Eesti Päevalehe uudiste kvaliteet: Rubriik “Eesti uudised”, 2006. aasta aprilli esimene pool



Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title


Tartu Ülikool



The aim of this Bachelor`s thesis “The Quality of News in Eesti Päevaleht: section “Eesti uudised”, the First Two Weeks of April, 2006” was to find out how the news in one of the leading newspapers in Estonia correspond to the theory and standards of hard news. Under the “quality of hard news” it was considered whether the texts are in accordance with the classical requirements of hard news writing: news-worthiness, correct use of sources, objectivity and answering the news-questions. Taking these requirements into consideration the author tried to find answers to the following research questions: how news-worthy are these news, how correct is the use of the cources, how objective are the news and how many hard news are there in this section. The hypothesis were: there are more hard news then soft news; most of the news have at least four criterias of news-worthiness, the news answer to the news-questions, news sources are balanced, sources are varied and the news are neutral. The method of research was content analysis combined with qualitative text analysis. I also interviewed qualitatively the authors of these news teksts. The sample consisted of newspapers of 11 days (3th to 15th of April), I analysed 81 news from that period and these news were written by 16 journalists. The results showed, that most news I analysed, met the requirements of hard news standards. It appeared, that all the news are influential and close. But there appeared to be problems with news, that were quite old for a daily. Also, quite many journalists showed their opinion in the news. Journalists of Eesti Päevaleht prefere to use specialists as news sources the most, also they value common people`s voice in the news. It appeared that there are quite many public relations workers as sources and I found six anonymous sources. As to balancing the news with sources, it turned out that some parts of the event did not have a chance to say their opinion.


H Social Sciences (General)