On Jumping to Conclusions

For journalists, it's easy to jump to conclusions. One hears some information and because he/she has heard something similar before, he/she thinks that the same thing is happening again. However, especially those writing stories about other people's personal affairs must pay particular attention to avoid that mistake.

Stories are about details, too. It's not difficult to notice them and write them down, but it is much harder to explain why those details are important to the story. Thus, reporters have to find out what the details are about. If someone is wearing a cross on a little golden chain, one would easily assume that he or she is a Catholic. But what if that's not so? What if these cross has a different meaning? What if it belonged to the person's late mother and he/she is wearing it to remember her?

There was a story in the newspaper today about an Italian woman who decided to have an abortion because some medical examinations results revealed that there is something terribly wrong with her fetus. Only after the abortion the doctors saw that the fetus was healthy. The article made it sound that the mother went against the recommendations of her doctors and decided for abortion although they suggested that they do some additional tests. Such stories are very emotional and probably anyone who reads them has an opinion on what happened. The problem with this story is that no one explained the reasons behind the woman's decision. Because of that the readers can jump to conclusion that the woman was at least an irresponsible and selfish mother. But we don't know why she made that decision. And journalists certainly can not write stories that might imply something that they really do not know.

Stories, stories, and more stories

Whatever I have been reading lately, drives me to the conclusion that traditional media need more stories if they want to keep their readers. Besides, I am convinced that journalists and bloggers can work hand in hand to tell the general public what needs to be told.

Sometimes things can be published only on the internet. However, that does not always mean that journalists are not doing their job. Sometimes the situation is such that they simply can't do what they should be doing: investigate things that those in power would like to keep hidden. Even if they try, their stories won't get published. In such cases, bloggers can help journalists. Similarly, bloggers can be an excellent source of information for journalists. In turn journalists can help publicize bloggers and their topics, so that they can reach wider audience. Thus, I do not think that bloggers are a threat to conventional journalism. Rather, they complete each other.

That doesn't mean that journalists and traditional media should't re-think their position. I am convinced that their key advantage are stories written with the aid of novelistic techniques: about people around us, life we are living, and especially things we should care about. These stories have a beginning, middle and end, a character who is the hero of the story, scenes and dialogue. Evertyhing that makes the reader keep on reading it.

Internet helps us focus on things they are most interested in. But we need more. We need to learn about things that we are not otherwise interested in. How would have the American society developed, had not the media told it the stories about the injustice the African Americans experienced in Deep South in the 1950s? If the Americans had read only about things they were interested in, they wouldn't have known about segregation in schools and elsewehere and things wouldn't change for the better.

If we read on internet only what we want to know, we miss things we should know. And these are the things that traditional media (usually) provide us.

The media should rethink the form in which they present the content, and the platforom (paper, internet). However, the content (and I don't mean boring political articles about this parliament body meeting or that government press conference) should remain the same: that is things the public should know and care about.

There is a question circulating among media analyists: should newspapers dumb up or down to survive? My answer is up, of course. Newspapers should carry well researched stories written in an attractive and readable way, and these stories should help to understand, not judge.

What do you think?

Let's find a media outlet, shall we

Today I was talking to a group of collegues about the media situation in Slovenia and one of them joked that we actually cannot talk about the media in Slovenia, as there aren't any left. In fact, he added, we could perhaps write a story on how to find one.

It wasn't funny at all. After being away for a while (due to maternity leave) I am not used to pessimistic conversations which can be heard in different newspapers or journalists gatherings. And it depressed me to hear them. One could say, even if things are so bad, you have a choice: take it or leave it.

But there are reasons why not leave it: one, because we love what we do. Two, where could we go (if we want to stay in media industry)? In Slovenia, I've heard, journalists are censored almost anywhere.

Of course, we could try our luck abroad. But lanugage is an important tool of the journalist. And the one s/he can muster best is his/her mother tongue. So s/he sticks to his/her country. In Slovenia, there were only few new publications launched recently (among them National Geographic Slovenia, Jaz, Arzenal). The question is how many of them will survive in the long run. Besides, they look for contributors, not employed journalists.

