Der "30. Januar" in der katholischen Bistumspresse Deutschlands

Das Dritte Reich, das mit dem 30. Januar 1933 begann, gibt uns- nach einem Wortvon Jean Amery - immer noch "finstere Rätsel" auf. Vor allem die Jugend hörtnicht auf zu fragen, wie das Schreckliche überhaupt möglich war und wie das Böse eine derartige Macht über Menschen gewinnen konnte. In den deutschen Medien hat man sich redlich Mühe gegeben, das Datum der Machtergreifung Hitlers von allen möglichen Seiten zu beleuchten, seine Ursprünge zu erhellen, seine Folgen zu analysieren und Konsequenzen daraus zu ziehen. (...)  English The article gives an overview about the reports and comments of the 22 German diocesan weeklies on the 50th anniversary of the 30th January, 1933, when Hitler came into power. The study covers the publications from January untill April 1983, and comes to the following conclusions: 1. The diocesan press is not a monolitic block. It shows considerable internal differences of opinions and proves also the German Church to have an authentic "public opinion". 2. Also considering the heroic resistance of Church groups and people individually against the Nazi terror, the question why the Church is apparently resigned in the persecution of Jews still remains.

Literatur-Rundschau

Andreas Püttmann: Gesellschaft ohne Gott. Risiken und Nebenwirkungen der Entchristlichung Deutschlands (Petra Hemmelmann)Giuseppe Costa (Hg.): Editoria, Media e Religione (Hans Peter Gohla)Thomas Zeilinger: Netz .Macht .Kirche . Möglichkeiten institutioneller Kommunikation des Glaubens im Internet (Michael Hertl)Hans Maier: Böse Jahre, gute Jahre . Ein Leben 1931ff . (Walter Hömberg)Anke Fiedler/Michael Meyen (Hg.): Fiktionen für das Volk: DDR-Zeitungen als PR-Instrument (Dietrich Schwarzkopf)Frank Bösch/Lucian Hölscher (Hg.): Kirchen – Medien – Öffentlichkeit (Michael Schmolke)

Berichte - Dokumentationen - Chronik

Berichtellza KowolLage der katholischen Medien in Polen. Unterschiedliche Entwicklungen in den 90er JahrenHans Peter GohlaThe Temptation. Radio Maria in Italien und Radio Maryja in PolenAnton TäublKirchliche Medienarbeit in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Eine Übersicht nach LändernLudger VerstRunder Tisch "Qualitätsfernsehen für Kinder". Eine Programminitiative der KirchenFerdinand OertelViel Lärm um "Nichts Heiliges". Erste TV-Serie über Priester in den USAWalli Müller I Fritz EckengaMit Ironie und Humor. Zwei Beispiele von Selbstkritik am eigenen Sender Mattbias Kopp"Mit Literatur Erfahrung machen!" Zum zehnten Mal: Katholischer Kinder- und Jugendbuchpreis llza KowolJerzy Turowicz- 85 Jahre altChroni

Bericht - Personalia - Chronik

BerichteSteffen W. Rillebrecht I Oliver Schilling I Antonia SchlausHerausforderungen kirchlicher Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Ergebnisseeiner qualitativen BefragungLudger VerstEin Klassiker der Medienausbildung. 25 Jahre Theologenkursedes ifpPersonaliaJohn P. FoleyA Pioneer in Church CommunicationKarl R. HöllerAn den Kreuzungen des Lebens. Ein sehr persönlicher Rückblickauf 51 Jahre aus 70 Jahren Franz-Josef EilersMichael SchmolkeFranz-J osef Eilers und die PublizistikwissenschaftH.P. GohlaFranz-Josef Eilers -Kompetenz und EngagementHelmut S. RuppertBrückenbauer mit Profil. Ferdinand Oertel zum75. GeburtstagChronik

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes.

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes.

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate, and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.