Medijska konstrukcija kolektivnih sjećanja: Tretman prošlosti u polju novinarstva, s osvrtom na postdejtonsku Bosnu i Hercegovinu

Abstract

In this work we critically consider the practice of treating history in the area of journalism respectively media as an distinctive institutional arena of contemporary communities for establishment, maintenance and transformation of common frameworks of understanding and commemorating of certain episodes from the past. We intent to offer plausible explanations regarding the relations between ''culture of remembrances'' and ''culture of reporting''. Article suggests how to approach the often misunderstood history in informative activitiy, which in its field of action and by definition does not have the dimension of history but the dimension of social situation of contemporariness. We also form the key operations and strategies used in shaping the repertoire of journalistic reports on the past. Described practices we study on the example of post-Dayton BiH, analysing media treatment of conflict areas during the recent war history. Legitimisation of ethnic-national visions of the past through the discourse of reporting has been recognised as the dominant way of working in the ''media memory filed''. Two key paradoxes of these practices are highlighted: coexistence of opposite discourses of commemoration and codification of abjection experiences by the same group of significations which have initially inducted the war traumas. We point out at least two conditions which facilitate these paradoxes: ambiguity of the past, concpetion of time which is assumed by post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina as an inherently uncompleted/imperfect country and technologies of culturised steering of trauma, which is being used by regimes of therapeutic/transitional justice'' to cope with disturbing history in post-conflict communities.

Media Reporting on the Problem of Missing Persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Perspective of Members of Their Families

“…-preko 700 majki i očeva željno iščekuje da saznaju šta se desilo sa njihovom djecom, -blizu 1.200 sestara i braće još uvijek se nada da će pronaći svoju braću i sestre, -više od 1.000 djece je odraslo čekajući informacije o sudbini ili povratku jednog ili oba roditelja, -preko 1.000 žena i muževa su sami othranili svoju djecu ne znajući da li su udovice/udovci ili nisu, -blizu 700 rođaka, bratića i sestrića, unučadi i drugih srodnika nastavlja porodičnu dužnost da traga za onima koji još uvijek nisu pronađeni, -najmanje 1.250 članova porodica koji žive izvan Bosne i Hercegovine ne znaju ništa o sudbini svojih najmilijih. O značaju pronalaska tijela nestalih osoba svjedoče i rezultati dosadašnjih istraživanja (ICRC 2018) u kojima je, između ostalog, istaknuto da je "svaka porodica priča za sebe, da nije riječ samo o tijelima, da su porodice razorene, te da nestanak utiče na generacije" 7 . Zapravo, kako se u stručnoj literaturi navodi: "... oporavak postkonfliktnog društva nezamisliv je bez suočavanja sa nasljeđem teških i sistemskih kršenja ljudskih prava i izazovom preuzimanja potpune odgovornosti za počinjene radnje.…”

The Symbolic Language of Film of Post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Cultural Memory of War Trauma – Analysis of the Films Quo Vadis Aida? and In the Land of Blood and Honey

“…Također, slično filmu U zemlji krvi i meda, imamo zamjerke svjedoka genocida Hasana Nuhanovića, čija knjiga je bila podloga za snimanje filma Quo vadis, Aida? 14 , na način kako su dešavanja koja on svjedoči iz individualnog pamćenja ekranizovana. Bosanskohercegovački entitet Republika Srpska se "ograđuje" od filma: "Quo Vadis Aida nije predstavnik Republike Srpske za Oscara".…”