And on the top of all that I checked the blogs on my blogroll today, and I saw that one of the journalistic blogs was turned into a pet blog. I wonder why? Perhaps because pets are a much safer topic? After all, journalists have to pay bills, dont' they? For the same reasons they keep signing new contracts which among other things prohibit them to criticize their emloyers.

Stories and Miracles

There has been an interesting debate going on Jaz.si blog. Actually, two of them. One about stories and the other about quality media.

It is hard to compare Slovene media scene with, for example, American one. In Slovenia, there are less readers and less money for good media. But on the other hand, it is somehow easier for a young journalist to join the ranks of the best media. This could/should result in better, more inovative and open media (because of the freshness of the mind and the willingness to change things).

But it is not so.

In fact, the media in Slovenia are behind the media from abroad at least in one thing: the story format. Research in USA as well as Slovenia proved that readers love good stories. Nevertheless, stories are almost non-existant in Slovene media. Only few journalists write them and they probably fight daily to have them published, because there are few editors who appreciate them.

So, although it it is easier for a Slovene student of journalism to get a job for example at Delo, Dnevnik or Mladina, as it is for a student in USA to get a job with any of the quality national or regional dailies (a friend of mine was looking for an un-paid internship at the Kansas City Star while a master student; she was interviewed for two hours for the position of a copy-editor and she didn't get it; there were no journalist positions available at all), it is perhaps more challenging to be a rookie in America. Because many of the bright and perspecitve Slovene journalism students end up writing news in the form of inverted pyramid from the pseudo-events such as press conferences for the rest of their career. They are not told to go out, find real people, see what is going on, and write stories about the present Slovenia, or experiment with the form.

An American student might be instructed to do just that. And if not, he/she can find many how-to information and examples of good stories, and if he/she really want to write stories, he/she will probably have the oportunity to look for a job opening somewhere else.

It would be so good (almost a miracle) if somehow the newspaper editors/publishers would somehow realize that readers really want good stories (which can be about different topics, even politics which seems to be the priority in Slovenia) and let journalists write them.

I do not understand why Guardian, NYT (check out their most popular stories), the Independent, and many other media, that are seen as a role model, publish stories on their front pages, while the (daily) media in Slovenia usually stick to the government press conferences? What makes us so different from them? Are we more smart? Do we know better?

Echoes

Sometimes one needs to hide away from the world. I was/am there now. After the holidays and the December holiday rush I felt I need to take a break and retreat to my private space. Hence, the silence on the blog.
Luckily, the outside world sometimes enters my private one, too, and it gives me an excuse to comment upon. I know the topic has been already discussed, but I still have a need to add my opinion.
I am talking about the new version of two old TV programes Dnevnik and Odmevi (Echoes). I am not going to discuss the looks of the studio (although I don't like it), but I have to express my disappointment with changes of the content. I felt that the idea of changing Odmevi into a monotematic programe is a bad one, and after having seen the new version I can say I was right. The news programe which was probably the best on television and which won - and rightly so - many awards has been ruined. Why on earth would someone want to change a good and succesful programe? Legacy of Mile Vreg ought to be preserved as it was: a beacon of good television journalism. Instead, we now have a boring talk show. Aren't there enough of them? I think at least four or five tv programes build on this concept: invite two - to five people in the studio and let them talk to each; or, have one person interviewed by the reporter. Where is the space for a good story in such concept? Afterall, that's what the new Odmevi were promising to us. Such studio conversations are boring or sensationalistic; at best they are analytical. But they have nothing in common with stories.
I do not think that the reason for such a bad idea is politics only. There are probably other reasons, too, of which I do not know. The question is why from the outside one can easily see that a bad idea is about to be realized; and why, on the other hand, it is so hard to see this from the inside?

They Buldozz Houses, Don't They?

