Nord Streami torujuhtme representatsioon Eesti päevalehtedes 2007. ja 2008. aastal

The purpose of this bachelor thesis (Representation of the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline in Estonian Daily Newspapers in 2007 and in 2008) is to analyze if two major Estonian daily newspapers Postimees and Eesti Päevaleht shaped public opinion about the Nord Stream gas pipeline in 2007 and in 2008. The general purpose of this bachelor thesis is to analyze the representation of the Nord Stream gas pipeline in Estonian daily newspapers. One of the main aims of this thesis is to examine when was this topic most actively talked about and when it lost its role. But this thesis also concentrates on finding out what was the dominant attitude of the newspapers towards this topic, who were the main spokespersons and what arguments they used when expressing their support or resistance towards the development of the Russian-German gas pipeline. This thesis is trying to find out what kind of public opinion about Nord Steam was constructed in the opinion articles and in the editorials of daily newspapers. Different source materials and documents have been used as sources for the theoretical framework of this thesis. D. McQuail’s „Mass Communication Theory“, J. W. Daring’s and E. M. Roger’s „Agenda-Setting“, R. Waldhal’s „The Development of Public Opinion“ and other theoretical works have been used in this thesis. In order to analyze this topic the quantitative and qualitative content survey methods have been used. In order to find answers to hypotheses and questions raised all the articles, which were published in Postimees and in Eesti Päevaleht in 2007 and in 2008 and that talked about Nord Stream were considered as part of the general selection. 101 articles that discussed the Nord Steam topic were published in 2007 and in 2008. 34 of these articles were opinion articles or editorials. Opinion articles and editorials have been taken under closer examination and have been more thoroughly analyzed in this thesis. The background information of the Nord Steam gas pipeline topic and the connection of this pipeline with Estonia are presented in the theoretical overview chapter. This chapter also explains what is the role of media in a society and talks about the construction and essence of agenda-setting and public opinion. Results of the analysis indicate that 101 articles were published in Postimees and in Eesti Päevaleht that discussed the Nord Stream gas pipeline topic during the period of 1st January 2007 to 31st December 2008. The topic was most actively talked about in September 2007 when 36 articles were published. Articles that discussed issues related to the Nord Steam gas pipeline were also popular in October and in April 2007. During 2008 the topic lost its appeal and it was not anymore actively talked about in daily newspapers. More than half of the media texts published were news. 25 opinion articles, nine editorials and eight articles on the opinion pages were published during the period under examination. During those months when most of the media texts were published, the greatest number of stories appeared also on the opinion pages. As it appeared during the analysis only three authors wrote more than one story. But it is possible to bring out spokespersons according to spheres of activity. Journalists or columnists wrote the greatest number of opinion articles. They published ten articles. Nine articles were written by scientists, experts or analytics. Politicians as well as the representatives of the category “other” wrote both three articles. 19 opinion articles were written by Estonians and in the case of six articles the author represented some other nationality. All together 15 articles, which is 60% of the total number of articles under examination, expressed resistance towards the Nord Stream pipeline. Only five articles or 20% were in favour of the pipeline and in five articles the clear attitude towards the pipeline was not pointed out. It also appeared that mostly Estonians expressed opposition towards the Nord Stream gas pipeline and more foreigners were in favour of the pipeline. Three editorials supported the Nord Stream gas pipeline and only two editorials were against the pipeline. In four cases a clear attitude towards the topic was not expressed in the editorials. Although more editorials were in favour of the gas pipeline than against it the qualitative analysis of the editorials showed that negative argument are more frequently used and these negative comparisons and arguments are stronger than favourable statements. For several times the Nord Stream gas pipeline is portrayed in negative colours. For example it is compared to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, connected to lobbying, to political strife and to unanswered questions. Main positive aspects brought out when talking positively about the gas pipeline were the opportunity to express opinions about the questions that concern the building of the pipeline and the aspect that the pipeline will save Europe from energy hunger. The increase in Europe’s energy security was mentioned four times as an argument by those in favour of the gas pipeline. The argument of saying no and by that losing all opportunities to have a say in the matters that concern the building of the pipeline was mentioned thrice. Even if the pipeline is not in Estonian waters the fact that it is in the Baltic Sea does not eliminate possible dangers it might cause. Russia is a risk to security with or without the pipeline, thus the gas pipeline does not make matters worse. All together supportive arguments can be found in nine different subject fields. The argument according to which the Russian battle fleet is going to guard the pipeline and thereby Russia’s military presence at the Baltic Seal will increase and this in turn will give an intelligence advantage to Russia was used five times. The argument, which stated that Europe is too dependent on Russia’s energy supply and this dependence should be decreased, was also mentioned five times. The argument referring to the fact that Nord Stream is not a common European project and it will divide the European Union and the Baltic Sea region was also mentioned. All together counterarguments representing 17 different subject fields were used, hence it can be concluded that arguments against the gas pipeline prevailed in Estonian daily newspapers. In the chapter where discussion and conclusions are presented some possibilities how to develop this work further are also offered. One possibility is use the same hypothesis as in this thesis and to compare according to them media texts that have been published in other countries connected to this project. Another possibility is to enlarge the selection of the articles by adding texts published in 2009 and by interviewing the editors-in-chief of the opinion pages with the purpose to find out how editorials and opinion articles are written. In conclusion it can be said that mainly negative opinions about the Nord Stream project were constructed in Estonian daily newspapers. Certainly in a way this influenced the decision made by Estonian government to forbid the Nord Stream project research in Estonian economic zone. Thus it can be said that Estonian daily newspapers still participate in influencing and developing public opinion and in agenda-setting.http://www.ester.ee/record=b4014853*es