Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T12:00:24.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Culture and the Press of Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Thelma McCormack
Thelma McCormack
Affiliation:
York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 1981 Kent commission report on newspapers is discussed and contrasted with the MacBride (UNESCO) report. The former assumes that competition is the major safeguard of diversity; the latter, written from the perspective of Third World countries, regards social inequality as the primary obstacle to the free flow of information. Together they reflect contemporary controversies about modernization. Trends toward rationalization, professionalization and autonomy are examined. Neither approach, Kent or MacBride, provides a satisfactory interpretation of Quebec's francophone press. An alternative model based on access is, we suggest, closer to the realities of Canada's changing political culture and class structure.

Résumé

Dans cet article on compare le rapport de la Commission Kent sur les journaux avec le rapport MacBride (UNESCO). La point de départ du premier est que la concurrence est la meilleure garantie pour la diversité de l'information; le deuxième, écrit à travers la perspective des pays du Tiers monde, considère l'inégalité sociale comme l'obstacle plus important à la libre circulation de l'information. Les deux rapports reflètent de discussions actuelles concernant la modernisation; ils examinent les tendances vers la rationalisation, la professionnalisation et l'autonomie. Mais ni le rapport Kent, ni le rapport MacBride donnent une interprétation satisfaisante de la presse francophone au Québec. Un modèle alternatif fondé dans l'accès serait plus près de la réalité canadienne, en ce qui concerne aussi bien les transformations de la culture politique que la structure de classes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 1983 , pp. 451 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Royal Commission on Newspapers (Ottawa: Supply and Services, 1981);Google Scholar hereafter cited as Kent. The other commissioners were Laurent Picard and Borden Spears.

2 Report of the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media, The Uncertain Mirror (Ottawa: Queen' s Printer, 1970).Google Scholar

3 Kent, 220.

4 MacBride, Sean, Many Voices, One World (New York: UNESCO, 1980).Google Scholar

5 What prompted the MacBride commission was the concern many Third World countries felt about the new technology of satellites. Not only would this technology put the poorer countries at a greater disadvantage than they already were; it would also increase the ability of advanced nations to impose their ideologies and value systems on emerging nations whose traditional cultures were already subject to considerable strain.

6 Kent, 17.

7 According to the report, the average rate of return between 1974 and 1980 was 33.4 per cent and represents an improvement over earlier figures (Kent, Royal Commission, 164).

8 Davey, Keith, “The Davey Report: In Retrospect,” in Singer, Benjamin D. (ed.), Communications in Canadian Society (Toronto: Copp Clark, 1975), 182-92.Google Scholar

9 Smythe, Dallas W., Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness and Canada (Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1981).Google Scholar

10 Kent, 38, 112.

11 Royal Commission on the Press. 1947-1949 (London: HMSO, 1949)Google Scholar, Cmd. 7700; Royal Commission on the Press 1961–1962 (London: HMSO, 1962)Google Scholar, Cmd. 1811; Royal Commission on the Press 1974 (London: HMSO, 1977)Google ScholarPubMed, Cmd. 6810.

12 MacBride, Many Voices, 22. If there is any further doubt about the dubious value of competition one can look at the intense rivalry between the two American weeklies Time and Newsweek to see how negligible their differences are.

13 Kent, 225.

14 Ibid.

15 Commission on Freedom of the Press, A Free and Responsible Press (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1947).Google Scholar

16 McCormack, Thelma, “Intellectuals and the Mass Media,” American Behavioral Scientist 9 (1965–66), 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Kent, 24.

