The modelling of communication and its applications in a longitudinal research: examples of Estonian, Finnish and Russian journalism in the 20th century
Date
2016-07-07
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Käesoleva töö objektiks on “ajakirjanduslik ruum” mis tekib meediaväljaannete igapäevase töö tagajärjel. Läbi kümnendite ulatuv retrospektiivne vaade teeb uurijale ülesandeks kirjeldada korraga kahte tundmatut muutujat. Need on: a) tema esmane uurimisobjekt – meediasisu ja b) selle ajastu kontekst, millesse need tekstid kuuluvad. Sestap on käesoleva väitekirja esimene eesmärk teoreetiline – vastata metodoloogilisele küsimusele, milliste teguritega tuleb retrospektiivile keskenduval tööl arvestada. Teiseks eesmärgiks on selgitada võrdlevas perspektiivis Eesti, Venemaa ja Soome praktikate näitel, kuivõrd erinevad saavad olla meediasüsteemide toimimisloogikad.
Uurimistöö praktiliste küsimuste lahendamiseks kasutame George Gerbneri kultivatsiooniteooriast pärineva kultuuriliste indikaatorite mõistet. Sisuliselt tähendab see ajakirjanduslike teemade määratlemist nn kultuuriliste indikaatoritena. Töö üldisele tasandile asetub Niklas Luhmanni süsteemiteooria, mille abil on võimalik kirjeldada kuidas meediasüsteem “filtreerib” nn sotsiaalse reaalsuse ajakirjanduslikeks “teemadeks”.
Kõige olulisemad järeldused pärinevad väiteanalüüsi blokist; Soome ja Vene meediasüsteemid on selles mõttes sarnased, et normatiivsete väidete hulk mõlemas oli kõrge, ennekõike selles osas mis puudutab poliitika ja võimu suhestumist, kultuuri ja meediat (iseasi, et selle muutuja tähendus on mõlemal juhul erinev). Eesti meediasüsteem mis Moskva kui keskuse suhtes paiknes nii geograafilises kui kultuurilises perifeerias, eristus oma kirjeldava lähenemislaadi poolest, seda ennekõike kultuuri- ja ühiskonnateemade rohujuuretasandi kajastamisel.
Vaadeldes ajakirjanduses esitatud teemade ja väidete struktuuri, saab välja tuua kolm olulisemat järeldust: 1) Tsentraliseeritud parteiajakirjandus vältis teemade käsitlemist selliselt, et lugejal oleks võimalik teha järledusi selle kohta, kuidas ühiskonda puudutavad otsused sünnivad. 2) Oluliste teemade teineteisest lahushoidmine algas eluvaldkondade kohta esitatud väidete tasandist. 3) Keskuse- ja perifeeria eristamine ei olnud ideoloogilise kontrolli mõttes nii lihtne mehhanism, kui see ehk pealtnäha paistab. Nn väiteruumi puudumine eestikeelses ajakirjanduses tähendas ennekõike, et peegeldatavat reaalsust ei näidatud lugeja jaoks ideoloogilise konflikti objektina. Reaalselt pani selline sotsiaalse kommunikatsiooni vorm tekstide tõlgendamise ülesande lugejale. Mille vältimine oleks pidanud olema ideoloogiast juhitud ajakirjanduse esimeseks ülesandeks.
