The main purpose of this master thesis is to addresses the influence of media coverage on collective agreements in the public sector as well as investigating how the employers’ and employee’s organizations make use of media strategies in the process of collective bargaining. As a case example the media strategies used by Fag og Arbejde (FOA) and Kommunernes Landsforening (KL) in the collective bargaining negotiations of 2008 are analyzed in an effort to answer whether any of the two organizations successfully managed to shape the outcome of the negotiations by influencing the media and the public opinion. The thesis begins with a short description of the main players and their relations in the Danish public sector followed by an explanation of the events leading up to the collective bargaining of 2008 after which the collective bargaining negotiations between FOA and KL in the spring of 2008 are described in further detail. The theoretical framework used in the analysis addresses the agenda-setting function of the media as well as the specific gatekeepers of the Danish media. The methods used consist of both quantitative analyse of media content, interviews with central figures in FOA and KL as well as public opinion surveys. The matter of how FOA and KL sought to influence the media agenda and the public opinion is investigated using interviews with central figures in both organizations and comparing their statements with their respective organization’s announcements to the press. Deducting whether the media strategies of FOA and KL succeeded in influence the media agenda and the public opinion is accomplished by comparing the evaluations of both organizations as they appear in the interviews, quantitative analyse of media content and public opinion surveys. The main findings of the thesis are that FOA ascribed both media coverage and public opinion more influence on the outcome of the collective bargaining negotiations in the public sector than KL did. And that FOA as a result invested a considerable amount of resources to develop and execute an elaborate media strategy that affected all of FOA’s activities during the negotiations. KL on the contrary appeared to invest comparatively few resources and personnel to developing a media strategy. Furthermore did FOA’s media strategy successfully maintain a high level of public support while KL didn’t achieve the goals stated in their media strategy.