Suchergebnisse

When Night Passes and When Day Breaks – Between the Past and the Present. Borderlines of Holocaust in Filip David's WorksThe primary objective of the text is the analysis of Filip David's latest work. The Serbian writer is the author of the novel House of Memories and Oblivions (Kuća sećanja i zaborava, 2014), award for Best Novel of the Year by the NIN weekly (Nedeljne Informativne Novine). On the one hand, the output of this Serbian novelist is of interest to us as a continuation and representation of the contemporary discourse on the Holocaust in Serbia. On the other – we look at the literary realization of the Holocaust topic. The fortunes of the main characters in the novel (children who survived Holocaust) serve as the cases on which we present where the author draws the borderline of the ever-present Holocaust in their lives; how much and in what way the past affects their present; where the borderline of memory, forgetting and oblivion is. Kad padne noć i Kad svane dan - między przeszłością a teraźniejszością. Granice Holocaustu w twórczości Filipa DavidaPodstawowym celem tekstu jest analiza najnowszej tworczości Filipa Davida, autora nagrodzonej Nagrodą Tygodnika NIN ("Nedeljne Informativne Novine") powieści Dom pamięci i zapomnienia (2014, Kuća sećanja i zabovrava). Z jednej strony twórczość serbskiego prozaika interesować nas będzie jako kontynuacja i reprezentacja współczesnego dyskursu na temat Holokaustu w Serbii. Z drugiej zaś – przyjrzymy się jego literackiej realizacji. Na przykładzie losów głównych bohaterów powieści (dzieci, które przeżyły Zagładę) pokażemy, gdzie przebiega rysowana przez autora granica istnienia Shoah w ich życiu. Na ile i w jaki sposób przeszłość wpływa na ich teraźniejszość, gdzie przebiega granica pamięci, niepamięci i zapomnienia oraz w jakim stopniu ich życie definiuje rozdzielenie rzeczywistości od fikcji.

The paper examines the differences in editorial policy between the online and print editions of the two most famous and most influential Serbian news magazines - NIN and Vreme. All the elements of the editorial policies that exist in the modern media system are analyzed - media content (topics), internal agenda settings, form, media, visual and audio elements, gate keepers, readers/consumers, as well as the system of advertising and subscriptions. Based on four years of research, six months content analysis and interviewing the journalists employed in these newsrooms, it was found that only two elements of editorial policy can be defined as different between online and print editions. This implies unconformity regarding new media of the most important print media, e.g. media which addresses decision makers and the most educated part of the society. ; Rad se bavi razlikom između uređivačkih politika on-lajn i štampanih izdanja dva najpoznatija i najuticajnija srpska nedeljnika - NIN i Vreme. Svi elementi uređivačke politike koji postoje u sistemu modernih medija su analizirani - medijski sadržaj (teme), unutrašnja agenda, forma, medij, vizuelni i audio elementi, čuvari kapija, čitaoci/konzumenti, kao i sistem pretplate i oglašavanja. Zaključak izveden na osnovu četvorogodišnjeg istraživanja, šestomesečne analize sadržaja i intervjua sa novinarima zaposlenim u analiziranim redakcijama, ukazuje da se samo dva elementa uređivačke politike razlikuju u štampanim i on-lajn izdanjima, što govori o neprilagođenosti novim medijima najvažnijih štampanih medija, odnosno medija koji se obraćaju donosiocima odluka i najobrazovanijem delu društva.

A short story On 3 March, the Reuter correspondent in Belgrade reported: 'The Yugoslav literary newspaper Knjizevne Novine has published a short story by Milovan Djilas … His first work published at home for 34 years, it was printed so that readers could 'judge him on his literary merits'. Mr Djilas (76), once a close lieutenant of Tito, fell into disgrace in 1954, serving nine years in jail and being expelled from the party for criticising Tito's policies. He is widely known for his political books and essays, not so much for literary fiction. We acknowledge the publication of his short story in Knjizevne Novine as a step in the right direction; when the same story was printed some time ago in Encounter and Tempo Presente, both periodicals were banned in Yugoslavia. We are proud to present another short story by Milovan Djilas; in sending the manuscript, Mr Djilas was the first writer to respond to our invitation to contribute to this 100th issue of Index on Censorship.

