{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1 \deff0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}
{\f186\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq0{\*\panose 00000000000000000000}Letter Gothic{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f187\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f188\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f190\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f191\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f192\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f193\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f194\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f203\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f204\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;}{\f206\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}
{\f207\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}{\f208\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);}{\f209\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);}{\f210\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;
\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;
\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{
\s1\ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\keepn\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f2\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\s2\ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0
\keepn\widctlpar\faauto\outlinelevel1\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar
\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 header;}{\*\cs16 \additive \sbasedon10 page number;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 endnote text;}{\*\cs18 \additive \super \sbasedon10 endnote reference;}{\s19\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f2\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Body Text 2;}{\s20\ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \i\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext20 Body Text Indent 2;}{\s21\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 footnote text;}{\*\cs22 \additive \super \sbasedon10 footnote reference;}}
{\info{\title report}{\author Open Society Institute Croatia}{\operator Hrvoje Turkovic}{\creatim\yr1995\mo5\dy7}{\revtim\yr2006\mo2\dy24\hr16\min7}{\version15}{\edmins157}{\nofpages26}{\nofwords10050}{\nofchars57290}{\*\company 3M}{\nofcharsws70356}
{\vern8247}}\facingp\widowctrl\enddoc\aenddoc\ftnrestart\makebackup\aftnnar\notabind\noextrasprl\sprsspbf\brkfrm\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984
\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl \fet1\sectd \linex576\headery709\footery709\colsx709\endnhere\titlepg\sectdefaultcl {\headerl \pard\plain \s15\qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar
\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpg\phpg\posx9864\posy720\absw576\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs16 PAGE  }}{\fldrslt {\cs16\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof 26}}}{\cs16 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f186\fs24 MEDIA AND WAR - TV Research Report - Hrvoje Turkovi\} 
\par }}{\headerr \pard\plain \s15\qr \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpg\phpg\posx9864\posy720\absw576\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs16 PAGE  }}{\fldrslt {
\cs16\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof 25}}}{\cs16 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f186\fs24 MEDIA AND WAR - TV Research Report - Hrvoje Turkovi\} 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs28 The Content Analysis of HTV News programmes
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 
\par }\pard\plain \s1\ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\keepn\widctlpar\faauto\outlinelevel0\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\i\f2\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f187 By Hrvoje Turkovi\'e6
\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\i\fs24 
\par 
\par }{\i\fs24 CONTENT: 
\par I. Methodological introduction
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 Initial assumptions
\par Specification of the research orientation 
\par The sample 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24 The overall political situation in the \line period of the two samples 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 The content analysis matrix 
\par The analysis operators 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 II. Content analysis results 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 1. Global features of the news programs 
\par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24 1.1. Number and frequency of news items 
\par 1.2. Main delivery
\par 1.3. Duration
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 2. Thematic distribution (war related items) 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 {\i\fs24 2.1. Ratio of war/non-war (peace) news items within the program
\par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24 2.2. Identity of news events 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 {\i\fs24 2.3. Who were the participants in war related events?
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 3. Attitudinal side of news reporting 
\par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24 3.1. Ascription of guilt 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 {\i\fs24 3.2 Ascription of guilt for failures in \line peace negotiations and attitudes to the reactions of the "world" 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1440\li2880\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\tx2160\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 {\i\fs24 3.3. Attitude-constructing side of discourse
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 4. Identification of the "enemy"
\par }\pard \ql \li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24 4.1. Who was specifically referred to
\par 4.2. "Naming" of enemy 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24 5. Some general discourse properties of delivery \line in correlation with the theme distributions
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 {\i\fs24 5.1. The "importance markedness" in \line relation to the war related news
\par 5.2. Actual event/pseudo event distinction \line in relation to the war/peace \line distinction
\par }\pard\plain \s20\ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \i\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20 5.3. The text-picture relationship correlated \line to the war/peace news distinction

\par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 III. Summary and conclusion 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 \page }{\b\i\fs24 I. Methodological introduction}{\b\fs24  
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 Initial assumptions 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
Research started with the general assumption that television, besides its influential role in civil life of the nation, is evaluated as especially important medium
 for the articulation of public opinion in the times of general societal crisis, such as war. 
\par Another assumption (based on common observation) is that in the war times, TV is evaluated even as more crucially important then usual by all involved parties: b
y the general TV audience, by the national government, political parties, and individuals, by TV people themselves and by the enemy side in the war}{\cs18\fs24\super \chftn {\footnote\ftnalt \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0
\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs18\super \chftn }{
 The last was manifest in systematic air raids and other military attacks on the TV relay towers and crucial antennas in Dubrovnik, Split, Zagreb during the 1991. all etc.). }}}{\fs24  
\par Having an actual war situation at hand in Ex-Yugoslavia, present research was initiated to record and interpret some basic characteristics of the media situation in the warring countries.
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 Specification of the research orientation
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The more specific assumption was that the evaluation of the importance of the role of TV in the war situation by the TV people them
selves will be manifest in some changes within the discourse modes of the program, especially news programs. 
\par Guided by this assumption, the research was primarily oriented as a research into }{\i\fs24 discourse}{\cs18\i\fs24\super \chftn {\footnote\ftnalt \pard\plain \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs18\super \chftn }{ The concept of }{\i discourse }{is taken here in the following sense: a) a }{\i discourse}{ is a communicative delivery, a text, taken }{\i in toto}{
 (e.g. a whole particular TV news program\'85). More specifically, b) }{\i discourse}{ relate to a structural aspect of the whole text (e.g. how the TV news program is composed), taking into account c) a
ll relevant aspects of the text (e.g. in TV news program not only structuring of verbal part will be taken into account, but also a pictorial one, musical aspect, optical processing\'85
, i.e. all processings that condition the perception of the structure of whole particular program).}}}{\i\fs24  modes}{\fs24  of TV news (prime news), and to be based mostly on the }{\i\fs24 content}{\cs18\i\fs24\super \chftn {\footnote\ftnalt 
\pard\plain \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs18\super \chftn }{ The concept of }{\i content}{ relates to the \'93thematic\'94
 aspect of discours (semantical side), but here it encompass also anything that is analytically relevant for the global understanding of a discourse, that contributes to the understanding. So, besides thematic side, in \'93content\'94 are included also 
\'93formal\'94 aspects, i.e. all the constituting strategies of exposition that contributes to the global \'93discourse effect\'94.}}}{\i\fs24  analysis}{\fs24  approach. 
\par As a preparation for content analysis a }{\i\fs24 close analysis interpretation}{\fs24  of one program selected from the recorded sample (17. November 1993) had been done. The close analysis had been based on the "shooting script", i.e. 
a technical description of the visual and audio side of the news program discourse. Close analysis description did yield a more qualitative interpretation, which could be supported, or denied by the content analysis. 
\par The content research was preceded by the preparation essay (}{\i\fs24 Propaganda as an answer to a need for socially approved orientation in globally disorienting situations}{\fs24 ), and by the close analysis paper \endash  }{\i\fs24 
Partiality and Non-partiality of News Program (War and Peace Prime News of Croatian Television)}{\fs24 , by the same author. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 The sample
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The sample to be analyzed was chosen from the "main news" (prime time news at 19.30 h. every day) that have been broadcast by the main national network - }{
\i\fs24 HRT}{\fs24  (Hrvatska radio televizija - Croatian Radio Television). 
\par The 
network was state controlled (under the jurisdiction of Croatian Parliament and under the influence of governing political party HDZ - Croatian Democratic Community). It was broadcast nationwide, HRT being the single nationwide broadcasting network in Cro
atia, in control over broadcasting relays. 
\par The period to be monitored (recorded on VHS) was set to be the period between 7. November 1993. - 21. November 1993 (14 news programs). 
\par Additionally, the Zagreb group, for comparative purposes, obtained one program from the 18. November 1991. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 The overall political situation in the period of the two samples 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The war situation, at the period of the main sample, was as follows: 
\par At that time, the truce was maintained between the Serb controlled parts of Croatia ("R
epublic of Krajina", as they called themselves) and the Croatian State. The United Nations Protection Forces (UNPROFOR) were posted along the division lines between Serb controlled parts and the rest of Croatia to control the maintenance of the truce. In 
most parts of Croatia the peace (civil) situation was maintained, with lot of war refuges dispersed throughout the country. But there were still skirmishes along the line, and occasional shelling of Croatian towns and the town regions (Zadar, Gradi\'9a
ka) near
 the Serb controlled regions. And the economy was still burdened by the war situation and partial isolation from the world economic exchanges. However, the full fledged war was going in the neighboring B&H (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The main conflict was b
e
tween the Bosnia Serbs on the one side and Bosnia Muslims and Croats on the other, Serb forces occupying most of the Bosnia territory. Serbs in B&H have established their own - separatist - political formation: Republic of Serbs, with their own army, heav
i
ly supported by the Serb and Montenegro federative state - Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina have also established the regional political formation: Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, and had its own military forces - HVO, Hrvatsko 
vi}{\f187\fs24 je\'e6
e obrane - Croatian Defence Council). Only the Moslems and the rest of Croats and Serbs in Moslem dominated parts of B&H (e.g. Sarajevo) have maintained the basic and integrally conceived (recognized by UN) Republic of BIH, and their own military force 
- Army of BIH. But, there was a secessionists Moslem movement in the west B&H led by Fikret Abdi\'e6 (in Kladu\'9a
a), which were at that time in occasional conflict with B&H governmental forces and supported by Croatian government (and Serbs in Krajina and Bosni}{\fs24 a).
