Posted by: seanmichaelbutler | January 20, 2009

CANADA’S MEDIA BARONS: TRAINING THE PRESS TO BE WATCHDOGS OR LAPDOGS?

“There is no such thing as objectivity…what is considered objectivity is to favour the established wisdom, and that is wrong.”

– Bill Cunningham

 

The news media have often been described as the “oxygen of democracy”, yet there is mounting alarm in Canada that democracy may be suffocating under the grip of too few owners controlling too much media. The main concern voiced about this concentration of media ownership is that it leads inevitably to a loss in the diversity of voices Canadians are exposed to, which narrows the diversity of public opinion necessary for healthy democratic debate. But the focus on concentration of ownership is misplaced, first because ownership is a relatively small determinant compared to larger structural forces that have shaped the news for decades, and second because it assumes a greater differentiation in political opinion between owners than actually exists.

 It should be noted that this essay makes the basic assumption that the news media does have a significant impact on politics in Canada. Most researchers believe that this influence stems from the media’s “agenda-setting” function – a term first coined by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in 1968.[1] Rand Dyck describes this function thusly: “…the media tell people what to think about, what the important issues are, and which political personalities are significant. They help define what is political.”[2] David Taras dismisses the idea that the media has no effect on public opinion and public affairs as “…poppycock. To argue that the media do not have at least some effect on the shape of public life is the equivalent of arguing that the world is flat or that Tinkerbell and the Tooth Fairy are real.”[3] Given this assumption that the media affects public opinion, which in turn affects politics, I will focus instead on the more contentious issue of what affects the media.

   The argument against concentration of ownership in Canada’s media can be broken down into three parts. One, concentration is on the rise. Two, this concentration leads to large corporate media conglomerates or chains, which tend to sacrifice quality for profits. And three, concentration is detrimental to a healthy diversity of opinion because media owners exert control over the news content of their holdings, meaning that fewer owners equal fewer opinions being heard. I will address each of these parts in turn.

* * *

   By many measures, concentration of ownership in the media industry has been on the rise since the beginning of the 20th century.[4] In the United States, for instance, the number of daily newspapers per million residents decreased from 26 in 1900 to just 3 in 1990[5] – as did, presumably, the number of owners – and, according to Taras, “concentration of newspaper ownership is much more extensive in Canada than the United States.”[6] But it was not until 1980 that Canadians started having serious concerns about the trend. Until then, real competition between daily newspapers for the same urban market had persisted between rival chains Southam and FP, in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa and Montreal. That came to an abrupt end shortly after Thompson took over FP, when, though a series of maneuvers, papers in Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Victoria were closed, leaving a new reality of one-newspaper towns across most of Canada. Most notoriously, FP closed The Ottawa Journal on the same day that Southam closed its Winnipeg Tribune, sparking widespread charges of collusion, and prompting a Royal Commission, chaired by Tom Kent. Although the reaction to the Kent Commission’s stern recommendations was overwhelmingly negative at the time, after Conrad Black took over the Southam chain 15 years later, bringing into his direct control 60 of Canada’s 105 daily newspapers, Tom Kent was vindicated by public opinion.[7] At the height of his power in 1999, Black’s papers accounted for an incredible 42% of total circulation in Canada, and included the principle papers in every major city except Toronto and Montreal, plus the flagship National Post.[8] For comparison’s sake, the combined market share of FP and Southam in 1970 was about 35%.[9] But Black soon sold off his empire, principally to CanWest, which controlled 28.5% of the daily newspaper market by 2003. Although this represented a decline in concentration as measured by total circulation, the move of CanWest – owners of the Global television network and Canada.com – into newspapers brought with it new fears about “cross-media ownership”: one company controlling multiple forms of media in the same market. CanWest has TV stations in almost all the cities in which it owns the major newspaper. The most glaring example is in Vancouver, where CanWest owns both dailies and controls 71% of the market share for supper hour newscasts.[10] Quebecor also raises fears in this respect; its control of the newscast and newspaper markets in Quebec City is 47% and 56% respectively, while in francophone Montreal the corresponding numbers are 37% and 60%.[11] The media in anglophone New Brunswick is also highly concentrated, with the Irving family, in addition to their many other business interests, owning all four of the province’s English daily newspapers, and two out of three of its English TV stations. Within just the TV industry, there has been a similar trend towards concentration, as the top five percent of TV ownership groups bought a greater percentage of stations: up from 29% in 1970 to 68% in 2000. It is easy to see why in many people’s minds media concentration in Canada has gotten out of control.