It's almost Christmas Eve and people are feeling the Christmas spirit. Some with the aid of Hollywood movies, some in other ways.
There is no Christmas spirit in real life in Slovenia. Yesterday the President wanted to bring mobile homes for the Strojan family, so that they can spend the Christmas Eve in a temporary home. But the local villagers prevented him.
What kind of Christmas spirit is that? Do Christmas miracles happen only in movies? Is real life really so cruel?
Local people argue that they have some local law forbidding people to camp in their community. I wonder if they would follow the law if anyone else decided to camp there beside the Strojan family?
The state was quick to buldozz the homes of the Strojan family. However, it took the same state a couple of years to stop a family in Ljubljana from illegally changing the inclination of their roof, and there are people in Ljubljana who decided to illegally add another floor to their homes, and they even used their neighbor's land for the workers to walk on while doing it. The neigbors complained, in vain. There was no state inspector preventing the illegal building in that case. The neigbors were told that nothing can be done. Is that hypocrisy or what?
Good Bye, Christmas Spirit in Slovenia.

Who is a Journalist?

It seems that anyone can be a journalist today. Many of those who think they can write, also think they are capable of writing for newspapers. And sometimes the newspapers confirm that, by actually publishing what they wrote.

I am not saying that this is always wrong. After all in blogosphere almost everyone performs some of the roles of journalists. And many bloggers are even convinced that they are better at doing that than mainstream media.

It often happens that people think they can do what architects, builders or real-estate agents (but not doctors) do. They furnish their homes, sometimes they even build them, and more often than not they sell them. Usually, they say, they do this because it is too expensive to hire an architect, a builder a real-estate agent. I guess the same reasoning is in the minds of newspaper publishers who hire non-journalists. The difference is that in the first case, it is the person who performs the role of an architect and so on, who pays the price for his/her inexperience. In the case of journalists, it is the reader who pays that price.

I am not saying that anyone who finished journalism school is a good journalists, and neither I am saying that among non-journalists there are not excellent writers. I am only saying that sometimes I read an article that shouldn't be published at all. It is not well-written, it is clear from its content that the author hadn't had any idea what he/she was writing about, and what angers me most, he/she generalizes, over-simplifies, and sometimes even writes something that would be hard for him to prove (like a false hint by someone with an agenda). All this is not only his/her fault, afterall he/she was only trying to earn some money; it is much more the fault of the editor who published the story.

Sometimes I recognize such stories because I am familiar with the topic. What worries me, are all those stories that I read and believe in, but should't.

Uau, they dared to air that!

The other day we were watching the programme Preverjeno on POP TV. The first story was about hate speech. (This is a common topic of conversation in Slovenia these days. Isn't that sad?)
And after watching it, we commented: "uau, they dared to airthat!" The rest of the sentence remained unsaid: "for how long POP TV will be able to air such stories?" And then it struck us: isn't that awfull that in Slovenia in 2006 we are thinking like that?
Besides, the story on people inspecting the convoy of police vehicles in Grčarice, I first read on Dancing Photography. Borut ended his blog with the following words: "Thank you POP TV for not censoring this!" Well, the media situation in Slovenia doesn't need any further comments, does it?

