxiety and trauma indicators [37, 38]. Media outlets across fifty nations globally have disseminated content related to the coronavirus, covering topics such as hygiene practices, preventive measures, social distancing guidelines, lockdown protocols, vaccination campaigns, fatality rates, infection statistics, and other pertinent information [38, 39].

Moreover, the media often faces criticism for its tendency toward excessive, inaccurate, or potentially deceptive and biased coverage [40]. Various research studies conducted in the United States have successfully identified distinct framing elements adopted by the media when reporting on the coronavirus. Noteworthy frames include the economic frame, which presents the coronavirus within the context of its economic repercussions on individuals, societal groups, and the nation as a whole. Additionally, the human interest frame emphasizes personal stories and narratives, while the conflict frame portrays the pandemic as a metaphorical war. The blame frame attributes responsibility to various factors, whereas the religious and ethical frame explores the influence of the coronavirus on human behavior, moral values, and societal norms [41, 42]. Interestingly, media coverage during the initial wave of the coronavirus predominantly focused on elderly and vulnerable populations, presenting their isolation from society as a moral imperative [43, 44].

The Covid-19 pandemic witnessed a notable upswing in social media utilization, as evidenced by scholarly research [45]. During this period, numerous studies have delved into the intricate dynamics of information dissemination within the media landscape, with a particular focus on the realm of social media. Notably, social media platforms emerged as primary conduits for information-seeking endeavors, communication, and entertainment, especially in the context of social isolation. Furthermore, social media has come to embody a reflection of societal realities and challenges, shedding light on prevailing circumstances [40]. However, it is crucial to recognize that social media’s ubiquity also renders it susceptible to a range of potential pitfalls, including the proliferation of offensive content, dissemination of false information, and the propagation of conspiracy theories [45, 46].

"Mental distress": Use of negative framing that creates a presentation of panic

It is evident from all the samples in both channels that there is a greater use of negative words compared to positive ones. This is in line with the idea that the framing of news directly influences public opinion [3] and that negative information has a stronger impact than positive information, as it is more memorable, prominent, and persuasive than professional arguments [6]. In commercial channels, negative words are expressed through the choice of language as well as through negative content. For instance, on June 19, 2020, phrases such as "a record in the number of infections," "the numbers have indeed increased," "patients in a serious medical condition," "the coronavirus is not going anywhere," "demagogue," "a disease we do not truly understand," and "(the politicians) broke a promise" were used to provide a summary of the first six months of the coronavirus period. On July 3, 2020, attention was drawn to the economic challenges faced during this period, with negative expressions such as "disturbing news," "record in the number of infections," "the number of deaths thus far," "one of five Israelis without a job," and "groaning under the economic corona." On January 22, 2021, the general trend was that of war with "difficult and protracted battles," "the vaccine hits, the mutations return fire," "the number of infected is soaring," "we will feel the results for years to come," "a series of omissions," and "conflicting ministers." Furthermore, negative expressions such as "damage for years," "the government was wrong," "loneliness," "mental distress," and "economic crisis" appeared on February 19, 2023. Additionally, criticism of the government and its conduct is typically presented in negative terms.

Moreover, it is apparent that the language used in commercial channels is often emotionally charged with words and phrases that evoke strong feelings such as "peak," "distress," and "rebellion." They even evoke the repeated traumas of Israel as a region where wars frequently occur. Positive expressions are sparse and are limited to phrases such as "we are starting to get out of the corona epidemic," "there are reliefs," or "the vaccine is working." Negative words and content are reinforced by the use of "warning colors" in red and orange shades on June 26, 2020, July 31, 2020, January 22, 2021, and January 26, 2021. Additionally, the music that accompanies most of the monologues is repetitive and conveys a sense of pressure, tension, and war.

Negative expressions are further enhanced by images, videos, bold headlines, and numerical graphs that reinforce the tone of the message. Frequently, when morbidity or mortality data are presented, numerical graphs are used to illustrate information. The headlines themselves are anxiety-provoking, such as "The Second Wave," "Again: Lockdown," "Red Country," "Opening of the Program: Corona," and "Curfew." Furthermore, when the host presents negative content, they often use a sarcastic, cynical, or indifferent facial expression and tone of voice, suggesting a sense of resignation that "there is nothing to be done, this is the way it is, and so it will be."

On the public channel, there is a notable emphasis on the negative aspects of the epidemic, particularly in terms of politics and healthcare. For instance, during the monologue on February 26, 2021, eight negative phrases were utilized, such as "We will all pay the bill," "He decides on his own when and where the money will go," and "There is no parliamentary oversight." Conversely, only two positive phrases were used, "Helps" and "Good that the vaccines were purchased." On other dates, it can be observed that there is a complete absence of positive words, in stark contrast to a plethora of negative expressions. For example, on September 4, 2020, six expressions with negative connotations of helplessness were used, including "At a loss," "Looking for a scapegoat," "No initiative," and "Lost control," with no positive words being employed in the entire monologue. A similar trend can be seen on July 3, 2020, when eight negative expressions were used, such as "The creaks in the government have become jarring," "They are exchanging blows," and again no positive words were used.

The voices of the people

The present study reveals that both the commercial and public news channels demonstrated a lack of attention to the voice of the people, whether positive or negative, in both channels. While such a trend aligns with the profit-driven motives of commercial channels, it is not consistent with the principles that ought to guide public news channels. Specifically, public news channels are expected to prioritize a balanced and multifaceted perspective, characterized by the provision of background and contextual information and the promotion of diversity of opinions in the interest of public value and service [20].

