|
The role of broadcasting media in the period 1968-1969
Bednařík, Petr ; Groman, M.
In the text, the authors study the activities of Czechoslovakian radio and television in the years 1968-1969. They describe how the media supported the politics of the Czechoslovakian Communist Party led by Alexander Dubček during the Prague spring. The authors analyse what form normalization took in both media.
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Writing about the Jews in the Czech Press, 1945
Bednařík, Petr
This chapter is an analysis of the daily Czech press - Rudé právo, Svobodné slovo, Lidová demokracie, Právo lidu and all. Apart from these dailies, a key source for this topic is the Věstník Židovské obce náboženské v Praze, which in September 1945 became the official press organ of the Council of the Jewish Community. Author describes writing about the Jews in Czech press.
|
|
Czech Press, 1945-48
Bednařík, Petr
This paper is dedicated the study of the Cyech press between 1945-48. The autor deals with the new organization of the Czech press after the WW II. Political parties perceived the press as being national property, the subject of public interest. The privately-owned press was forbudden in 1945. Onlz political parties or special-interest organisation could publish daily newpapers and magazines. Rhe author describes the activities of Václav Kopecký - a communist who directed the Ministry of Information. The author characterizes the influence of this ministry on the organization of the Czech press.
|
|
Issue of Article 10 of Retribution Decree Nr. 16/1945 (taking Advantage of Racial Persecution for Personal Enrichment) on the Basis of Cases of the Special People's Courts in Prague and Litoměřice
Bednařík, Petr
Special People's Courts (1945-47) had to adress a number of cases, in which a Jew did not get back property from a neighboring Czech after the WW II. The Czechs would often try to explain why, for various reasons, the items in question disappeared. Excuses included confiscation by the Gestapo, and thefts of the items from the hiding place etc. Such claims were not very convincing. The Jewish owner (or his relatives in the event that the owner had not survived) had no witness who could confirm that he had actually handed the items to the Czech person for safekeeping during the occupation. The Jews, however, had no witness at all and, therefore, the Special People's Courts had to acquit the accused. We have reason to believe that a number of people, who used racial persecution for personal enrichment, were not after the war properly punished.
|