\par But at the period of the sample the most emphasized conflicts were led between the Croats and Muslims over the control of nationally (Moslem-Croat) mixed regions. Governmental politics in Croatia gave a heavy support to the Croatian side in BIH, and ex
erted a fundamental influence on their behavior. 
\par The situation in the period of the comparative sample (18.11.91: "Vukovar program") was as follows: 
\par There was a widespread war in its peak within Croatia: all regions bordering with Serbia, Bosnia and Herz
egovina, and Montenegro were invaded by JNA (Yugoslav People's Army  - ex-Yugoslav Army forces) and Serb and Montenegro paramilitary or drafted troupes. Within Croatia, rebel - mainly Serb populated - regions have (in Slavonia, Lika, Kordun, Bania and Nor
t
h Dalmatia) conjoined their own forces with JNA and were taking over the governmental positions in their regions and advancing in order to occupy as much Croatian territory as they can. There where JNA air raids over most towns in Croatia, and the towns o
n reach of JNA artillery were being shelled (Dubrovnik, Zadar, \'8a
ibenik, Karlovac, Osijek, Pakrac, Sisak etc.). The day before (17, November 1991) the Croatian town Vukovar, near the Serbs border, had fallen after several month of siege and attacks by JNA an
d Serbs forces. The JNA garrison within Croatian controlled territory were besieged by police and by citizen militia and volunteers, and negotiations between JNA representatives and Croatian representatives were in process: it was about the surrender of g
arrisons or the withdrawal of their occupants from Croatia. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 The content analysis matrix 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
Since the features to be measured by content analysis (i. e. the "field of sensitivity" of the research matrix) has to be specified, some more specific theoretical goal had to be put forward in order to give the "relevancy criterion". 
\par The chosen hypothesis was based on the common observation that in the situation of war the dichotomy between "us" and "them" ("others") tend to become more emphasized and that some or mo
st of the "others" are "constructed as an enemy". Therefore, analytical matrix was made to register }{\i\fs24 the modes of presentation of the assumed "enemy"}{\fs24 :
\par a) The content analysis matrix has to register the verbal part of the "enemy referred" news items: the (evaluative) "naming" of the enemy, and of their activities. 
\par b) The analysis has to register the rhetorical aspect of the presentation (i.e. the persuasion factor) both in verbal and pictorial side of TV news item. 
\par c) Some general features of any news discourse have to be recorded under the assumption that they may too be somehow changed along the }{\i\fs24 peace news - war news}{\fs24  dimension. 
\par Most features have to be evaluated on the basis of the }{\i\fs24 native viewer's}{\fs24  experience, i.e. the experience of the person who belongs to the regular national TV audience and can be considered as "experienced viewer". 
\par The matrix}{\cs18\fs24\super \chftn {\footnote\ftnalt \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs18\super \chftn }{
 The matrix was developed on the basis of the Argument's matrix for 
the content analysis of TV news (made for other research purposes), and was partially modified in the process of adaptation to the chosen sample in preparatory phase. As the analysis operators two students at the end of their study (one at the Academy of 
dr}{\f187 amatic art in Zagreb, and the other at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Zagreb) were employed together with the research leader (Hrvoje Turkovi\'e6
). All research operators have been the "native viewers" and had the common knowledge of the immediate media}{
- and political context of the sample. Both had some experience in news analysis, and one had participated in the "shooting script" extraction for the close analysis interpretation made in the preparation phase of the project. The results of the content a
nalysis were statistically processed by the experienced programmer. }}}{\fs24  was divideed into four parts. 
\par The first part (A) had to yield the general information about the features the whole chosen prime news program (date, editor, duration of the whole program, number of items within it). 
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f2\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\f0\fs20 
The second part (B) had to yield the particular information about the single news-item. a) general features of the news-item (ratio of news related to war and those related to peace; order of appeara
nce within the whole program; duration; generic status; originality status; embedding within context); b) rhetorical status of the news-item (significance impression; impression of relative length of news-item; production "richness"; "markedness" factor; 
who is narrator; visibility status of narrator; personality index of delivery). 
\par }\pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs24 
The third part (C) had to yield the general characteristics of the news item's topic (identification of the "news event"; temporal status of news-event; ontological status of i
tem; coherency of topic in an complex item; picture coverage of reported event; modes of picture coverage; repetition index; duration of the picture coverage; number of shots; text/picture dominance ratio; role of visual presentation in relation to narrat
ion}{\cs18\fs24\super \chftn {\footnote\ftnalt \pard\plain \s17\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs18\super \chftn }{ The term \'93narration\'94
 is here reserved for the speech part of the TV program (the speech of editor, reporter, interviewed person, statement of politician etc. Synonymous, but somehow of narrower content, is the term }{\i comment}{.}}}{\fs24 
; the status of the narration in relation to video presentation). 
\par The fourth (C) part had to yield the information specifically on the war-related items (identification of a topic; author of report; source of information; involved parties in topicalize
d conflict; assumed guilty party; guilty party for a lack of success in peace negotiations; world reactions; identification of a referent of "enemy" designations; a locus of appearance of "enemy" designation; specific picture coverage of consequences of "
enemy action"; interpretation-fact relation within narration; attitudinal intonation of narration; emotions intended to be provoked)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Final, fifth (E) part had to yield concrete verbiage by which the "enemy" is referred to (number of "enemy descriptions"; id
entification of the referent; explicitness of the denotation; event-topic; emotional power of expressions; quotations of verbiage). 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 II. Content analysis results}{\b\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 In this report an emphasis will be put on those data of content analysis which can place 
the war related side of the chosen sample of news programs in the interpretative perspective. 
\par The comparative values for the "Vukovar program" will be added, and marked at the beginning by asterisk (}{\b\fs24 *}{\fs24 ) and printed in italics. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 1. Global features of the news programs)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 1.1. Number and frequency of news items (CN /code number in codebook/ 06)}{\b\fs24  
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 In 14 recorded programs there were - 268 news items }{\i\fs24 in toto}{\fs24 
. The sum of the broadcast lengths of all researched programs was 492 minutes and 11 seconds. The shortest program took 28 minutes and 59 seconds, and the longest one 44 minutes. The everage program length was 35 minutes and 8 seconds. 
\par The minimal number of items per program was 14, the maximal number was 25. The mean number of items per program was \endash  19.1. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 *}{\i\fs24  The Vukovar program had 21 news items; 1,3 items per minute.
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 1.2. Main delivery (CN 03)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
Each news program was presented and led (mediated) by the editor of the program itself; the program discourse was globally constructed as a one-person delivery with the inserted (embedded) contributions by other news-persons. 
\par }{\f187\fs24 There were three editors who featured in the sampled programs: Elizabeta Gojan, Damir Matkovi\'e6 and Branko Dopu\'f0a. Their respective participation in the sample were: 
\par }{\fs24 Elizabeta Gojan delivered 6 out of 14 (119 news items - 44.4% of all items) 
\par }{\f187\fs24 Damir Matkovi\'e6 6 (111 news items - 41.4%)
\par Branimir Dopu\'f0a 2 (38 news items - 14.2%)
\par }{\fs24 They, generally, gave an introduction into the item, sometimes added a post-item comment, and sometime they delivered (narrate) the whole item. 
\par In some cases they did not announce the next item (in 55 cases out of 268 items; 20.5 %), which usually meant that they had offered a general introduction into a series of connected items without introducing each separately. So, usua
lly, the absence of the editor's introduction into the particular item was a signal of thematically more connected series of items (i.e. of a "thematic block"). 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 *}{\i\f187\fs24  Branimir Dopu\'f0a was the editor/mediator of the Vukovar program. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 1.3. Duration (CN 05)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 In the "program" were not included weather forecast and sport report. They have, anyway, appeared formally separated, as additions to the main news program.  