The present study has revealed that the public channel failed to incorporate people’s voices into its news coverage to a significant extent.

On the other hand, the commercial channel exhibited a similar tendency, with the exception of specific dates such as February 19, 2021, where five positive mentions were made, and July 31, 2020, where only two negative mentions were made. Notably, in Channel 11, the public channel, the people’s voices were almost completely absent from the monologues, and on rare occasions where they were featured, they were presented in a negative light, serving as a platform for criticism.

The present analysis suggests that monologue speakers hold the power to shape the discourse around the epidemic in both commercial and public news channels. It appears that they tend to express their opinions and ideas without seeking input from the public.

As previously noted, the voices of the public are almost entirely absent from the monologues on the public channel, and when they are heard, it is usually in a negative context conveying criticism that aligns with the monologue’s intended message. For instance, on September 18, 2020, there was social criticism of the government, and a similar critique was voiced from an economic standpoint on July 31, 2020.

This lack of representation of the people’s voice may be a cause for concern, particularly in the case of the public channel, which is expected to promote diversity of opinions and universal service. It is possible that this trend reflects a broader issue in contemporary media where the media’s agenda is primarily shaped by elites rather than reflecting the interests and concerns of the public.

On February 19, 2021, as Israel prepared to turn green and ease restrictions, the background of the monologue featured several well-known artists, athletes, and actors, symbolizing the return of these professionals to their respective fields. The imagery portrayed positive voices from the industry in favor of the lifting of restrictions. However, these individuals were not ordinary citizens. In contrast, on July 31, 2020, the monologue background featured two protesters who were attacked during demonstrations against the state. This imagery emphasized the negative voices of people on the ground, highlighting chaos, disorder, and lack of control.

These few references from the field appear to reinforce the overarching narrative presented by the monologues: criticism of the government’s management of the crisis and a call for the economy to reopen and restrictions to ease. It appears that monologue speakers hold the baton, and they prefer to voice their opinions and dictate them without soliciting feedback from the public.

In line with the findings of the current study, it appears that the voices of the people are largely absent from the monologues on the public channel. When these voices are present, they tend to be expressed in a negative manner, conveying criticism that reinforces the dominant themes of the monologues. Specifically, on September 18, 2020, social criticism of the government was voiced, and a similar criticism from an economic perspective was heard on July 31, 2020. Overall, the public channel’s failure to provide a platform for a diversity of opinions from the public appears to be in contradiction with its mandate to provide universal service, public value, quality, and diversity of perspectives [20].

"They do not control the event": Criticism of the government

The prevailing trend in both channels is criticism toward the government. It is worth noting that television news generally tends to have a negative tone and often highlights criticism and common problems [20]. On July 17, 2020, the government’s handling of the pandemic was criticized in both channels with phrases such as "They are not in control of the event" and "The situation will get worse". Similar criticism was expressed on September 4, 2020, with statements such as "Failed management" and "Failing grade". These criticisms reflect the general negative tone.

Despite the expectation that the public channel would be more moderate in its views and show support for the government and its actions during the crisis, the reality is that there has been a clear trend of criticism toward the government in both channels. This is contrary to the idea that public media should provide a platform for a diversity of opinions, as enshrined in the concept of freedom of information in a democracy [1].

In the commercial channel, there is a consistent trend of criticism toward the government, with very little support for the government being expressed. For example, on July 24, 2020 and September 18, 2020, the government was criticized six times, and on July 31, 2020 and September 4, 2020, such criticisms appeared four times. Negative words such as "failed management", "(the government) is at a loss", "(the government) is led and does not initiate", "the crisis of trust (between the people and the government) only deepens", "anarchy", "the government is wrong! ", "there is no parliamentary oversight", and others are frequently used in conjunction with these criticisms. The feeling of the government’s ineptitude in the crisis is further reinforced when comparisons are made between Israel and other countries in the world, as was done on July 3, 2020, July 17, 2020, and September 4, 2020. Additionally, comparisons made within the State of Israel between different sectors also emphasize the government’s failure to manage the crisis properly. Such comparisons can be found in half of the monologues.

In addition, the use of visual aids such as pictures and graphs reinforces the negative criticism of the government. When the monologues criticize the government, pictures of various members of the Knesset are often attached, sometimes in a normal representation and sometimes in a satirical way. The use of graphs and large titles with numbers and percentages also serves to emphasize the difficult and dangerous situation of the state, indirectly alluding to the government’s flawed actions that led to the results shown. Comparisons between Israel and other countries, as well as comparisons made within the various sectors of the country, further strengthen the negative criticism of the government and emphasize its inadequate conduct according to the mindset presented in the monologues.

Throughout the monologues on the public channel, a recurring theme of government criticism is evident. Examples of such criticism include statements made on July 3, 2020, that "the squeaks in the government have become shrill," on February 19, 2021, that "there is no transparency, the Knesset is isolated," and on January 22, 2021, that this is a "failed policy" and "problematic enforcement." Positive words toward the government are infrequently expressed. The majority of criticism centers on the government’s handling of the pandemic, such as "farce," "slight embarrassment," "clumsiness," "big headlines and then the implementation test," and "promising but not promising to fulfill," as was stated on July 24, 2020. Criticism of the government appears to have intensified as progress is made in managing the epidemic, with trust in the government decreasing. Although positive statements about the government were made upon the arrival of vaccines, such as "Israel purchased vaccines and it is a good thing," "The country will be painted green," and "Starting to come out of the epidemic," criticism is still present in such monologues.