On Being Embarassed in Slovenia

Although this blog is meant for positive criticism, I cannot keep quiet anymore. I must say that I am embarassed as a Slovene and as a journalist (for similar feelings from my collegues see for example here).
As a Slovene I am embarassed when I see that people in Slovenia are raising barricades to keep the Romas out of their villages. In the group of Romas, of which they say they are scared of, there are many children; besides if some of the members of the Strojan family are supposedly involved in criminal activities, they should be prosecuted according to the law. Instead, the whole Roma community is being demonized and people keep saying that they are criminals (thiefs, even rapists) although nobody was yet found guilty. As far as I know if someone has not been found guilty, he is innocent. How come that this basic postulate holds true for Slovenes and not for Romas? And unfounded and unproven insults are as far as I know punishable, too.
And I am embarassed as a journalist. Much has been said in blogosphere and elsewhere about the latest edition of the so called infotainment programme Piramida. I agree with those who say that such shows should not be aired on the public television. The role and purpose of the public television is not to provide entertainment in its pure sensationalist form.
What is even more embarassing for me, is that the national daily paper Delo (in the context of a report regarding what has been happening in the latest edition of Piramida) published four comments from Delo's forum on the page 3 (which is reserved for important and relevant political and other issues). These comments were "balanced", in accordance with the new ideology on journalistic objectivity. Two of the comments were agains such shows and two for them.
I think that such comments have no space in the national daily newspaper whose role and purpose is not only to tend to the basic needs and wants of the readers in order to keep the circulation high, but also to keep the public debate on a certain level - above the one of the "hungry wolfes" which can be often found on forums. It seems that the Pandora box's of hate speech in Slovenia has been open when some of the politicians started verbally abusing their female collegues, when the ombudsman, whose primary role is to protect the accepted level of human rights, was labeled as the number one hate-speaker in the country, and when it became acceptable that politicians verbally or physically attack reporters or threat to attack them. BTW: the report on one of such incidents was published in some media (for example Dnevnik, Finance, PopTV), but not in others.

How Does It Feel To Be On The Other Side

Journalists are not often on the other side of the line. Many of them have never been interviewed, so they have little idea how does it feel to be on the other side of the microphone.
It was weird to me when during one of the very first lectures of the Literary Journalism course at University of Missouri - Columbia our teacher Jacqui Banaszynski (Knight Chair in Journalism at the School of Journalism) reminded us how we always have to introduce ourselves to our subjects. She stressed out that we have to say our full name, name of the newspaper and the fact that we are journalists. "Otherwise the person on the other side might think that you are from the marketing department," she said.
That she was right, I realized after I returned from the USA. When I first spoke to somebody over the phone, I simply rattled my name and the name of the newspaper. Only after the person I was talking to at the end of our conversation asked me for my name again, I realized that he did not understand my introduction at all. To me it was crystal clear who I was and who I was working for. To the person on the other side of the phone, it was not.
It is not that easy being a subject of a story. I have been interviewed once and I was really worried after the journalist left. I knew I told her a few things I didn't want her to publish. I asked her not to, and she kept her promise. I was thankful.
I also hear such requests from the subjects of my stories. If I promise them that, I always keep my promise. But it wasn't until that interview that I realized how vulnerable the subject of a story feels in such a situation. He/she simply cannot do anything else but to trust the journalist.
But what if the journalist does not keep this promise?
Jacqui also emphasized how important is to tell the subject the context in which he/she will appear (how much space will be given to him/her, who else will appear in the story, will he/she be the only person interviewed for the story...). I know this sound weird if we think in the context of the political beat: to tell the politician who are going to be the other subjects in the story? We might as well tell him/her the questions that we are going to ask him so that he can prepare his/her answers.
But think about for example a florist who was interviewed for an hour for an article about orchids. He had probably told his/her friends and family to buy the paper because he/she is going to be the star of a newspaper story (so he/she justly thought after such a long interview). He opened the paper the day after and saw only a sentence or two of what he said. How did that make him/her feel? The experience probably left him/her with a bad aftertaste.
As Jacqui stressed out: for a good story, for the bond of trust between the journalist and the subject, and last but not least for a good relationship between the newspaper and its readers (who sometimes appear as the subjects of the stories), the subject (especially if he/she is not accustomed to dealing with media) has a right to know in what context his/her words will appear. This is even more important in literary journalism where the journalist immerse him/herself in the life of his subject.
It feels bad to be told one thing and then to see that another thing happened. So, don't tease if you won't deliver.

Nieman Narrative Conference

On Poynter you can find the report about the Nieman Narrative Conference that was held in Boston this past weekend. The report is written by Bill Kirtz, a professor at the Northeastern University, who has been attending the past conferences, as well.
It is sad that Poynter does not publish detailed reviews of the specific lectures anymore, but I guess they did not find enough volunteers; if I remember correctly, Bill wrote last year's report, too.
I was disappointed with NNC homepage, though; the programme is anounced but no details are provided.
I can hardly wait the day when I will be able to virtually attend the conference; the day ehen I will be able to listen, see and read the presentations via internet. Perhaps the technology that enables this already exits and I can only hope that people at the Nieman Fundation will start to use it. Mark, can you hear me?