However, not all the evidence supports this picture of escalating concentration. Journalist Kirk LaPoint highlight’s Toronto’s media cornucopia: “You have five daily newspapers, two substantial alternative weekly papers, second language papers galore, three all-news television networks, three or four all-news or information radio outlets, and a pile of Internet sites. If you cannot find what you want, then you are just not looking. They are all over the political spectrum….”[12] Phillip B. Lind, Vice-Chairman of Rogers Communications Inc., adds, “While Toronto has more newspapers than other Canadian cities, the amount of news and information available to Canadians from different sources has never been greater. With satellite television, even Canadians in the most remote parts of the country can receive hundreds of different channels from Canada and abroad. Internet access is almost everywhere.”[13] Not only have the number of sources of information greatly expanded for Canadians, but some argue that the concentration of ownership has actually declined recently. Professor David Demers makes the point that, although the number of companies are generally decreasing over time, the number of owners is increasing because more companies are “going public” or, in the case of the Aspers or the Irvings, for example, single owners pass on their companies to multiple offspring. Anne Kothawala, President of the Canadian Newspaper Association, presented data to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, currently holding hearings into this issue, that, she said, “…clearly demonstrate that the newspaper industry in Canada is more diverse and less concentrated than it was 10 years ago. In 1994, there were 10 major owners. In 2003, there are 15 major owners.”[14] Another presenter to the Committee was Charles Dalfen, Chair of the CRTC, who described, “…research on a 10-year period, 1991 to 2001, in terms of media concentration in the four major markets of Canada. In every case, in practically every medium, you will find that there are a larger number of owners and a larger number of broadcasting and newspaper outlets over that 10-year period. Even though it may sound counterintuitive, that, in fact, is the case when you focus them in.”[15] Intuitively, with such high-profile and politically vocal owners as Conrad Black or Izzy Asper accumulating large portions of the Canadian media market, the case for greater concentration seems airtight. Yet, depending on how one looks at it, the opposite could be true. In either case, media concentration is only important insofar as it affects the news.

* * *

 Large media firms, often taking the form of the publicly traded corporation, are often accused of squeezing out profits at the expense of good quality reporting, the assumption being that profit-maximization to boost stock value must be the overriding priority for corporations. It is a zero-sum argument: more profits means less spent on quality journalism. Jan Ravensbergen, President of the Montreal Newspaper Guild, points to the profits currently being made by CanWest as evidence of this squeeze: “I remember the complaint perhaps 15 years ago. The goal at that time was to get 15 cents on the dollar….Now, the profit is double. There has been a lot of squeezing out. Our members have certainly been the object of a lot of those squeezes.”[16] The workers she represents seem to agree with her. A survey of 125 journalists at papers across Canada by the National Guild of Canadian Media, Manufacturing, Professional and Service Workers/Communications Workers of America found that 80% had noticed a change in editorial content in their newspaper since it last changed ownership, and 71% of those said that their newspaper’s overall quality had declined since the change. 82% of respondents also believed that it was “somewhat” or “very likely” that increased media concentration would reduce the quality of news coverage.[17]

Yet there is a paucity of empirical research in Canada linking concentration of media to reductions in journalistic quality. According to Neil Seeman:

 

…the scholarship concerning the impact of media convergence and cross-ownership on the quality of news has been sketchy, contradictory and mostly superficial….the presupposition that media concentration begets bad news – quite apart from a red herring – is often founded on a thin tissue of research. If there is an empirical foundation to the opinion, it often stems from survey data, suggesting that a certain number of Canadians are supposedly concerned about the erosion of quality through convergence. However, there is little analysis as to why.[18] 

