Lihula mälestusmärgi juhtum avaliku arutelu objektina
Date
2005
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Tartu Ülikool
Abstract
Description
The goal of this thesis was to describe the arising and development of public opinion
regarding the monument of Lihula, with local level and interviews with the local
people being under closer study. Another goal was to give an overview of media
coverage and then to compare the coverage with discussions amongst people. The
keywords of this baccalaureate thesis are “public opinion,” “publicity,” “public
discussions” and “agenda setting.”
This study used the methods of media content analysis and interviews. The content
analysis of headlines and photos/photo signatures in Eesti Päevaleht, Postimees and
Lääne Elu combined with 28 short interviews and 8 long interviews gave an overview
of media coverage and the forming of public opinion.
Hyperactive media coverage is definitely one of the main results that needs
mentioning and more importantly, the length and amplitude of this discussion – more
than six months later it is still on the agenda.
Comparing the printed editions of Eesti Päevaleht and Postimees during the observed
period (3.09.2004-17.09.2004), we see that EPL published more articles, while PM
forwarded more online news. EPL published 71 headlines and PM 60. Half of the
articles were published on the opinion pages – opinion articles dominated in EPL and
readers letters dominated in PM, while Lääne Elu didn’t publish any readers letters.
The general attitude towards the government was more negative in EPL, though the
local newspaper Lääne Elu exceeded even that. All three newspapers were negatively
disposed towards the government and prime minister Parts, the same can be said
about national and local public opinions. Worth mentioning is also the fact that PM
published much bigger and colored photos than EPL.
The main results of analyzing interviews was the way how during the week attitude
towards police changed less critical, but more critical towards acting local people.
Attitude against government stayed constantly negative.
The case of Lihula monument as a public discussion object went through all the
phases of public opinion development except the last one which was finding the
solution. The under-subjects were and will be added continuously and in this
circumstance the main issue is left in shadow and public discussion is being
developed in totally other directions.
Keywords
H Social Sciences (General), bakalaureusetööd, ajakirjandus, avalikkus, avalik arvamus, mälestusmärgid, sõjamälestusmärgid, Teine maailmasõda, 1939-1945, Lihula