\par The shortest program was 28 minutes and 59 seconds.
\par The longest program was 44 minutes. 
\par The mean duration was 35 minutes and 38 seconds. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 *}{\i\fs24  The duration of the Vukovar program had been 29 minutes and 17 seconds. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 2. Thematic distribution (war related items)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 2.1. Ratio of war/non-war (peace) news items within the program (CN 07; CN 72-151)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
According to the last section (CN 72-151) of the matrix (where only news items related to the war in Ex-Yugoslavia region were analyzed), there were 130 (48,5 %) war related 
news items, other items were (138; 51,5 %) referring either to non-war (peace) events, or to foreign war events. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 *}{\i\fs24  In the Vukovar program only 1 item was not analyzed as war related. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Ratio was somewhat different in the more differentiated matrix questi
on, where the more subtle distinction between thematic "orientations" of news items were requested. 
\par There were 104 (38,8 %) news items elicited as those that refer to the civil situation ("peace news"), without any mention of the war on the Ex-Yugoslav pr
emises. Out of them 72 (26,9 %) referred to Croatian events, 11,9 % to the world events. There were, in sum, 66,3 % news predominantly referring to the civil situation, with or without some mention of the war. 
\par Among the war referring news items there were, in sum, 157 (60 %) news items with at least some mention of the war. There were 87 (32,5 %) marked as direct ("pure") war news items; and 69 (25,7 %) predominantly peace news with some mention of the war. 

\par A discrepancy in "pure war news" from CN 07 (32,
5 %) to CN 72 and on (48,5 %), was probably due to the fact that the variant questions in CN 07 were not exhausting, and the judgments on some items (e.g. items on conferences where different questions were discussed, among them war events too) were waver
ing, uncertain, while in the "war section" of the matrix any item with the specific mention of the war event was counted as relevant for the analysis. 
\par Three items were not classified (1,1 %). 
\par Only 4 items (out of 268) - 1,5 % - were referring to the events going on in "enemy" region, and all were with the mention of the war. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 *}{\i\fs24 
 In the Vukovar program 20 news items (out of 21) - 95,2 % - were referring to the ongoing war, only 1 (4,8 %) item was without any mention of the war (about B&H event)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 17 (81 %) it
ems referred directly to the war events, one predominantly to civil situation in Croatia (4,8 %) but with the mention of the war, and one predominantly to civil situation in "enemy region" (4,8 %) but with the mention of the war. 
\par Two items were left unsorted (9,5 %). 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 2.2. Identity of news events (CN 37-50)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Among all news items (268) in the sample the distribution of themes were as follows (scaled list): 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Diplomatic activities related to the wa\tab 128 items\tab  (47,8 %)
\par War (armed conflicts) \tab \tab \tab  64 \tab (23,9 %)
\par External politics of Croatia               \tab \tab 47       \tab (17,5 %)
\par Internal politics (Croatia, UNPA Zones)    \tab 45       \tab (16,8 %)
\par Economics                                  \tab \tab 40       (14,9 %)
\par Culture, education, science, art           \tab 37       (13,8 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Political events in B&H \line (Bosnia and Herzegovina)              \tab 34       (12,7 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 World                                      \tab \tab 32       (11,9 %)
\par Other                                      \tab \tab \tab 28       (10,4 %)
\par Every-day issues                           \tab \tab 23       ( 8,6 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Internal/external politics \line (the rest of Ex-Yugoslavia)           \tab 13       ( 4,9 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Religion                                    \tab \tab 7       ( 2,6 %)
\par Crime                                       \tab \tab 6       ( 2,2 %)
\par Sport                                       \tab \tab \tab 1       ( 0,4 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The sum is not 268 items (100 %) because the same item could be judged along several categories, so there are many category overlappings. 
\par The most news items dealt with diplomatic activities related to the war (mostly preven
tion of the war), which fitted the truce situation in Croatia with lot of still unresolved war related and war threatening problems. The next most frequent theme were actual war conflicts. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 *}{\i\fs24  In the Vukovar program, frequency of themes were as follows: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 War (armed conflicts)                      17 items (81,0 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 Internal/external politics \line (the rest of Ex-Yugoslavia)           17       (81,0 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Internal politics (Croatia, UNPA Zones)    12       (57,1 %)
\par Diplomatic activities related to the war   10       (47,6 %)
\par World                                       5       (23,8 %)
\par External politics of Croatia                3       (14,3 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 Political events in B&H \line (Bosnia and Herzegovina)               1       ( 4,8 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Every-day issues                            1       ( 4,8 %)
\par Economics                                   0       ( 0,0 %)
\par Culture, education, science, art            0       ( 0,0 %)
\par Religion                                    0       ( 0,0 %)
\par Sport                                       0       ( 0,0 %)
\par Crime                                       0       ( 0,0 %)
\par Other                                       0       ( 0,0 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 There was a expected coincidence between war conflicts and internal/external politics within Ex-Yugoslavia in Vukovar program;
 though the general attack on Croatia was clearly treated as an aggression, it was aggression of the Army that was to that time considered "national" (with Croats in it), Serbs that belonged up to the point to the same (federal) country (Yugoslavia) and s
o
me of them (local Serbs in Croatia) considered Croatian citizen. And by international community the whole war had been widely treated as an internal political matter. The frequency of war themes was at the peak (81 %), and the next frequent themes were: i
n
ternal politics (57,1 %; again connected with the war, it was a situation of almost all Croatia territory being directly involved in war activities); next frequent were diplomatic activities related to the war (47,6 %), followed by "world events" (23,8 %)
 - again mostly world reactions to the fall of Vukovar.
\par Indicative is the lack of almost all "civil themes" (economics, culture, religion, crime...). 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 2.3. Who were the participants in war related events? (CN 94-101)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The identification of involved parties 
have relied mostly on the inferences of analysis operators' world knowledge (knowledge of actual circumstances of the reported event), because in many cases the involved parties were not explicitly mentioned, but just implied. 
\par In reported conflicts (battles, attack of one side and defense of the other one, skirmishes, long-distance bombing, sniper fire, air raid, naval attack, regrouping of troops) the frequency of mutual involvement in the conflicts run as follows: 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. Croats (BIH)   66 times (24,6 %)
\par Serbs (Croatia) vs. Croats (Croatia)     22 times ( 8.2 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 All three sides in B&H (Serbs, \line Moslems, Croats)                    11 times ( 4,1 %)
\par Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. \line Moslems/Bosnia (BIH)                2 times ( 0,7 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Serbs (BIH) vs. Croats (BIH)              1 time  ( 0,4 %)
\par Serbs (BIH) vs. Moslem/Bosnia (BIH)      1 time  ( 0,4 %)
\par Serbs (BIH) vs. UNPROFOR                  1 time  ( 0,4 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Serbs (BIH)-Croats (BIH)-UNPROFOR         1 time  ( 0,4 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 2 cases of attack and defense of
 Moslem/Bosnians vs. Moslem/Bosnians is one between the Central government forces (Army of BIH) and secessionists branch in West Bosnia. 
\par The highest rate of news reporting was concerned with Croat-Moslem conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina at that time. Th
e next important issue were the occasional conflicts between the Serbs in Serb controlled regions ("Republic of Krajina") in Croatia and Croats in Croat controlled region of Croatia. Where all sides in B&H (Bosnia and Herzegovina) were involved, it was mo
stly in those regions, or besieged towns (such as Sarajevo), where Croats and Moslem/Bosnians still fought together. 