 

Data from the United States is a little more helpful and, given the similarities in corporate structure and culture regardless of country, reasonably transferable to the Canadian experience. Professor David Demers’ research was conducted on 223 U.S. newspapers over the 1990’s. He began his study by ranking them on a “corporate” index, defining a corporate structure as having: a highly complex hierarchy of authority; a high degree of division of labour; a formalized set of rules and procedures; employment and promotion based on merit; greater rationality (emphasizing efficiency) in decision-making; and more formal relations between workers. 28% of papers scored low on this corporate index, 44% medium, and 28% high. Demers next surveyed journalists, editors and publishers at these newspapers, and found that, while all three groups rated profit as extremely important, highly corporate papers were less likely to report that profit was the most important consideration (14% for high vs. 34% for low), yet were more likely to report earning a profit (90% for high vs. 73% for low). Moreover, 82% of highly corporate papers mentioned some aspect of product quality as the most important consideration, compared to 52% for papers scoring low on the corporate index. Finally, workers at highly corporate papers were twice as likely to say they are “extremely satisfied” with their job (63% for high vs. 31% for low), and women and minorities were promoted more quickly. Demers theorizes that the reason for less emphasis on profits and more on quality at corporate newspapers is that economies of scale allow them to simultaneously make more profits while also investing more resources in quality journalism, and that the professional managers who run corporations have less of an incentive to make large profits and more of an incentive to be recognized for professional excellence by their peers than owners do. Likewise, better job satisfaction is likely due to better wages, more role specialization, and more individual autonomy – features that tend to come with larger organizations.[19]

A more recent U.S. study by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, entitled, “Does Ownership Matter in Local Television News: A Five-Year Study of Ownership and Quality”, conducted content analysis on 172 distinct news programs and 23,000 programs, and concluded: “Taken together, the findings suggest the question of media ownership is more complex than some advocates on both sides of the deregulatory debate imagined. Some of the arguments favouring large companies are unsupported by the data – even contradicted. On the other hand, some of the arguments for the merits of local control appear similarly difficult to prove.”[20] The study found, for instance, that TV stations owned by a company that also owned a newspaper in the same market tended to produce higher-quality newscasts. This finding supports the argument of those advocating for more cross-media ownership, that it will allow media companies to realize greater efficiencies by sharing resources among their different holdings. John P. Hayes, President of Corus Radio, agrees with this logic, noting that the CRTC’s 1998 revised radio broadcasting policy allowing for multiple license ownership, “…has improved the financial health of the country’s commercial radio stations by allowing multiple license owners to realize operating efficiencies in the administrative end of their operations. It has improved the diversity of our stations.”[21] Clearly, at the very least, the contention that media concentration causes a deterioration in journalistic quality is unsupported by the research available; in some cases, it seems that concentration might even play a positive role. 

* * *

 

The strongest part of the argument against media concentration is that owners directly and/or indirectly inject a bias into the news coverage of their employees, and indeed examples of such owner interference are not difficult to find. When Conrad Black first took over the Southam chain, he publicly promised to end, “the overwhelming avalanche of soft, left, bland, envious pap which has poured like sludge through the centre pages of most Southam papers for some time.”[22] Black’s one-time lieutenant, Hollinger President David Radler, admitted to directly influencing the editorial stance of his papers in at least two ways: one, that the Gazette (in Montreal) should take a much tougher approach to abuses by Quebec’s PQ government of the province’s anglophone minority; and two, that, “any Hollinger paper that wants to support a Bob Rae-type socialist government better have pretty compelling reasons. We’re not going to back a political party that seeks our destruction and the destruction of the capitalist system.”[23] Instead, Black’s National Post backed a political party very friendly to the interests of wealthy businessmen like himself – the Canadian Alliance. The Post encouraged the drive to unite the right, and after the creation of the Alliance its front page “…became an almost continuing advertisement for the new party.”[24] But on the whole, Black’s influence was more indirect than direct. “While Black supposedly almost never meddles directly in the editorial process,” writes Taras, “he, like most owners, hires managers in his own image.”[25] Joseph Harper agrees there is no need for owners to issue directives: “Those who wished to have fruitful careers at Southam were well aware of which way the political winds were blowing.”[26] Several senior editors didn’t like the change in winds and, citing editorial differences with their new boss, quit. Two of them were former Ottawa Citizen editor James Travers and editorial page editor Peter Calamai. “Mr. Black’s view of Southam’s newsrooms,” stated Travers, “is that they are essentially peopled by long-haired dope-smoking freaks left over from the 1960’s.”[27] It is this indirect influence that most scholars believe is more powerful. Writes Taras:

While there is little evidence to suggest that Canadian owners exercise direct control, there is wide suspicion that power is wielded subtly and indirectly. It is argued that owners inevitably hire media managers who share their values, beliefs and priorities; managers presumably use the same criteria in hiring journalists….Articles or viewpoints that take a viewpoint radically different from that of the owner…are unlikely to be tolerated…if a journalist was to buck the rules of conventional news coverage, he would find himself blocked by barriers invisible to the naked eye but impenetrable nonetheless….The sting of control is felt through a self-censorship that comes from anticipating the reactions of management.”[28] 

 

As interventionist and politicized as Black’s tenure at the helm of Hollinger was perceived to be, most observers agree that the heir to his media kingdom, the Asper family’s CanWest, is even worse. “CanWest is a much different company and behaves in significantly different ways than the Southam Group or even Conrad Black’s Hollinger,”[29] says Travers. Stephen Kimber, a former columnist with the Halifax Daily News who resigned because the Aspers kept changing his columns to match their point of view, writes that they, “…support the federal Liberal party. They’re pro-Israel. They think rich people like themselves deserve tax breaks. They support privatizing health care delivery. And they believe their newspapers, from Victoria to St. John’s, should agree with them.”[30] One of the Aspers’ more infamous moves was to personally write national editorials three times a week and force their papers to run them without changes; after one such editorial in favour of Israel, according to journalists at two Southam papers, management even issued a “no-rebuttal” order, instructing papers to run neither columns nor letters that took issue with the editorial.[31] But the national editorials were as unpopular with journalists as they were with the public and were soon scrapped. Perhaps even more controversial is the Aspers’ vocal support of the Liberal party. An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen calling on Prime Minister Jean Chretien to resign resulted in the dismissal of its publisher, Russell Mills. Mills went public with the true nature of his dismissal and many Ottawans cancelled their subscriptions to the paper in the furor that followed. Similar criticism has been leveled at other papers: during a six month period in the heat of the national debate over free trade, the Toronto Star’s stories on the subject, under Beland Honderich, focused 51% of the time on the opposition to or negative aspects of the free trade deal, while only 20% of the time on positive aspects (29% of stories were neutral);[32] “the Irving Group is frequently accused of failing to give appropriate coverage to events that might prove detrimental to the Irving family or their business interests in New Brunswick,” write F.J. Fletcher and D.G. Taras;[33] and Paul Desmarais insisted that his papers support the “yes” side in the 1980 Quebec referendum.[34] Little wonder that a poll 12 days after the firing of Russell Mills found that 49% of Canadians thought that owners exercised too much control over the political opinions expressed by journalists, and that 74% either “somewhat” or “strongly agreed” that there was too much concentration of ownership.[35]