18 Butler Flora, Cornelia, “Contradictions of Capitalism in Mass Media in Latin America,” in McCormack, Thelma (Studies in Communications Vol. 1Google Scholar (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI, 1980), 19–36; Timerman, Jacobo, Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number (New York: Vintage, 1982).Google Scholar

19 Hale, Oron J., The Captive Press in the Third Reich (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964).Google Scholar

20 Kent, 24.

21 Ibid.

22 Braverman, Harry, Labor and Monopoly Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974).Google Scholar

23 Johnstone, John W. C., Slawski, Edward J. and Bowman, William W., The News People (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1967).Google Scholar

24 Gans, Herbert J., Deciding What's News (New York: Vintage, 1980), 85;Google ScholarBagdikian, H., “Professional Personnel and Organizational Structure in the Mass Media,” in Davison, W. Phillips and Yu, Frederick T. C. (eds.). Mass Communications Research (New York: Praeger, 1974), 125.Google Scholar

25 Several publications in recent years have made the point that a different concept of communication was more suited to emerging nations. Rogers, Everett M., “Communication and Development: The Passing of the Dominant Paradigm,” in Rogers, Everett M. (ed.), Communication and Development (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1976, 121-48;Google ScholarTunstall, Jeremy, The Media Are American (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977);Google Scholar Peter Golding, “Media Professionalism in the Third World: The Transfer of Ideology,” in Curran, James, Gurevitch, Michael and Woollacott, Janet (eds.), Mass Communication and Society (London: Edward Arnold, 1969).Google Scholar

26 MacBride, Many Voices, 419.

27 Cobb, Roger W. and Elder, Charles E., “The Politics of Agenda-Building: An Alternative Perspective for Modern Democratic Theory,” Journal of Politics 33 (1971), 893–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Hubbard, Jeffrey C., DeFleur, Melvin L. and DeFleur, Lois B., “Mass Media Influences on Public Conceptions of Social Problems,” Social Problems 23 (1975), 22–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Hess, Robert D. and Torney, Judith V., “The Development of Political Attitudes in Children,” in Greenberg, Edward S. (ed.), Political Socialization (New York: Atherton, 1970), 64–82;Google ScholarHirsch, Herbert, Poverty and Politicization (New York: Free Press, 1971).Google Scholar The early studies of political socialization of children did not examine the use of the media.

30 McCormack, Thelma, “Revolution, Communication and the Sense of History,” in Katz, Elihu and Szecskö, Tamas (eds.), Mass Media and Social Change (London: Sage, 1981), 167–85.Google Scholar

31 Kent, 216.

32 Ibid., 137.

33 Janowitz, Morris, “Content Analysis and the Study of Sociopolitical Change,” Journal of Communication 26 (1976), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 The agenda-setting literature is extensive and based largely on studies of elections. Investigators have attempted to show a correspondence between the salience of issues in the media (based on content analyses) and those in the public mind (based on opinion surveys). While it is clear that the two are not wholly dissimilar, the degree of correspondence is unclear.

35 MacBride, Many Voices, 18.

36 Gagnon, Lysiane, “Journalism and Ideologies in Quebec,” in The Journalists (Research Publications of the Royal Commission on Newspapers Vol. 2Google Scholar[Ottawa: Supply and Services, 1981]), 22–23.

37 Ibid., 30–31.

38 Ibid., 31.

39 Ibid., 23.

40 Fournier, Pierre, The Quebec Establishment (Montreal: Black Rose, 1976);Google ScholarRioux, Marcel, Quebec In Question (Toronto: Lorimer, 1978).Google Scholar

41 In a survey of journalists on Quebec dailies carried out by the commission, more than three quarters said that “accurate reporting of what is said by prominent people you meet” was very important. On another question, the highest priority was given to “analyzing and interpreting difficult issues” as the most important function a journalist fulfills by 22 per cent. See The Journalists, Appendix, 195.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid., 197.

44 Sauvageau, Florian, “French-speaking Journalists on Journalism,” in The Journalists, 49.Google Scholar

45 Barron, James, “Access to the Press–A New First Amendment Right,” Harvard Law Review 80 (1967), 1641-78:CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Barron, James, Freedom of the Press For Whom? (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973).Google Scholar

46 Keith Davey, “How Misreading Jolted the Press,” Globe and Mail, September 16, 1981.

47 Kent, 246.

48 Schmidt, Benno C. Jr., Freedom of the Press vs. Public Access (New York: Praeger, 1976).Google Scholar

49 Barron, “Access to the Press,” 1653.

50 Myrdal, Gunnar, Asian Drama (New York: Pantheon, 1968).Google Scholar