\par The frequency of individual identifications of involved parties was: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Croats (from BIH)              82 times (30,6 %)
\par Serbs in Croatian Krajina      82 times (30,6 %)
\par Moslems/Bosnians (BIH)         78 times (29,1 %)
\par Croats (from Croatia)          34 times (12,7 %)
\par Serbs in Bosnia                21 times ( 7,8 %)
\par UNPROFOR/NATO                   2 times ( 0.7 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Serbs in Serbia and Montenegros were not identified as involved in conflicts at that time. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Distribution of involved parties relative to different type of war conflicts was: 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 BATTLES: 
\par }{\fs24 Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. Croats (BIH)   13 times ( 4,8 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 All three sides in B&H (Serbs, \line Moslems, Croats)                     4 times ( 1,5 %)
\par Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. \line Moslems/Bosnia (BIH)                1 times ( 0,4 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Other combinations were not involved, what means that Croats and Serbs in Croatia were not involved in full-fledged battles, neit
her were there separate battles between Serbs and Croats in B&H (there were a kind of a truce between Croat forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina - HVO - and Serb forces - Republic of Serbia in BIH). 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 ATTACK OF ONE SIDE AND THE DEFENCE OF THE OTHER ONE: 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. Croats (BIH)   18 times ( 6,7 %)
\par Serbs (Croatia) vs. Croats (Croatia)      5 times ( 1,9 %)
\par Serbs (BIH) vs. Croats (BIH)              3 times ( 1,1 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 All three sides in B&H (Serbs, \line Moslems, Croats)                     2 times ( 0,7 %)
\par Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. \line Moslems/Bosnia (BIH)                1 time  ( 0,4 %)
\par Serbs (BIH)-Croats (BIH)-UNPROFOR         1 time  ( 0,4 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 SKIRMISHES:
\par }{\fs24 Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. Croats (BIH)    8 times ( 3,0 %)
\par Serbs (Croatia) vs. Croats (Croatia)      3 times ( 1,1 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 All three sides in B&H (Serbs, \line Moslems, Croats)                     2 times ( 0,7 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Serbs (BIH) vs. Moslem/Bosnia (BIH)      1 times ( 0,4 %)
\par Serbs (BIH) vs. UNPROFOR                  1 times ( 0,4 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 \column LONG-DISTANCE BOMBING:
\par }{\fs24 Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. Croats (BIH)   16 times ( 6,0 %)
\par Serbs (Croatia) vs. Croats (Croatia)     10 times ( 3,7 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 All three sides in B&H (Serbs, \line Moslems, Croats)                     3 times ( 1,1 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Serbs (BIH) vs. Croats (Croatia)          3 times ( 1,1 %)
\par Serbs (BIH) vs. Moslem/Bosnia (BIH)      1 times ( 0,4 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Albanians (Serbia) vs. \line Moslem/Bosnia (BIH)                 1 times ( 0,4 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 SNIPER FIRE:
\par }{\fs24 Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. Croats (BIH)    6 times ( 2,2 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 AIR RAID:
\par }{\fs24 Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. Croats (BIH)    1 times ( 0,4 %)
\par Serbs (Croatia) vs. Croats (Croatia)      1 times ( 0,4 %)
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 REGROUPING OF MILITARY FORCES:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Moslems/Bosnia (BIH) vs. Croats (BIH)    4 times ( 1,5 %)
\par Serbs (Croatia) vs. Croats (Croatia)      3 times ( 1,1 %)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 In all tables the most frequently me
ntioned conflicts were between Moslem/Bosnia side and Croats in B&H - they faced each other in all reported sorts of "fire contacts" (with the understandable lack of naval conflict - there is no sea in BIH). 
\par The second most frequently reported conflict we
re between Serbs in Croatia (Krajina) and Croats in Croatia (Republic of Croatia). Having an official truce situation between them, their conflicts were of limited range - no battles, but some attacks and skirmishes, and higher rate of shelling the border
ing towns. 
\par The rate of reporting of conflicts between Serbs against Moslem/Bosnians in Bosnia and Herzegovina - though still actual - was proportionally less reported, except for the "all three parties" conflicts (mostly Serbs against alliance of Moslems a
nd Croats - alliance which still existed in some part of Bosnia).
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 *}{\i\fs24 
 In the Vukovar program the frequency of mutual involvement in the conflicts actually implied only two sides - General SFR Yugoslav side (Yugoslav People's Army, Serb troops from Serbia, S
erbs from Croatia, with occasional identification of Montenegros) vs. Croats in Croatia. The "Yugoslav side" is difficult to differentiate componentially because of the lack of informations about the participants. Therefore if all participants on Yugoslav
 side were merged (as they were in the vague, vastly metaphoric expressions of news reports), then the involvement of two sides run 100 %. 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 3. Attitudinal side of news reporting
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 3.1. Ascription of guilt (CN 102-107)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The rate of guilt ascription (implication of guilt as judged intuitively by analysis operator) over the war related items run as follows:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Moslems/Bosnians                                47   17,5%
\par Serbs in B&H                                    23    8,6
\par Serbs in Croatian Krajina                       18    6,7
\par UNPROFOR/NATO                                    9    3,8
\par Croats in B&H                                    6    2,2
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Al three parties in Bosnia\line (Serbs, Moslems, Croats)                    4    1,5
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Croats in Croatia                                3    1,1
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Rate of guilt ascriptions by ethnic criterion: 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Moslems                                         47   17,5
\par Serbs                                           41   15,3
\par Croats                                           9    3,8
\par UNPROFOR/NATO                                    9    3,8
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
Moslems/Bosnians are treated most frequently as the guilty party, which is correlated to the rate of conflicts they have with Croats in Bosnia, the Croats being considered as "our side" in the conflicts. The ne
xt frequent guilt ascription is to Serbs in BIH, and then to Serbs in Croatian Krajina. The lower level of Serbs' guilt is due to their less frequent mention in the programs: topic of the conflicts between the Moslem/Bosnians and Croats overshadows the co
nflict of Moslem/Bosnians and Serbs, and Croats in B&H and in Croatia with Serbs. 
\par Interestingly enough, there are some ascriptions of guilt to Croats in B&H and Croats in Croatia. However, one has to bear in mind that most ascriptions of guilt were made by
 "other parties", not by the editor or reporter him- or her-self, and that the ascriptions were either neutrally quoted in the report, or even explicitly dismissed (negation of the guilt). 
\par There is also some frequency in guilt ascription to United Nations Forces, mostly for the failures in mediation, or for overall continuation of war. 
\par All three parties are taken to be guilty sometimes, but at a lowest rate: there is obvious preference to ascribe the guilt specifically to the party taken as "enemy", and to deny the guilt of "our side". 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
The distribution of guilt-ascriptions for particular state of affairs (civilian state of existence, atrocities, civilian expulsions, failure of humanitarian aid, protests, change in protected zones) mainly follows the gene
ral distribution of guilt-ascriptions. The notable exceptions are in the array of failures of humanitarian aid - United Nations Forces are considered as equally guilty party to Moslem/Bosnians. Another exception is the question of the change in UN protect
e
d zone, where there are even slightly more guilt-ascription to Croats in Croatia then to Serbs in Krajina (though in the case of Croats, the ascriptions are "quoted", or taken not to be ascriptions of guilt but just a neutral description of the agent of t
he change). 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 *}{\i\fs24  In Vukovar program the rate of guilt ascription is as follows:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Serbs in Croatian Krajina                    17   81,0 %
\par Serbs in SFR Yugoslavia, JNA forces          14   66,7 
\par Moslems/Bosnians                              1    4,8
\par Montenegros                                   1    4,8
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
From ethnical point of view, Serbs were considered overwhelmingly guilty party in the time of war over Croatia. (The global percentage is greater then 100 % because of the overlapping "guilt categorization" of the events. 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 3.2 Ascriptions of guilt for failures in peace negotiations and attitudes to the reactions of the "world" (CN 108-119)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The truce situation in Croatia and UN and EU induced negotiations in Bosnia and Herzegovina have raised the expectations of the results of peace negotiations. 

\par Overall distribution of the guilt for the failures of all kinds of negotiations were as follows: 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Third side                                    17    6,3 %
\par Other side                                     8    3,0
\par Our side                                       4    1,5 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Low frequencies of the guilt ascriptions to the particular "sides", are correlated to the low rate of publicly announced negotiations. 
\par High frequency of the guilt-ascription to the "third side" was mostly connected with the international mediations; there was only one ascription of guilt to the "third side", and it was connected with the high-level governmental negotiations. 
\par There were no non-governmental peace efforts reported at the period of the sample. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Distribution of attitudes to the "world reactions" to war situation in Ex-Yugoslav regions were as follows:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 World reactions against "us":\line reasonable                                  8   3,9 %\line unreasonable                               11   4,1
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 World reactions against "them":\line reasonable                                 36  13,4\line unreasonable                                3   1,1
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 As expected, there is a high percentage of approval of the reactions "against them", meaning the "enemy side". Some of the 
disapproval of reactions "against them" are connected with the quoted opinions (attitudes), not with the original attitude of editor or corespondent. 
\par But there is an unexpectedly close distribution of approval and disapproval of "world reactions against us", with only slight advantage in the rate of disapprovals. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 As to the modus of world reactions, the distribution of reporting attention is as follows: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Opinions expressed abroad                      31 cases
\par Economic measures                              13 cases
\par Political measures                              7 cases
\par Military measures                               7 cases
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Opinions expressed abroad about situation in Ex-Yugoslavia regions are obviously relatively the most attractive topic, remarkably mo
re then the question of economic, political and military measures. 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 *}{\i\fs24  In Vukovar program a distribution of the guilt ascriptions for the failure in negotiation run as follow:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Other side                                      25  119,5 %
\par Third side                                       3   14,3
\par Our side                                         0    4,8
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 The rate is higher of 100 per cent because of overlapping ascriptions. Ascriptions of the guilt of negotiation failures to "other side" (JNA, Serbs) run very 
high, with no assumption of the guilt of "our side". 