This work is an outcome of a comparative content analysis project that focussed on the retrospective of 20th century journalism in Estonia, Finland and Russia. The aim of this thesis is a) to develop a theoretical framework for the retrospective interpretation of mass mediated content and b) to test it on the real data.ˇ On the general level of interpretation we employ Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems that defines the general conditions of how media “extracts” topics out of social reality. On the particular level of content analysis we found an interpretational value in George Gerbner’s theory of “cultural indicators”, that provides a model for understanding media’s public making ability. The most important interpretation of data comes from the analysis of the structure of argumentation. As we speak of the distinction in between media’s normative and descriptive approach towards “social reality”, Russian and Finnish journalistic cultures turned out to be similar in what concerns the presence of normative statements over politics, power, culture and media. The case of Estonian media represents a rather descriptive approach towards social reality. From the comparative perspective, the most valuable conclusion is the fact that, despite ambivalent relations with Soviet Union, the content of the Finnish Helsingin Sanomat turned out to be very well balanced throughout the 20th century; the most covered topic in this period was the state and legislation and related issues. In terms of Estonian and Russian media, we can point out different strategies of how the ideological “machine” worked on the centre and periphery of the Soviet media system. There are three important conclusions: 1) The centralized party press had its own agenda, which suppressed issues that under normal conditions would have been discussed (e.g. administration and legislation): a totalitarian system simply can't afford reflection on how decisions are made. Instead, the centralized system could easily replace these issues with other areas of life, such as “internal affairs” or “culture”, the latter being the case in the Estonian Rahva Hääl; 2) Even if some important area of life had good representation in the local Rahva Hääl (e.g. statements on the main content of political processes), these arguments were detached from content that could have made sense of the remaining areas of life (culture, the economy etc.). Even a potentially reflective message lost its meaning, because it was separated from its reference in reality. 3) Ironically, the dialectic between “centre” and “periphery” didn’t turn out to be as simple as perhaps the centralized ideological control system assumed. As we look at the binary normative vs. descriptive, the Estonian case definitely represents the descriptive approach to social reality, especially concerning “culture” and related issues. In this way, the task of interpretation was left up to the audience, something that would have been unimaginable in the context of the very central party press (i.e Pravda). The central position of this type of “reflective task” in the case of the Estonian media system is hypocritical, because it likely didn’t work according to the ideological canons of the time.
This work is an outcome of a comparative content analysis project that focussed on the retrospective of 20th century journalism in Estonia, Finland and Russia. The aim of this thesis is a) to develop a theoretical framework for the retrospective interpretation of mass mediated content and b) to test it on the real data.ˇ On the general level of interpretation we employ Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems that defines the general conditions of how media “extracts” topics out of social reality. On the particular level of content analysis we found an interpretational value in George Gerbner’s theory of “cultural indicators”, that provides a model for understanding media’s public making ability. The most important interpretation of data comes from the analysis of the structure of argumentation. As we speak of the distinction in between media’s normative and descriptive approach towards “social reality”, Russian and Finnish journalistic cultures turned out to be similar in what concerns the presence of normative statements over politics, power, culture and media. The case of Estonian media represents a rather descriptive approach towards social reality. From the comparative perspective, the most valuable conclusion is the fact that, despite ambivalent relations with Soviet Union, the content of the Finnish Helsingin Sanomat turned out to be very well balanced throughout the 20th century; the most covered topic in this period was the state and legislation and related issues. In terms of Estonian and Russian media, we can point out different strategies of how the ideological “machine” worked on the centre and periphery of the Soviet media system. There are three important conclusions: 1) The centralized party press had its own agenda, which suppressed issues that under normal conditions would have been discussed (e.g. administration and legislation): a totalitarian system simply can't afford reflection on how decisions are made. Instead, the centralized system could easily replace these issues with other areas of life, such as “internal affairs” or “culture”, the latter being the case in the Estonian Rahva Hääl; 2) Even if some important area of life had good representation in the local Rahva Hääl (e.g. statements on the main content of political processes), these arguments were detached from content that could have made sense of the remaining areas of life (culture, the economy etc.). Even a potentially reflective message lost its meaning, because it was separated from its reference in reality. 3) Ironically, the dialectic between “centre” and “periphery” didn’t turn out to be as simple as perhaps the centralized ideological control system assumed. As we look at the binary normative vs. descriptive, the Estonian case definitely represents the descriptive approach to social reality, especially concerning “culture” and related issues. In this way, the task of interpretation was left up to the audience, something that would have been unimaginable in the context of the very central party press (i.e Pravda). The central position of this type of “reflective task” in the case of the Estonian media system is hypocritical, because it likely didn’t work according to the ideological canons of the time.
Description
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone.
Keywords
kommunikatsioon, modelleerimine, pikaajalised uuringud, ajakirjandusuuringud, Eesti, Soome, Venemaa, 20. saj., communication, modelling, longitudinal researches, journalism studies, Estonia, Finland, Russia, 20th century