Tavainimese võimalused kehtestada end meediaga suhtlemisel
Date
2012
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Tartu Ülikool
Abstract
The bachelor thesis paper carries a name „Common man possibilities for self-assertiveness in communication with media” and is made to find out with qualitative method common man opportunities to use media accountability instruments while being in conflict with journalism. To keep the paper in required capacity, the research has involved only instruments what are nonjudicial. The paper includes overview of three stages of handling the journalistic information and when, where and how to use different media accountability instruments in different stages. Through the research, the concentration stays on a conflict between journalism and common man.
The theoretical part of the thesis gives an overview of media accountability instruments published in 2011 and how they would function in different stages of handling journalistic information. More attention has paid to demur in journalism and commentaries in online-journalistic field. The last is supported also by an interview made with a moderator from one certain Estonian online-edition.
The empirical part describes three different cases of conflicts between common man and journalism. One of them is from year 2000 and the other two from 2010 and 2011. The level of conflict is different in each case which helps better to analyze the position of common man in conflicts.
For research it was used case study as a strategy and qualitative method to make structured questionary for focus groups and semistructured interviews for empirical material. There were two focus groups, both holding 5 persons: one with the graduates of 2011 at the age of 19-20 and second with the social workers in the age of 40-60. Common factor for both groups were the same living place and connectivity of two cases through the living place. Gathered data was analyzed with cross-case method, which allows to work with the data from different respondents in same subject. Data is presented in the chapter of results with arguments and quotes.
Interviews with focus groups brought out the insecurity of respondents and the minor knowledge of nonjudicial media accountability instruments. Although occasionally during the interview, there where moments when respondents named different accountability instruments, they were not aware of them as media accountability instruments. Judicial possibilities were still mentioned, but they were found to be too expensive and time consuming. One of the possible ways to help common man in conflict is to use situation “journalism against journalism”. The respondents figured that to be the most easily accessable for common man to use it as a media accountability instrument. As the insecurity came out with other accountability instruments, so was the use of media seen with pros and cons. In general the conflict between common man and journalism was seen as a problem that needs to be dealt with. Otherwise it is going to be threat not only to common man but to the trust of journalism and media in general.
System of media accountability instruments is in Estonia as well around the world still less explored field. Opportunities, where common man could use media accountability instruments for self-assertiveness, have been created, but like the interviews showed, the question lies on the effectiveness. All this shows that there is still space for development for journalism and media in general. One goal of the thesis herein was to create an introduction to the subject that is less explored. The last factor game out also from the interviews that brought up many new questions and possible researches for the future. For better understanding and to widen the conclusion among society, the same research should involve wider selection of respondents, document more cases and diversify the methodology, which at the moment was only on the qualitative bases.