\par In distinction to the main sample, in Vukovar program there were some reported peace negotiations (2 cases) going on at the non-governmental level. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 As to the world reactions, distributions of approval disapproval runs as follows: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 World reactions against "us":\line reasonable                                  2    9,5 %\line unreasonable                                3   14,3
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 World reactions against "them":\line reasonable                                 11   52,4\line unreasonable                                2    9,5
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
The distribution of approval and disapproval of world reactions was similar to the main (1993) sample, only the percentage distance between approval and disapproval of "world reactions against them" was much greater. 
\par Distribution of the reported modes of reaction run as follows: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Political measures                               8 cases
\par Opinions expressed abroad                        6 cases
\par Military measures                                4 cases
\par Economic measures                                0 cases
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 No economic measures were mentioned at that period; mostly discused were political measures, but close enough world opinions and military measures too. 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 3.3. Attitude-constructing side of discourse (CN 128-145)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
Rhetorical side (i.e. attitude constructing side) of conflict reporting (130 items out of total number of 268) was in matrix devided into the registration of the impact of: a) paralingvistic modulation of speech (intonation, pich, rithm of deliev
ery); b) discourse construction (with or without evaluative comments; placement of comments in the sequence of discourse); c) the general emotional impact of the pictured events and delievery of news item in toto. 
\par Two percentages will be presented in the tables in this section: the first one relative to the total sample (of 268 items), the second one relative to the number of conflict reporting news sample (130 items).
\par a) Intonational "coloring" of news delivery had its expected distribution with the significant predominance of neutral delievery over emotionally colored (CN 135-140): 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Neutral (objectivity)        123 items  45,9 %   94,6 %
\par Emotionally colored           42        15,7     32,3
\par Excited                        1         0,4      0,8
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 But significant deviation from the normative expectations was a distribution of the main carriers of emotionaly colored side of verbal delievery:
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 The studio journalist         62 items  23,1 %   47,7 %
\par Interviewed authority         28        10,4     21,5 
\par The studio speaker/editor     23         8,6     17,7 
\par Interviewed witness           12         4,5      9,2
\par The field reporter            11         4,1      8,5
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Namely, according to the the normative expectations in regard to the neutrality of reporting, it is
 assumed that the articulation of emotional side of the reporting had to be based on the reported attitudes - expressed in statement of witnesses and interviewed authorities - not on the news person delivery side. Proportionally high contributionion of st
udio journalists and editors in HRT news to the "emotional charging" of news reporting is a kind of deviation from the general norm. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Rethorical contribution of the station's delievery person (editor, journalist) is even more emphasized in the construction
 of the verbal narration. Measuring a distribution of fact statements, and diferent combinations of fact statements and evaluative comments (where the fact statements appear as an illustration of evaluative "theses" or as a premise of evaluative "concludi
ng comment") the results were as follows (CN 129-134): 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Fact statements                   127 items  47,4 %  97,7 %
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Fact first/thesis (evaluative \line interpretation) at the end    82        30,6    63,1
\par There is connotational "charging" \line of fact statements            78        29,1    60,0
\par (Evaluative) thesis first/fact later \line composition                   57        21,3    43,8
\par Evaluation intertwined with the \line fact statements               38        14,2    29,2
\par Only evaluative thesis, no facts.   4         1,5     3,1
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The verbal discourse in each news item was categorized along several categories, so the findings are more numerous then the number of items. 
\par Though there is still a relative prevalence of fact statements in the news reporting, there was a very
 high incidence of "theses" imbued fact reporting. Fact reporting imbued with evaluative comments, taken in all of its variants (fact first, thesis at the end; connotational charging; thesis first, fact later; intertwinning of the evaluation and facts; on
ly evaluations), grossly outnumbered the "pure" fact statements (263 instances, 98,1 % of evaluationaly imbued constructions of verbal discourse). 
\par Though there were very few instances of "only evaluative thesis, no facts" (4 of them, 1,5 % or 3,1 % in the conflict item part of the sample), it is quite significant that such discours items do appear at all in the news enviroment. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Distribution of "emotions intended to be provoked" by the news item's discourse structure, as estimated by intuitive judgement of
 analysis operators, were as follows (CN 145): 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 No emotions are intended to \line be provoked                    50 items 18,7 %  38,6 %
\par Both negative and positive \line emotions                       40       14,9    30,8
\par Negative emotions (fear, \line hate, disgust, contempt...)    19        7,1    14,6
\par Positive emotions (pride, \line patriotism, triumphalism, \line compassion...)                 18        6,7    13,8
\par Intentions unclear                   2        0,7     1,5
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Again, there is a relevant percentage of neutral con
flict reports, but an indicatively high percentage of emotion oriented reporting is recorded. Their frequency run as high as 79 news items (out of 130 conflict items), and their relative percentage among the conflict items is 60,8 per cent. 
\par The index of personality of delievery checked in all items of the whole sample (CN 36) was as follows: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 impersonal                                174   64,9 %
\par partially personal                         82   30,6
\par personal                                   10    3,7
\par highly personal                             2    0,7
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
There are 94 items delievered with some "personal factor" in them, which was 35,1 % within the whole sample. One can suppose that the personality side is connected with the emotional orientation and emotional coloring. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
Since the emotional impact of pictured consequences of "enemy action" can contribute to the attitude formation in audience, it was measured for each news item. The findings are as follows (CN 129-134): 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs24 No consequences pictured                   86   32,1
\par }\pard \ql \fi-1440\li2160\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\tx1440\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 {\fs24 Pictured war destruction scenes \line - weakly repulsive or neutral    29   10,8
\par Pictured war destruction scenes \line - mildly repulsive               11    4,1
\par Pictured war destruction scenes \line - highly repulsive                3    1,1
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Actually, there is an indicativelly high proportion of }{\i\fs24 not showing}{\fs24 
 the consequences of "enemy action". There is an obvious lack of the specific pictured "support" for the conflict reports. Other distributions are consistent with this "lack": weakly repulsive scenes a
re the next frequent, and highly repulsive scenes are presented only exceptionally (mostly in the commemorative remind of the Vukovar downfall in the 17. November 1993. news program). 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 4. Identification of the "enemy"
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The side of the discourse that stro
ngly influence attitude of the audience toward the reported and implied state of affairs is the "naming side", namely the way in which the subject of discourse is descriptively identified, mentioned - named. 
\par It is the naming of enemy that is usually taken
 as a most important signal what attitude (how strong attitude) to have toward the reported subject. Therefore in the matrix there were questions which have to be filled by the particular expressions relating the enemy and involved sides. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 4.1. Who was specifically referred to (CN 120)
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Distribution of "enemy" referents run as follows (rate of "mention"): 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Moslems/Bosnians                               38 times
\par Serbs in Croatian Krajina                      31 times
\par Serbs in B&H                                   12 times
\par Serbs in SR Yugoslavia                          3 times
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 All three parties (Serbs, Croats, \line Muslems in Bosnia)                         3 times
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Croats in Croatia                               1 times
\par Croats in B&H                                   1 times
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Distribution of "enemy" designations according to the referent category ("who is categorized as enemy").
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 MILITARY TROOPS of:
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Moslems/Bosnians                          24    9,0 %
\par Serbs in Croatian Krajina                 16    6.0
\par Serbs in B&H                               8    3,0
\par Serbs in SR Yugoslavia                     2    0,7
\par Croats in Croatia                          1    0,4
\par Croats in B&H                              1    0,4
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs24 All three parties (Serbs, Croats, \line Muslems in Bosnia)                    1    0,4
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 ETHNIC/NATIONAL GROUPS IN GENERAL AND/OR THEIR MEMBERS
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Serbs in Croatian Krajina                 11    4,1
\par Moslems/Bosnians                           7    2,6
\par Serbs in B&H                               3    1,1
\par Serbs in SR Yugoslavia                     1    0,4
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs24 All three parties (Serbs, Croats, \line Muslems in Bosnia)                    1    0,4
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 NATIONAL POLITICAL GROUPS/PARTIES
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Moslems/Bosnians                           3    1,1
\par Serbs in Croatian Krajina                  1    0,4
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs24 All three parties (Serbs, Croats, \line Muslems in Bosnia)                    1    0,4
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 INDIVIDUAL POLITICIANS
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Moslems/Bosnians                           4    1,5
\par Serbs in Croatian Krajina                  3    1,1
\par Serbs in B&H                               1    0,4
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
As it was expected, in the period of military conflict the referents of "enemy" category were foremost military troops, only then ethnic groups. Much lower in frequencies were individual politicians and national political groups or parties. 