This research paper is the result of the research of the print media Književne novine, Književna reč, Pravoslavlje, NIN and Duga in the course of 1986/1987 by using the method of content analysis. The research was conducted on the complete available material for the years 1986 and 1987. In some parts of the text and in the context of events, the analysis included printed media that are outside of the timeline of this research. By analysing the content of the abovementioned periodicals, the author concluded that the Serbian intelligentsia was homogenous in protecting Serbian national interests in Kosovo and Metohija. This can largely be attributed to complex social and political circumstances in which the population of Serbs, clergy and monks, as well as the sacral property of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Kosovo and Metohija, were exposed to constant violence by the Albanian majority. Under such conditions, the Kosovo myth served to the Serbian intelligentsia as the cultural foundation for the homogenization of national consciousness. In addition, according to the legal restrictions imposed by the 1974 Constitution, the Socialist Republic of Serbia was politically powerless to resolve the evident issues arising in Kosovo and Metohija. The Serbian intelligentsia, namely journalists, writers, artists, scientists, academicians and clergy of the Serbian Orthodox Church, tried to make up for such political vacuum. By highlighting the Kosovo myth and raising the Serbian national question, the public opinion in Serbia was created that it was necessary to redefine the national position of Serbs in the SFRY.

Following the trial of the six intellectuals, one of Yugoslavia's best-known writers announced the formation of a committee to defend free thought On 10 November 1984, five days after the trial of the 'Belgrade Six' began, the well-known Yugoslav novelist Dobrica Ćosić announced the setting up of the Committee for the Freedom of Thought and Expression. The Ćosić Committee manifesto was signed by 19 most eminent Serbian men of letters, art and science, including 12 members of the prestigious Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. What is most striking about the signatories is that they cover the whole spectrum of opinion of the Belgrade intelligentsia, from pre-war party veterans (Gojko Nikoliš, Tanasije Mladenović), Marxist philosophers of the Praxis group (Mihailo Marković, Ljubomir Tadić), advocates of pluralistic socialist democracy (Kosta Čavoški), and the so-called 'nationalists' (Matija Bećković, Mića Popović) to public figures who simply want an affirmation of the rule of law in a country which has had more than its fair share of lawlessness, both under the present and previous regimes, not to mention the terrible wartime period when Yugoslavs, possessed by the demon of self-destruction, engaged in a bloody and tragic civil war. Dobrica Ćosić sent the manifesto with a covering letter to the official news agency Tanjug, the radio and television services of the eight Yugoslav republics and provinces, and 30 dailies, weeklies and periodicals. The media responded with a vitriolic campaign against Ćosić and his committee. A Belgrade Radio commentary said the manifesto was 'inspired by a desire to portray the social system in Yugoslavia as a reign of ideological terror, bureaucratic arbitrariness, police persecution — in a word, Stalinism'. Belgrade's Politika Ekspres implied that Ćosić had joined Tito's partisans (he was the political commissar of a partisan unit in Serbia) only because he wanted to be on the winning side. Zagreb's Vjesnik liked this so much that it decided to reprint it, adding its own subheadings (one of them read: 'A Dirty Business'), but Belgrade's Književne Novine deplored this attempt to cast a slur on Ćosić's wartime record. While Književne Novine was the only paper to spring to Ćosić's defence, the hardline Croatian youth weekly Polet was the only one to carry the committee's manifesto and Ćosić's covering letter, though only to attack both Ćosić and Western critics of the current wave of repression in Yugoslavia. Vjesnik took Ćosić to task for visiting Zagreb in order to canvass support for his initiative, publishing its attack under the heading Gedža u Zagrebu (' The [Serbian] Yokel in Zagreb'). Zagreb's Večernji List said: 'The political prompters and ideological fathers of the Belgrade petitioners have now at long last appeared on the stage and presented themselves to the public…. They obviously feel morally obliged to come to the aid of their puppets now standing trial for hostile activity.' NIN wondered whether Yugoslav opposition elements were appealing for an intervention from abroad. We are grateful to the London-based South Slav Journal for the English translation.