The Caiman

I have just returned from the Ljubljana Film Festival.
Tonight I was watching the movie The Caiman by Nanni Moretti.
The message I got is quite scary.
During the trial, the Caiman was doing anything to avoid it. Mainly he did not show up left the court early saying that he has some urgent things to do. He was also telling the DA who asked him about his hidden acounts in Switzerland to stop politicizing; that if she wants to politicize, she should leave the court and try to become elected and then face him. When she reminded the court that above them there is a sign saying that everybody is equal in the court of law, he replied that this is so, but that he is more equal as he has been elected by the people, and so on.
In the end the of a long trial, the Caiman (Berlusconi) says (more or less): I can only be tried by the people who elected me, not by some judges. And when he is found guilty, he declares that the democracy came to an end and the country is now facing autocrative regime. He invites the people to do anything they want to overturn this new autocratic regime. And when the judges try to exit the courthouse, they are facing an angry mob who start to throw Molotov coctails at them and burn the courthouse.
As it seems that there are politicians in this country who might see a role model in Berlusconi, the message of this movie (no matter how ironic it is) scares me: that some 21st century politician might actually think that he is above law, that the third, judicial branch of the government is irrelevant. That he cannot be touched. And that there even might be people who would follow his appeal.

Tonight I Can Write

The poem Tonight I Can Write the Saddest Lines by Pablo Neruda is resonating in my head when I think of an email that I received last night. Just yesterday I was thinking about five brave women who dared to stand up against their boss who was sexually harassing them and eventually decided to take their case to the court. And then I found an email by them in my mailbox.
I was the first and later one of the very few journalists to cover their plight. (One of the articles is found here, and here is the correction to the article because during the editiorial process somebody made a crucial mistake by accident and changed a yes to a no. My last article on the subject can be found here; later I stopped covering the story as I went on maternity leave.)
Before I could start to write the story in our paper, I first needed to explain to the editors why the story is important, and persuade them to run it. Sexual harassment in still not take seriously in this country. After the details of the harassment were revealed in a magazine (in much more graphic way that I had done on purpose, knowing that the women wouldn't want the public to read about all the details; the graphic description were revealed by their attorney), people at the paper started to say that the what had happened was horrible and that we should write about it. Since then I had free hands and I could write about it as much as I wanted.
The story which started in December 2003 ended with the verdict (on February 24 2005; my article about it can be found here) which found the boss guily; the verdict was later confirmed in the court of appeals (on March 7 2006). Thus the boss was officially and publicly found guilty and had to leave his position. (As the story ended when I was already on maternity leave, I am providing this link to the story.)
I thought that this was it and that the women finally proved that they were not lying or that they were not taking him to the court because of some kind of revenge; that they were not hysteric, that they did not overacted and so on. While working in this institution, they had to listen to such remarks daily.
The thing is that SLOVEnia had to change its Labor Rights Act in order to join the EU; the new article 45 was specifically created to meed the EU standards. It is supposed to protect the workers in such cases. This article says that it is the employer who has to prove that no sexual discrimination appeared in the office.
But who is the employer if we are talking about the public health institution whose boss is appointed by the government and supervised by a special board of the institution? The government? The Minister of Health? Should the boss who is accused of discrimination prove that he did not do it? Or should this be done by this board?
The now ex-boss is still employed by the institute. So are three out of five women. And they are seeking help again. While the criminal case (with the boss as the defendant) had been tryed in the criminal court, they also filed a lawsuit against the institution in the labour court because the institution did nothing to protect them. In September there was a possibility that the case will settle outside the court but the new boss then said that she will consult the board again. According to the women the composition of members of the board has hardly changed; in it there are more or less the same people who refused to help the women in the first place. They reacted only after the boss was found guilty.
So is it likely that they will help the women now? No. And they did not. They say they will wait until all of the legal opportunities that the boss decided to act on will run out.
That means that the whole point of Article 45 is in vain; that in this country it still up to the victim of the sexual harassment to prove that something happened to her.
No wonder that the only way to recognize and end discrimination in SLOVEnia is to ask for help from abroad as the Slovene Ombudsman did in the Ambrus case (and he was immediately critized for this by the prime minister). Only when it is clearly shown to us that what is going on is discrimination and that it is something we cannot tolerate, we are willing to open our eyes.
I cannot forget the words of a journalist from the Guardian (they are published on this blog) who said that he sees the Ambrus story through the perspective of what was happening in the 1960s in USA with African American community and its fight for the human rights.

