Lihula mälestusmärgi juhtum avaliku arutelu objektina



Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title


Tartu Ülikool



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.


H Social Sciences (General), bakalaureusetööd, ajakirjandus, avalikkus, avalik arvamus, mälestusmärgid, sõjamälestusmärgid, Teine maailmasõda, 1939-1945, Lihula