Although it is generally acknowledged that national elites and the mass media play an important role in the way that societies come to terms with a legacy of war crimes, there is little empirical knowledge about whether and how the mass media actually do contribute to a process of ‘facing the past’. Based on the case of Serbia, this study examines press media coverage of war crimes and war crime judiciary during the country’s recent post-war period. Adopting a novel approach to the conceptualization and measurement of media frames, the article compares the reporting of war crimes issues in four Serbian newspapers during the period from 2004 to 2006. Five frames were identified: an injustice frame, a denial frame, a factual frame, a benefits frame, and a rejection frame. In conclusion, the study reveals a discourse that is both ‘perpetrator centered’ and – particularly for the nationalistic press – ethnically biased.
Belgrade Center for Human Rights (2006) Research on the Attitudes towards the ICTY and Serbian War Crimes Court. Available at: http://www.bgcentar.org.yu/index.php?p=215 (accessed 7 January 2012).
2.
BickfordL (2004) Transitional justice. In: SheltonD (eds) The Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, Vol. 3. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 1045–1047.
3.
BratićV (2008) Examining peace-oriented media in areas of violent conflict. International Communication Gazette70: 487–503.
4.
ByrtTBishopJCarlinJB (1993) Bias, prevalence and Kappa. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology46(5): 423–429.
5.
Congressional Research Service (2008) Balkan Cooperation on War Crimes Issues: Federation of American Scientists. Available at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22097.pdf (accessed 10 December 2011).
6.
CoxJK (2002) The History of Serbia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
7.
CvetkovićVN (2001) Media responsibility of politicians in Serbia. Teme25: 145–156.
8.
CvijićS (2008) Swinging the pendulum: World War II history, politics, national identity and difficulties of reconciliation in Croatia and Serbia. Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity36: 713–740.
9.
D’AngeloP (2002) News framing as a multiparadigmatic research programme: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication52: 870–888.
10.
DavidRChoiSYP (2006) Forgiveness and transitional justice in the Czech Republic. Journal of Conflict Resolution50: 339–367.
11.
De la BrosseR (2003) Political Propaganda and the Plan to Create a ‘State for all Serbs’: Consequences of Using the Media for Ultra-Nationalist Ends. The Hague: ICTY Expert Report.
12.
De VreeseCHBoomgaardenHGSemetkoHA (2011) (In)direct framing effects: The effects of news media framing on public support for Turkish membership in the European Union. Communication Research38(2): 179–205.
13.
Del PonteC (2006) Media, justice and reconciliation: The case of the former Yugoslavia. Lecture at the Universitá della Svizzera Italiana, Lugano, Switzerland, 23October.
14.
Di EugenioBGlassM (2004) The Kappa statistic: A second look. Computational Linguistics30(1): 95–101.
15.
EaglestoneR (2001) Postmodernizam i poricanje holokausta. Zagreb: Naklada Jesenski i Turk.
16.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43: 51–58.
17.
ErniJN (2006) War, ‘incendiary media’ and international human rights law: Top Paper, Communication Law and Policy Division. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dresden, Germany, 19–23 June.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power. American Journal of Sociology95: 1–37.
20.
GibsonJL (2006) Overcoming apartheid: Can truth reconcile a divided nation?Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science603: 82–110.
21.
GoddardPRobinsonPParryK (2008) Patriotism meets plurality: Reporting the 2003 Iraq War in the British Press. Media, War & Conflict1(1): 9–30.
22.
HamelinkC (2008) Media between warmongers and peacemakers. Media, War & Conflict1(1): 77–85.
23.
HowardR (2002) An Operational Framework for Media and Peacebuilding. Vancouver: IMPACS.
24.
HuntingtonSP (1995) The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century. In: NeilJK (ed.) Transitional Justice, Vol. 1. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 65–81.
International Partnership for Human Rights (2008) Statement on Human Rights Defenders on the Occasion of the OSCE Civil Society Forum, Helsinki, 2–3December. Available at: http://www.iphronline.org/osce_20081130_e.html (accessed 6 February 2013).
JudahT (2009) The Serbs: History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
KerrRMobekkE (2007). Peace & Justice – Seeking Accountability after War. Cambridge: Polity Press.
31.
KohringMMatthesJ (2002) The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science11: 143–154.
32.
KuspahićK (2003) Prime Time Crime: Balkan Media in War and Peace. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
33.
MendezJE (1997) Accountability for past abuses. Human Rights Quarterly19: 255–282.
34.
MichalskiMGowJ (2007) War, Image and Legitimacy: Viewing Contemporary Conflict. New York: Routledge.
35.
MonasebianS (2007) Media matters: Reflections of a former war crimes prosecutor covering the Iraqi tribunal. Case Western Journal of International Law39: 305–324.
36.
NickelsHC (2005) Framing the Refugee and Asylum Question in Luxembourg: An Interactive Approach to Framing Theory. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
37.
Nikolić-RistanovićV (2006) Truth and reconciliation in Serbia. In: SullivanDTifftL (eds) The Handbook of Restorative Justice: Global Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 369–387.
38.
NinoSC (1996) Radical Evil on Trial. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39.
OSCE (2009) OSCE Mission to Serbia and Belgrade Centre for Human Rights. Public perception in Serbia of the ICTY and the national courts dealing with war crimes. OSCE Mission to Serbia. Available at http://www.osce.org/serbia/40751 (accessed 5 October 2011).
40.
RadojkovićM (2009) Why can’t civil society media grow in Serbia?International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics5: 89–101.
41.
RoseC (2005) Sino-Japanese Relations: Facing the Past, Looking to the Future?New York: Routledge.
42.
SemetkoHAValkenburgPM (2000) Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication50: 93–109.
43.
SimonAXenosM (2000) Media framing and effective public deliberation. Political Communication17: 613–624.
44.
ŠimonovićI (2004) Dealing with the legacy of past war crimes and human rights abuses: Experiences and trends. Journal of International Criminal Justice2: 701–710.
45.
StoverEWeinsteinHM (eds) (2004) My Neighbour, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
ThompsonM (1999) Forging War: The Media in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Luton, Bedfordshire: University of Luton Press.
47.
ThompsonMMonroeE (2003) Intervention, media and human rights. Survival45: 183–202.
48.
TumberH (2008) Journalists, war crimes and international justice. Media, War & Conflict1(3): 261–269.
49.
Van GorpB (2006) Framing Asiel: Indringers en Slachtoffers in de Pers. Leuven/Voorburg: Acco.
50.
Van GorpB (2007) The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication57: 60–78.
51.
ZalaquettJ (1992) Balancing ethical imperatives and political constraints: The dilemma of new democracies confronting past human rights violations. Hastings Law Journal43: 1425–1438.
52.
ZelizerB (2000) Remembering to Forget: Holocaust Memory through the Camera’s Eye. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
53.
ZupanN (2006) Facing the past and transitional justice in countries of former Yugoslavia. In: FischerM (ed.) Peacebuilding and Civil Society in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Ten Years after Dayton. Münster: Lit Verlag, 327–342.
