<p>Abstract</p><p>Title: Who said what? – A qualitative content analysis regarding the UD’s, the government’s and the travel agencies after the Tsunami disaster.</p><p>Number of pages: 38</p><p>Author: Malin Hansson</p><p>Tutor: Peder Hård af Segerstad</p><p>Course: Media and Communication Studies D</p><p>Period: Autumn 2006</p><p>University: Division of Media and Communication, Department of information science, Uppsala University</p><p>Purpose/Aim: The purpose of the paper is to find out what person said what to the media and public after the tsunami catastrophe. The aim is to find out if there is any difference in how the government and communicators talked, and if those differences agree with the public opinion about these persons.</p><p>Material/Method: The material is interviews with the relevant people on TV news. The first three days are included and the interviews have been transcribed and counted in sentences. The method is therefore quantitative content analysis.</p><p>Main results: All of the analysed persons used the category Concrete action the most, which is what they are doing at the moment. The biggest difference between the groups was that people from UD/government had to spend a lot of time defending their work and admit that they acted wrong while the travel agencies had a more personal touch and seemed more personally involved.</p><p>Keywords: Crisis communication, tsunami, news interviews, quantitative analysis</p>

Abstract Title: Who said what? – A qualitative content analysis regarding the UD’s, the government’s and the travel agencies after the Tsunami disaster. Number of pages: 38 Author: Malin Hansson Tutor: Peder Hård af Segerstad Course: Media and Communication Studies D Period: Autumn 2006 University: Division of Media and Communication, Department of information science, Uppsala University Purpose/Aim: The purpose of the paper is to find out what person said what to the media and public after the tsunami catastrophe. The aim is to find out if there is any difference in how the government and communicators talked, and if those differences agree with the public opinion about these persons. Material/Method: The material is interviews with the relevant people on TV news. The first three days are included and the interviews have been transcribed and counted in sentences. The method is therefore quantitative content analysis. Main results: All of the analysed persons used the category Concrete action the most, which is what they are doing at the moment. The biggest difference between the groups was that people from UD/government had to spend a lot of time defending their work and admit that they acted wrong while the travel agencies had a more personal touch and seemed more personally involved. Keywords: Crisis communication, tsunami, news interviews, quantitative analysis