\par Now, the 
lower frequencies of the ethnic referents in relation to the military referents are deceptive. Namely, in news reporting there is a high tendency to identify the military troops and their national affiliation by their prevalent ethnic composition. Ethnic 
designations run high in relation to the war situations in Ex-Yugoslav regions.
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 {\*\bkmkstart BM1}*}{\i\fs24 {\*\bkmkend BM1} In the Vukovar program distribution of enemy referents run as follows:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Serbs in SR Yugoslavia                         14 times
\par Serbs in Croatian Krajina                      13 times
\par Serbs in B&H                                    1 time
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 World                                           1 time
\par Montenegros                                     1 time
\par All three parties (Serbs, Croats, \line Moslems in Bosnia)                         0 times
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Croats in Croatia                               0 times
\par Croats in B&H                                   0 times
\par Moslems/Bosnians                                0 times
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Distribution of "enemy" designations according to the referent category ("who is categorized as enemy").
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 MILITARY TROOPS of:
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 Serbs in Croatian Krajina                  8   38,1 %
\par Serbs in SR Yugoslavia                     7   33,3
\par Montenegros                                1    4,8
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 ETHNIC/NATIONAL GROUPS IN GENERAL AND/OR THEIR MEMBERS
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 Serbs in Croatian Krajina                  3   14,3
\par Serbs in B&H                               1    4,8
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 NATIONAL POLITICAL GROUPS/PARTIES
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 Serbs in SR Yugoslavia                     2    9,5
\par Serbs in Croatian Krajina                  1    4,8
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24 World                                      1    4,8
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 INDIVIDUAL POLITICIANS
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 Serbs in SR Yugoslavia                     5   23,8
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Comparing Vukovar program with later sample there was obviously a shift in identification of the enemy: In Vukovar program as enemy featur
es Serbs (and Yugoslav army), and there is even no mention of Moslems, and no distribution of enemy ascription on all side is implied. Again the military troops are highest ranking "enemy", but there is relatively high percentage of individuals mention as
 "enemy". The war, ad that time, in its beginnings, was more "individualized".
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 4.2. "Naming" of enemy 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The referent of "enemy" identifications is mostly determined by the "world knowledge", namely it relies on the native viewer's background knowledge. But,
 who is considered to be an enemy is often identified through the choice of emotionally charged category phrases (description). 
\par A part of the matrix of content analysis have had slots to be filled with the explicit "phrases" by which the given referent is
 marked as "enemy" (or "non-enemy"). Analysis operator had to evaluate a connotative impact of each naming (descriptive) phrase along the scale - very negative, mildly negative, neutral, positive. 
\par Judgement of connotative (evaluational) impact of the phra
se is highly contextually dependent. It depends on the particular context of a delivery, on the prolonged experience with a monthly (and yearly) sequence of news programs. The same names and derived adjectives - e.g. }{\i\fs24 Moslem}{\fs24 ; }{\i\fs24 
Serb}{\fs24 ; }{\i\fs24 Croat}{\fs24  - have contextually different connotative impact and range of extension: in one context }{\i\fs24 Moslem}{\fs24 , }{\i\fs24 Serb}{\fs24  and }{\i\fs24 Croat}{\fs24 
 may be just neutral naming of ethnic affiliation, but in another context (especially when is indicated and characterized what they are doing in war) ethnic names ma
y assume a negative or positive connotative values (be negative or positive evaluators of named referent). Also, an highly important "context" is general and particular (immediate) sensitivity of the estimator. It happened that two content analysis operat
ors have occasionally judged the same and contextually equivalent phrases along different values on the scale. Therefore the author of this report checked the evaluations of analysis operators and made corrections where such discrepancies were manifest. 

\par There were 238 identified items of naming the agencies in war. The frequencies (percentage is relative to the total number of naming items) were as follows: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Naming of MOSLEM/BOSNIANS (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA):
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Very negative                              17    7,1 %
\par Mildly negative                            82   34,5
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs24 Neutral                                     4    1,7
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Positive                                    0    0,0
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24                Altogether                 103   43,3
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Naming of SERBS IN SERB CONTROLLED PART OF CROATIA:
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Very negative naming                       17    7,1
\par Mildly negative                            21    8,8
\par Neutral                                     8    3,4
\par Positive                                    0    0,0
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24                Altogether                  46   19,3
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Naming of CROATS (REPUBLIC OF HERZEG-BOSNIA/REPUBLIC OF CROATIA):
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Negation of very negative                   3    1,3
\par Mildly negative                             0    0,0
\par Neutral                                    32   13,4
\par Positive                                   13    5,5
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24                Altogether                  48   20,2
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Naming of SERBS IN BOSNIA ("REPUBLIKA SRPSKA" - "REPUBLIC OF SERBIA"):
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Very negative                               2    0,8
\par Mildly negative                            12    5,0
\par Neutral                                     0    0,0
\par Positive                                    0    0,0
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs24                Altogether                  14    5,9
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Naming of FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (SAVEZNA REPUBLIKA JUGOSLAVIJA):
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Very negative                               8    3,4
\par Mildly negative                             4    1,7
\par Neutral                                     0    0,0
\par Positive (stimulative)                      1    0,4
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24                Altogether                  13    5,5
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Naming of JNA (YUGOSLAV PEOPLE'S ARMY):
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Very negative                               0    0,0
\par Mildly negative                             2    0,8
\par Neutral                                     0    0,0
\par Positive                                    0    0,0
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24                Altogether                   2    0,8
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Naming of UNPROFOR (United Nation's Protection Forces)
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Mildly negative (derogative)                6    2,5
\par Neutral                                     6    2,5
\par Positive                                    0    0,0
\par }{\i\fs24                Altogether                  12    5,0}{\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The most frequent naming was of }{\i\fs24 Moslem/Bosnians}{\fs24 
 and Serbs from Serb controlled regions in Croatia. It was connected with the actual rate of war conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Croatia. 
\par There should be much higher percentage of }{\i\fs24 Croat}{\fs24 
 mention, because mentioning of Croats out of the immediate sentence connection with the "enemy" were not registered. Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croats from Croatia were lumped togeth
er because there are to much occasions where there is no easy distinction between them. Anyway, since the "Croats" do not enter the category of the "enemy" - being "our side" of reporting - they have been taken into account only for loose comparative purp
oses. 
\par Some mildly negative namings of UNPROFOR (}{\i\fs24 plavci}{\fs24 , }{\i\fs24 plave kacige}{\fs24  - Blue ones, Blue helmets) are mostly derogative in tone, not inimical.
\par The "enemy" identification is, expectedly, highly correlated with the lack of positive connotative evaluations - th
ere is no positive evaluation of the marked enemy. In contrast, there is high percentage of positive evaluations of Croat namings. Some negative expressions concerning the Croats were introduced only to be denied and the originator accused as inimical one
. One case of positive evaluation of Serb side is not exception at all: "}{\i\f187\fs24 sposobni pregovara\'e8i sa srpske strane}{\fs24 
" (able negotiators on Serb side) was stated as a wishful thinking under the assumption that such agencies were actually lacking. 
\par The examples of most frequent "very negative" description phrases are: }{\i\fs24 terrorists}{\fs24  (teroristi), }{\i\fs24 aggressors}{\fs24  (agresori), }{\i\fs24 occupators}{\fs24  (okupatori), }{\i\fs24 Chetniks}{\f187\fs24  (\'e8
etnici - for some Serbs), }{\i\fs24 Mojahedins}{\fs24  (mud\'9eahedini - for some Moslems), }{\i\fs24 enemy}{\fs24  (neprijatelj), }{\i\fs24 snipers}{\fs24  (snajperisti). This expressions are used very often without additional modificators - on th
e assumption that "everybody" of native audience "knows" who was meant. But, if there are modificators, they were mostly ethnic ones, e.g.: }{\i\fs24 Moslem terrorists groups}{\fs24 , }{\i\fs24 Moslem aggressor}{\fs24 , }{\i\fs24 Moslem snipers}{\fs24 , }
{\i\fs24 Serb aggressor}{\fs24 , }{\i\fs24 Serb terrorists}{\fs24 . Ethnic modificators and the negatively "loaded" variants of them (}{\i\fs24 Mujahedin}{\fs24 , }{\i\fs24 Chetniks}{\fs24 
) are more frequent where the basic expression does not have necessary negative connotation by itself: }{\i\fs24 Moslem-Mojahedin brigades}{\fs24 . 
