Our analyses measure what the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute (GDI), commissioned by SRG, defined as the central quality benchmark in 2016: integration performance — whether all societal positions are actually given space.
>300’000Broadcasts
10SRF Programmes
1968–2026Period
15Quality Criteria
Here you will find 50 exemplary analyses from ten SRF flagship broadcasts — freely accessible as PDF. Each analysis comprises 10 to 60 pages, is verifiable down to the minute, and documents source selection, speaking time, framing and contextualisation.
Note: We deliberately present the strongest evaluations here. These are above the average of our analyses.
Tagesschau —
| Date | Score | Topic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reports are currently under review and temporarily unavailable for download. | |||
10vor10 —
| Date | Score | Topic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reports are currently under review and temporarily unavailable for download. | |||
Rundschau —
| Date | Score | Topic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reports are currently under review and temporarily unavailable for download. | |||
Arena —
The Arena, as a debate format, systematically achieves lower deviation scores — all parties are structurally given a voice.
| Date | Score | Topic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reports are currently under review and temporarily unavailable for download. | |||
DOK —
| Date | Score | Topic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reports are currently under review and temporarily unavailable for download. | |||
These analyses serve as a basis for programme complaints: they show minute by minute where framing, omissions or emotionalisation occurred.
This is a small glimpse into our analysis corpus – access on demand, topics and meta-analyses available for research, newsrooms and political parties.
Legal Disclaimer
- No factual determination
- The results presented do not constitute factual determinations about individual persons, editorial teams, or broadcasts. They are the product of a standardized operationalization, not a finding of individual responsibility.
- No legal judgment
- The aggregated deviation index does not replace a legal assessment under RTVA Art. 4-6. The determination of whether a specific broadcast violates legal requirements is exclusively the responsibility of the competent authorities (in particular AIEP/UBI).
- No proof of causation
- Statistical correlations are not to be interpreted as proof of causal relationships or editorial intent. Deviation values may be influenced by topic selection, news environment, political controversy, or format logic.
- No judgment of intent
- The analysis measures observable structural characteristics of broadcasts. A score of 7 means a significant imbalance was detected — not that the editorial team intended it. The methodology makes no claims about motives or strategic objectives.
- Heuristic comparison tool
- The index serves comparative pattern recognition across thousands of broadcasts, not precise metric measurement of individual segments. Threshold values serve heuristic orientation, not sharp legal qualification.
- AI-Assisted Analysis
- This analysis was produced with the assistance of a large language model (LLM) and systematically cross-checked against original sources (transcripts, subtitles). The procedure is near-deterministic (temperature ≈ 0) but not fully reproducible. Criteria K10–K15 (soft facts) contain interpretive assessments that should be understood as analytical hypotheses.
- Speaking Times Are Approximations
- All speaking time indications are based on word count in the transcript (approx. 150 words/min.) and do not constitute second-precise measurements. They serve comparability across broadcasts, not as an exact metric.