NYT on Ambrus

Here is the story that NYT's journalist Nicholas Wood (with the help of Borut Peterlin) wrote about the story of the Roma people from Ambrus. What a LOVEly country that we leave in.

The Shape of Her Drawing

I am working on a profile of a prominent illustrator these days. I had a pretty good idea how I want this article to look like, and I only hope that the result will please me.
I have once read a profile of Mister Rogers, by Tom Junod, and I was impressed. Ever since then I always tried to do something similar and up to now I did not have an opportunity. That does not mean that the stories can be compared; I see the Junod's story mainly as a role model, an ideal that I am striving to achieve. I really like how he managed to capture the voice of the children's literature in this article. The explanations, like an ophtalmologist is a doctor who take care of the eyes, make perfect sense here. And we really are able to get the feelikng of Mister Rogers, and not only him, but the whole Mister Rogers phenomenon.
The other story that I read before starting to work on my own story was Walt Harrington's The Shape of Her Dreaming. This is a profile of a poetess Rita Dove, a story about how she is creating a poem, and about the creative process itself. It is amazing how the journalist was able to capture such an elusive thing as the process of writing a poem is. Of course, both of them had much more time for their stories as journalists usually have. Junod met with Fred Rogers at least a couple of times, and Harrington asked the poetess to keep a diary until the poem is finished. She got back to him after several months; he then interviewed her for more than seven hours, and then it took him more than a week to write the article.
In general, I have two to three hours, sometimes a little more, to talk to the subject of my story, and then two to three days at best to work on the article. It is not typical of Slovene journalists to spend a lot of time with their subject/s and I can only hope that one day this practice will change.
But, I must add, it takes more than just time to write such stories. It takes talent, too (although some people say that literary journalism is 10 percent muse and 90 percent hard work), and even more importantly, the guts to experiment and not to be afraid of what will happen with the article. Just as the Rita Dove somehow said, sometimes we should forget the readers ( I meand we should stop worring about how they will accept our story) and write for ourselves.
And then see what happens.

Victory

I am so happy about the election results in USA. It gives me hope that things will sooner or later change and improve elsewhere, too.

I like the pictures that people post on their blogs. So here is one of mine.