\par It is especially so with more "mildly negative" phrases (who have more variations then "very negative" phrases): }{\i\fs24 Serb rebels}{\fs24  (srpski pobunjenici, pobunjeni Srbi), }{\i\fs24 militant Serbs}{\fs24  (militantni Srbi), }{\i\fs24 
Serb paramilitary troops}{\fs24  (srpske paravojne postrojbe; srpske paravojne formacije), }{\i\fs24 Bosnia Serbs}{\fs24  (bosanski srbi), }{\i\fs24 Serb-Montenegro troops}{\fs24  (srpsko-crnogorske postrojbe), }{\i\fs24 Serb army}{\fs24 
 (srpska vojska, srpske postrojbe, srpski vojnici), }{\i\fs24 Serb forces}{\fs24  (Srpske snage); Moslem (Muslimani, muslimanski), }{\i\fs24 Moslem army}{\fs24  (muslimanske postrojbe, muslimanske brigade, muslimanska armija...), }{\i\fs24 Moslem forces}{
\fs24  (muslimanske snage); }{\i\fs24 Izetbegovich's forces}{\f187\fs24  (Izetbegovi\'e6eve snage, Izetbegovi\'e6eva vojska), }{\i\fs24 Islamic state}{\fs24  (Islamska dr\'9eava) etc. 
\par The notable fact in this "mildly negative" expressions is that they may be quite neutral in other contexts, but being used
 as a metonymy for state, military forces and state representatives which have existing neutral name that does not always contain ethnic name in it, and being used in conjunctions with the negative act descriptions - all that entail negative connotations.
 For example, systematic use of }{\i\fs24 Moslem}{\fs24  for the specifications of the state, troops, politicians, military acts etc. when the state is called }{\i\fs24 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina}{\fs24 , army's official name is }{\i\fs24 
Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina}{\fs24  and they are as such internationally recognized, connotatively modifies the expression }{\i\fs24 Moslem}{\fs24 , suggesting - for Croat audience - a negative attitude toward referred subject and reported event.

\par Now, in the main (1993) sample some efforts are noticeable to use more "neutral" express
ions, or to make expressions "sound neutral". So, some of the otherwise "negatively loaded" and negatively used names and descriptive phrases may assume neutral tone: S}{\f187\fs24 
erbs (Srbi), Serb side (srpska strana), Srbs in UN protected area (Srbi u UNPA podru\'e8
jima), local Serb authorities (lokalne srpske vlasti), Moslem side (muslimanska strana) - when speaking about the possibly successful negotiations; or: Moslems (when speak}{\fs24 
ing about the civil victims), Moslem populace (when referring to civil populace), local populace (for civil Serb populace in Serb controlled regions) etc. 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 *}{\i\fs24  In Vukovar program there had been some important differences. Though many subdivisions were possi
ble (Rebel Serbs, Serb Chetniks, Yugoslav Army, Territorials from Serbia, Volunteers from Serbia etc.), actually they were lumped together in most news reports, the descriptive phrases were used highly figuratively with no informational distinctions to be
 made, so we have treated them as one (wide) referent category. No identification of anybody else as enemy by descriptive naming had been made in the analysed program. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Distribution and frequency of evaluative naming run as follows (percentage is relative to the global number - 57 -of naming instances):
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Naming of SOCIALIST FEDERATIVE REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA (ex- YUGOSLAVIA)/SERBIA/JUGOSLAV PEOPLE'S ARMY/VOLUNTEERS/SERBS in Croatia
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\i\fs24 Very negative                              47   82,5
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24 Mildly negative                            10   17,5
\par Neutral                                     0    0,0
\par Positive                                    0    0,0
\par TOTAL NUMBER OF NAMING INSTANCES           57  100,0
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 In contrast to the main sample (from 1993) where "mildly negative" p
hrases were the most frequent, in Vukovar program there is marked prevalence of "very negative" phrases, with no "neutral" nor "positive". 
\par Though there was a greater variety of enemy naming phrases, they all tend to be combined with the few "kernel" words, especially the "very negative" one: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\i\fs24\ul occupator (okupator):}{\i\f187\fs24  occupator army, \line occupator forces, occupator planes, \line occupators of Banja Luka corps, \line 
occupator Yugo-Army (okupatorska \line armija, okupatorske snage, \line okupatorski zrakoplovi, okupatori \line banjalu\'e8kog}{\i\fs24  korpusa, okupatorska \line jugo-vojska)                 instances:   16   28,1 %
\par }{\i\fs24\ul enemy (neprijatelj):}{\i\fs24  enemy air force, enemy \line army (neprijateljsko zrakoplovstvo,\line neprijateljska vojska)       instances:   12   21,1
\par }{\i\fs24\ul aggressor (agresor):}{\i\fs24  Serb aggressor, \line aggressor army (srpski agresor, \line agresorska vojska)           instances:    6   10,5
\par }{\i\f187\fs24\ul Chetniks (\'e8etnici)}{\i\f187\fs24 : \'8ae\'9aelj's Chetniks, \line Serbo Chetnik infantry, Serbo \line Chetnik hordes, Chetnik snipers, \line gangs of Chetniks (\'8ae\'9aeljevi \'e8etnici, \line srbo-\'e8etni\'e8ka pje\'9aadija, srbo-
\'e8etni\'e8ke \line horde, \'e8etni\'e8ki snajperisti, \line bande \'e8etnika)               instances:   }{\i\fs24  6   10,5
\par }{\i\fs24\ul terrorists (teroristi}{\i\fs24 ): Serb terrorists \line (srpski teroristi)           instances:    4    7,0
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 "Mildly negative" phrases are e.g.: Territorials of Serb army (teritorijalci srpske vojske), Serb infantry (srpski pje\'9aaci), mobilized army reservists (}{
\i\f187\fs24 mobilizirani armijski rezervisti), Serb-Federal force (srpsko-federalne snage), Yugo-Army (jugoarmija, jugovojska), Yugo-Navy (jugo-mornarica), territorials from Oku\'e6ani (oku\'e6anski teritorijalci). 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\fs24 Comparing, again, the Vukovar program with the main sampl
e, there is visible a) the shift in referring extension (in who is considered to be an enemy); b) the shift does not assume the essential change of vocabulary (phrases like: occupators, aggressors, terrorists are just readdressed), c) in more intensive wa
r circumstances the "very negative" kind of names are used more often to name the enemy, with the elimination of neutral names. 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 5. Some general discourse properties of delivery in correlation with theme distribution 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The content analysis matrix had been
 made sensitive to some general discourse dimensions in order to observe wether and how they relate to the thematic orientation of news items (specifically sensitive to the war related items of the discourse). 
\par The basic item to correlate with others is th
e one that aims to establish the ratio of war and non-war (peace) items within the whole program (CN 07). Its 9 values are, for correlation purposes, comprised to 3: a first one containing the data on war related events in ex-Yugoslavia region (NO. 1), se
c
ond comprising all data concerned with peace events which have some reference to the war situation (NO. 5 and 7), and the third comprising all other cases (peace events without reference to war, events abroad not connected with war in ex-Yugoslavia region
s, question of sanctions, and unsorted events: NO. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9). 
\par Let us point to some non-trivial correlations. (In the correlation tables only vertical percentage will be reported).
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 5.1. The "importance markedness" in relation to the war related news
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
Within the set of questions which intended to elicit the distribution of "importance markedness" of program news items, there was a question about the presence of the comment supplement to the main news report in all the items of the sample (CN 24). T
he result showed a quite high rate of the presence of comment supplement to the main news item: 31,3 % (i. e. 84 news items out of 268 had an additional comment preceding or following the main report of the event, or being included into it). 
\par If we correlate this result with the comprised war - non-war values (CN 07 with CN 24), the correlation table shows the following values: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24                                Presence of the comment 
\par                                      supplement
\par War related items                      33,3 %
\par Peace items with war reference         15,5 
\par Other                                  51,5
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Comparing the peace items with the war items, there is a noticeable increase in the presence of the comment supplement in the delivery of war ite
ms. This is consistent with the outcome of interpretation/fact relation in verbal statements of conflict reporting (CN 129-134; see above 3.3.) which have shown high frequency of thesis imbued deliveries. Namely, the "thesis" (evaluative interpretation) i
s often delegated to the distinct "comment-part" in discourse which is then perceived as a supplement to the basic news report. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The proportionally high rate of the presence of comment supplement in "other" kind of news items is probably due to the wide ran
ge of different kind of report contained in the category, some of them being generically (as a journalistic genre) a comment. 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 There was, however, a question which asked the analysis operators to intuitively measure the global "importance markedness" of e
ach news item delivery along the scale of: strongly marked, moderately marked, common, understated. The basic registered values had been the following: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 strongly marked                          12    4,5
\par moderately marked                        85   31,7
\par common                                  150   56,0
\par understated                              21    7,8
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 The distribution show the usual U shape values with the highest rate of items delivered in the "common" manner, the lowest rate of items delivered in the
 extreme manner (strongly marked and understated), and "medium" rate of moderately marked news reports. 
