Page 66 - Dark Shades of Istria
P. 66
Media Perspective on Dark Tourism and Memory
tic and international audience. Television, for example, has thus became
one of the most important memory agents, and the co-creator of social
memory, which applies to new technologies as well (channels/networks
have become dense and spread) (Assmann, 2011, p. 202; Ebbrecht, 2007,
pp. 221–222); it has also become an important archive of historical images
that create a collective image of historical events, a stereotyped symbol of
past events and collectively shared version of history (Ebbrecht, 2007, p.
222; Hoskins, 2001, p. 341) and a manipulator of memory (Hoskins, 2001,
p. 336). Van Dijck (2010, p. 271) attributes this to the media in general,
while Kitsch (2008) attributes it to journalism. ‘Anniversary journalism,’
including the related broadcasts, consists of canonised historical narra-
tive templates, rituals, and myths, which impact the ‘mnemonic synchro-
nisation of particular communities;’ such journalism connects common
national and cultural feelings (Harro-Loit & Kõresaar, 2010, pp. 324–325,
337). In this context, commemorations, in addition to historical analo-
gies and historical contexts, are the main elements used by journalists to
connect the present times with the past (Edy, 1999). In connection with
this, the journalistic projects should have some kind of engagement with
the past (Zelizer, 2008a, p. 384). In other words, the media, as an impor-
tant operator of the transmission process, co-create a collective mem-
ory (Ebbrecht, 2007, p. 222; Pavlaković & Perak, 2017, p. 301); they can
be marked as a memory agent between past (tragic) events, present day
event organisers and audiences/people with their own preferences. Sim-
ilarly, Zelizer (2008b) claims that this renders journalism a key memory
agent. However, both journalists themselves and scholars find this diffi-
cult to accept. Let us take a look at Zelizer’s (2008a) views or arguments
on this topic:
• regarding the journalists’ perceptions of their work, it should be
pointed out that they appear to be a stakeholder ill-suited to offer an
independent tracking/explaining of past events. On the other hand,
they can provide a first draft of the past (historical events), while the
final ‘judgments’ must be explained by historians (p. 379);
• a frequent orientation towards the simplification, recounting with-
out context, minimisation of subtle differences and the twilight
zones of a phenomenon all limit the media coverage associated with
the past. In accordance with the constant reverence for truth and
reality, singular characteristics of memory work should always be
considered: ‘its processual nature, unpredictability, partiality, us-
66
tic and international audience. Television, for example, has thus became
one of the most important memory agents, and the co-creator of social
memory, which applies to new technologies as well (channels/networks
have become dense and spread) (Assmann, 2011, p. 202; Ebbrecht, 2007,
pp. 221–222); it has also become an important archive of historical images
that create a collective image of historical events, a stereotyped symbol of
past events and collectively shared version of history (Ebbrecht, 2007, p.
222; Hoskins, 2001, p. 341) and a manipulator of memory (Hoskins, 2001,
p. 336). Van Dijck (2010, p. 271) attributes this to the media in general,
while Kitsch (2008) attributes it to journalism. ‘Anniversary journalism,’
including the related broadcasts, consists of canonised historical narra-
tive templates, rituals, and myths, which impact the ‘mnemonic synchro-
nisation of particular communities;’ such journalism connects common
national and cultural feelings (Harro-Loit & Kõresaar, 2010, pp. 324–325,
337). In this context, commemorations, in addition to historical analo-
gies and historical contexts, are the main elements used by journalists to
connect the present times with the past (Edy, 1999). In connection with
this, the journalistic projects should have some kind of engagement with
the past (Zelizer, 2008a, p. 384). In other words, the media, as an impor-
tant operator of the transmission process, co-create a collective mem-
ory (Ebbrecht, 2007, p. 222; Pavlaković & Perak, 2017, p. 301); they can
be marked as a memory agent between past (tragic) events, present day
event organisers and audiences/people with their own preferences. Sim-
ilarly, Zelizer (2008b) claims that this renders journalism a key memory
agent. However, both journalists themselves and scholars find this diffi-
cult to accept. Let us take a look at Zelizer’s (2008a) views or arguments
on this topic:
• regarding the journalists’ perceptions of their work, it should be
pointed out that they appear to be a stakeholder ill-suited to offer an
independent tracking/explaining of past events. On the other hand,
they can provide a first draft of the past (historical events), while the
final ‘judgments’ must be explained by historians (p. 379);
• a frequent orientation towards the simplification, recounting with-
out context, minimisation of subtle differences and the twilight
zones of a phenomenon all limit the media coverage associated with
the past. In accordance with the constant reverence for truth and
reality, singular characteristics of memory work should always be
considered: ‘its processual nature, unpredictability, partiality, us-
66