Good news, Bad News

Today I read the journal which has been prepared for the oncoming Days of Slovene Journalists. It was a sad read as most of the articles were quite pessimistic (especially the articles about censorship and self-cencorship in the media that are the result of the changes in the political situation, and the new Broadcasting and Media Act).
One of the writers mentioned how it is a pity that journalists write to journalists in their professional journal about the situation in the Slovene mediascape. Instead, she said, they should be writing to the general public. She also mentioned that the media scholars somehow seem reluctant to comment on what is going on. Unfortunately not the entire journal is online, si I will summarize her words: she basically said that she misses the true media scholars' perspective and opinion about the situation. Where did their voices go? Did they go silent because of the accusations that they are so called media scholars? According to her that should ignite them to voice their opinion, to judge, to comment, to warn.
I agree with her. But I would also like to add that some journalists write about the situation on their blogs and that some media scholars, too, write about the situation either on the blogs like Medijski watch dog or in the journals like Media Watch (and sometimes in newspapers, magazines, TV or Radio). However, there should be more of them and they should react more often.
It was inspiring to read that some of the bloggers are heard. Borut Peterlin, the photoeditor of the weekly magazine Mladina, for example, writes (and posts pictures)on his blog Dancing Photography about the dispute between the Roma people and the villagers from Ambrus (he seem to be one of the few journalists who try to go beyond the obvious, the stereotypical and who avoid the sensationalism); he has been contacted by a journalist from the New York Times who wanted to cover the story.
This blog , on the other side, does not want to be an outlet for criticism or lament on the current situation in the Slovene media or the society. Instead, I would like to show the positive side of the media and journalism business (I was always saying that there is too much bad news in the newspapers and that we should focus also on good news; but then again I do not mean this in the sense Ivan Štuhec meant when he said that media will write about the nicest and most inspiring events on their front pages. I especially do not agree with the rest of the quote published in the aforementioned journal where I read it). That is why I am posting links to the sites that I found useful or inspiring (beside those, of course, that mean something to me on the personal level:)).
For now, I am complaining only to my friends, because we can discuss the problems and this way I have the feeling that I can tell everything and get a feedback immediately. Perhaps one day, when they will grow tired of listening, this will change. And I will start complaining here:)

Literary Journalism Award

Recently I noticed that this years Lettre Ulysses Award for the Art of Reportage has been given to Linda Grant from London for her book The People on the Street. As the organizers say the aim of the award is to bring the outstanding achievements of literary reportage and the themes of the nominated books to the focus of international attention and to support its authors both morally, materially and symbolically.
Why I am writing about this? Because there are not many awards given for literary journalism. LJ is still not a mainstream thing, and an authors specific style or voice or attention to details does not count much in many newspapers.
Secondly, because this award is given to journalists from all around the world which means that LJ is global, not limited only to the USA.
And thirdly, because in 2003, when the award was created, among the jurors was also Svetlana Alexiyevich who wrote the book Boys in Zinc. This is enough of a guarantee for me that the award is prestigious. I cannot forget her book. In it there is a passage about a woman who was measuring the size of a zinc coffin in which there the remains of her son. The coffin arrived with a plane from Afghanistan, her son had fought in Soviet-Afghan war. How did she do it? She lay on top of it and measured it with her body. Her son was big and she wanted to be sure that the coffin was big enough for him.
One sentence that revealed all the absurdity of any war.

Today I am happy for two things. First, I finally saw some comments on my blog. Thanks, Xiaoqing. It makes more sense to write all these if I know that someone is actually reading what I write. I look forward to more of your comments.
The other reason is that I got invited to participate in a committee that will give out an award to journalists. I am honored to be invited but even more I am happy that someone is actually going to give an award to a journalist. In Slovenia this does not happen often; whenever I read the Columbia Journalism Review and see all those awards and grants handed to journalists and the advertisments in which the proud newspaper houses congratulate their stuff, I feel a bit envious. It is such a nice feeling to be awarded for your good work. It is good to see that someone noticed your it.
Up to two years ago there have been only two awards given to the journalists in Slovenia, one by the Association of Slovene Journalists, and the other by Sklad Josipa Jurčiča. This new one, called For Diversity. Against Discrimination, is a part of the EU campaign against discrimination. This is even more important because such writings doesn't get much attention in the Slovene media, except perhaps in very sensationalist context.

Beauty and the Beast

This country in which I am living is beautiful, but sometimes it freaks me out. I can't believe what is happening and how some people interpret things. Last year two Roma women were killed to death in a bombing attack and almost nobody payed much attention. This year somebody who is not Roman but lives in the Roma community beat up another man and the whole country is on the verge of histeria. There have even been some rumors about possible linching of Roma people and they had to be transferred into the center for the asylum seekers.
It's just like the attack of the former journalist Miro Petek. Imagine: somebody beats up a journalist and the police cannot find the person who did it. It's unbelievable. I mean: how hard it is to find this guy(s)? But then again how often does the guy who regularly beats up his wife end up in jail? It seems that it is more probable that the wife will either end up dead or that she will go to jail when she finally stands up for herself.