\par But, when we correlate the result of this scale with the war - non-war scale, we have the following table: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24                  strongly   moderately                      
\par                  marked     marked      common   understated
\par war related\line items             50,0%     47,1%       22,1%      42,1%
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 peace items\line with reference    41,7%      27,5%      28,2%      10,5%   \line to war
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 other              8,3%      29,4%      49,7%      47,4%   
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
There is visible a higher incidence of strongly marked and moderately marked items in those that are directly war related then in the peace oriented items and "other". 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 5.2. Actual event/pseudo event distinction in relation to the war/peace distinction 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
Since there is a long lasting tradition of exhausting reporting on meetings, conferences, governmental announcements etc. which used to have priority over the direct reports from the "real life" in prime news programs of e
x-Yugoslavia socialist television networks, the distinction between the actual event ("in real life") and "pseudo-event" (conference reporting) was being put to test. Here was the result (it is the case of overlapping categorizations again): 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 actual event on the location                    158   59,0 %
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 pseudo-event (conference, \line consultations etc.)                        175   65,3
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Actually there seems to be an almost equal distribution of actual event reporting and pseudo-event reporting over the whole sample. 
\par When we put this result in correlation with war/peace distinction we got the following table: 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24                   real event              pseudo event
\par war related\line items              40,1%                   26,6%      
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 peace items\line with reference     22,9%                   28,9%      \line to war
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 other              36,9%                   44,5%      
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 According to the correlation table, the rate of real events reporting is a little higher then the rate of pseudo events reporting among the war related 
news items, while it is of close values in the case of predominantly peace news items and in the category of "other". 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\b\i\fs24 5.3. The text-picture relationship correlated to the war/peace news distinction
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Television being visual media, there is a normative nece
ssity to offer visuals while listening to the verbal narrative. But the visuals may be just of the speaker delivering the news, or/and there may be the visual "coverage" of the reported events. 
\par The relation of the "studio picture" to the "reported event picture" is experientially important so the rate of each was measured in research. 
\par There are the results (by "picture coverage" was meant the visual coverage of the reported events): 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 No picture coverage                         35   13,1 %
\par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 {\fs24 Text presentation dominates \line over picture                          189   70,5
\par Picture presentation dominates \line over text                               1    0,4
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs24 Equal value                                 43   16,0
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 There is an expected dominance of the verbal side of disc
ourse over the picture side, with almost none whatsoever instance of "picture dominance over text". There is, also, a relatively high incidence of "no picture coverage", which, combined with no picture dominance over text is an important indication of the
 relative "optionality" of picture in relation to the verbal report of events in the news program. Also, there is a relatively low rate (comparing to the verbal dominance) of the "equal value" presence of picture and verbal delivery. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Correlation table with war - peace news run as follows (the picture dominance question is dropped out, because of its minimal presence):
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24                  p i c t u r e     c o v e r a g e
\par                           text over      equal
\par                  none     picture        value
\par war related\line items            44,1%     32,1%         25,6%      
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 peace items\line with reference   23,5%     24,1%         37,2%       \line to war
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 other            32,4%     43,9%         37,2%      
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Again, there is a slightly higher rate of "no picture co
verage" among the war related items, which may be due to the special difficulties in the obtaining the picture coverage of the ongoing war events, but also of not feeling the obligation to have such first hand picture coverage. 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 \page }{\b\i\fs24 III. Summary and conclusion 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
Initial impetus to the research was a widely shared "feeling" that in the context of war or war threatening situation there are some significant changes in the role and the structure of the TV-news-program discourse. 
\par On the basis of this "feeling" th
e more developed hypothesis - which follows the common understanding - was: a) In the situation of war the importance of information dissemination becomes higher, but at the same time b) the news, "by necessity", becomes more partial (to "our cause", and 
"against enemy"), with heavier emphasis on the attitude construction discoursive "moves" which are oriented toward potential c) audience "mobilization". In short, the theses was that news programs in war environment become more propagandistic in nature. 

\par Th
e content analysis was oriented to those discourse features which could substantiate or make insubstantial the hypothesis about the strengthening of the propagandistic discourse orientation, with the open avenues to all features that may appear consequent
ial. 
\par Consequently, some more analytical dissemination of possible attitude-forming factors have to be elicited. Generaly, the three sets of "attitude gauging" aspects of discourse have been discerned to be looked for. One set was related to way the parties
 (agencies) involved in war had been identified (the "names" used to identify the agances in war conflicts, and the identification of the referents of the "enemy" implications). Second, the explicit or implicite attribution of quilt for what were happenin
g was looked for. Third, the evaluative (attitude forming) dimensions of naming, delivery manner. 
\par Since the prevalence of the attitude aspect of news-program discourse is not established only through direct attitudinal indicators but through its relatinshi
p to other aspects of discourse, this was looked for too (e.g. the distribution of themes, interpretation-fact relationship in reporting of events was observed, the composition of discours delievery, complexity and coherency of discourse, personality aspe
ct of delievery, picture-text relationship etc.). 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
However, to perceive the changes in discourse some comparisons have to be established between two discourse states: peace news and war news within the same program course of a given network. 
\par The research solution to this problem was twofold. First, the main sample (of 1993) contained news on peace events as well as news on war events, so that the internal comparisons between the two was possible. 
\par But, just because the main sample was not the sample of "re
al" war news, we took for the comparative purposis one past instance of "real war news" - the news program that had been delivered in the midst of the war waging over Croatia (a day after the Vukovar's downfall to the Serbs troops and Yugoslav People's Ar
my). 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }\pard \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 Actually the analysis have supported the hypothesis, and have given the "flash" to it by suplying the general hypothesis with the diversified empirical content. 

\par I was found that there is a much higher incidence of heavier emotionaly charged naming o
f "enemy" within the real war-program sample ("Vukovar program" of 1991) then within the main (war/non-war, 1993) sample, with almost nonexistant neutral naming and with no incidence of (at least quoted) possible negative judgements of some behavior on "o
ur side". Most specific attitudional-indicators were much more pronounced in the Vukovar program than in the main sample. 
\par The distribution of themes showed the specific attitudional selectivity: the exclusive theme of the Vukovar program was the Croatia lo
cated war events or events concerned with the war in Croatia (e.g. reports on foreign political and media reactions), with almost no mention of other themes (economy, culture, religion, everyday life etc.). There was only one exception of non-war informat
i
on, but it also had an indirect connection with the war through its contributin to the war-generating political complications: the event was the begining of the formation of the future "Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia" which conflict with the official Bosnia an
d Herzegovina political structure was thematized later on in the main sample). Now, the more peace oriented themes present in the progammes of the main sample do indicate the lessening of the war obssesion in it. 
\par But also, it indicated the ambiguous nature of the news programs of the main sample. The news programs of the main sample had not only }{\i\fs24 reflected}{\fs24 
 the fact that the Croatia was in ambiguous situation of not a strictly obayed truce situation with Serbs, and of the escalation of the Croat-Moslem confli
ct in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it obviously attemted to build an impression of being the news of the country being in state of peace, but not being able to avoid the still threatening and still existing surrounding war situation. 
\par The ambiguity of the main sample had been manifested in the similar frequency of peace themes to war themes, in the higher rate of neutral and mildley negative descriptions of the "enemy" then in Vukovar program. 
\par In both samples the relatively high rate of "emotional coloring"
 of the news reporting was done by the editor or journalist delivery which show evidence of the implicite "attitude constructing plan" of the news program, even in the main sample programs where this kind of plan is kept subdued, hiden. 
\par Relatively high in
cidence of "thesis" (evaluation, attitude, interpretation) oriented reporting in both samples indicate the tendency to treat the "facts" (event description) just as thesis illustration. Fact reporting does seem to loose its informational self-suficiancy a
nd, therefore, its importance, so it is natural that the picture support (which can give the "witness" value to the verbal report) become optional, not necessary, and, consequently, quite frequently omitted. 
\par In conclusion, the "real war" program tend to be
come thematicaly more coherent and unified, discoursively noticably less diversified and attitudionally complitely unified and hightened. On the other hand, the introduction of the more "peace-like" make of news program (as in the main sample programs) im
plies the progressive thematic differentiation, more mild and neutral attitude indicators, higher rate of "forum" based informations.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs24 
\par }}