Yet the problem with all this evidence of owner interference is that it is anecdotal. In the absence of empirical research, it is difficult to gage to what extent owner interference is biasing the news. Again we can turn to the research of David Demers on U.S. newspapers in the 1990’s to shed some light on the issue. As part of his study, he asked editorial editors to send him two issues of their op-ed pages, which he then content analyzed to determine if they were critical or supportive of mainstream institutions, sources, ideas, etc. He found that highly corporate papers publish on average twice as many editorials and four times as many letters critical of the mainstream as papers low on the corporate index. A survey of the mayors and police chiefs of the communities served by these same newspapers, asking them to rate the extent to which they felt criticized by their local papers, confirmed these findings. Finally, Demers did a literature search and found 18 other studies that had examined the impact of ownership on “editorial vigour” (i.e. criticizing the status quo); eight found that papers owned by a chain were more vigourous, seven found no difference or had mixed findings, and three found that independent papers were more vigourous. Two possible explanations Demers offers for these findings are: one, a small operation means that independent owners have more ability to interfere in the daily running of their single paper than the owner of a large chain does; and two, large media chains are more insulated from parochial national or regional political pressures.[36] One possible limitation of these findings, however, is that Demers didn’t identify which mainstream institutions were being criticized. It is possible, for example, that highly corporate papers spent most of their time criticizing government institutions, and little time criticizing economic ones. Certainly his survey of mayors and police chiefs – both part of the state – did not address this shortcoming. His survey data would have been more thorough had he also surveyed the leaders of mainstream economics institutions. It may also be possible that the criticism was directly primarily at one political party or another, as was the case with Conrad Black (against everyone but the Canadian Alliance) and the Aspers (against everyone but the Liberals). His research suggests nothing except that highly corporate papers tend to be more critical of some mainstream institutions, but gives no indication which ones. This still leaves the door wide open to owner interference. Regardless, given the lack of empirical data on owner interference, and these findings that contradict some of the intuitive assumptions about corporate media, it is impossible to say with any certainty that ownership has a widespread and systemic impact on the bias of the media. The only conclusion one can draw from the anecdotal evidence is that owners can have at least an intermittent impact.

* * *

For decades conservatives have complained of a liberal bias to the media, while liberals complain of a conservative bias. Who is right? Neither, says David Demers: “The news does contain a bias, to be sure. But when viewed from afar, it is neither extremely liberal nor conservative. It is mainstream, centrist, or middle of the road.”[37] Unlike the issues surrounding ownership, there is no shortage of research to support this claim; thousands of studies support the idea that the media maintains the status quo and promotes social control – and this is as true for independent media as it is for its corporate counterpart.[38] “Whatever the role of corporate ownership, there is little doubt that the media present a rather similar picture of society,” write F.J. Fletcher and D.G. Taras. “Observers agree that the media tend to reinforce the dominant institutional and cultural patterns of authority.”[39] The authors continue:

Media priorities emerge from the organizational needs and interests of the media and from their interactions with political parties, interest groups, advertisers, boards of directors, and government regulators, as well as audiences. The political bias that excludes radical criticism of the status quo is as much a function of the perceived limits of public tolerance as it is of the preferences of corporate owners. The relative absence of tough-minded investigative journalism can be explained more readily by the unwillingness of publishers to spend the necessary funds and risk libel suits than by corporate ideologies.[40]

 

As these authors point out, the reasons for this mainstream bias are varied. In a capitalist society, the personal opinions of owners are herded into the centre by the media’s structural dependence on three outside factors: advertisers, consumers, and sources.[41] First, the financial dependence on ad revenues means there is a structural disincentive for radical opinions or information that could threaten big business. Not only is the media big business, but so are its clients. Second, daily newspapers and TV newscasts try to appeal to as broad a base of consumers as possible, to attract more advertising. The best way to do that is to aim squarely for the middle of public opinion, and not say things that might anger people. And third, because the media is reliant on a steady stream of information from politicians, business people, experts and other elite sources, the news is coloured by this elite perspective, while it is also in journalists’ interest to maintain friendly relations with these sources by not being too critical of them. There are other factors as well. For instance, the media gives more press time to large, popular political parties like the Liberals than to small, relatively marginal parties like the Greens; although this is entirely justified, it also tends to ensure that the Greens will remain marginal.[42] In this way, the media reinforces the status quo. Another conformist pressure hanging constantly over the heads of the media is the threat of libel. Interestingly, when the media overcomes this concern and does pounce on an individual, such as it did with Richard Nixon, there is a strong perception that “the system is working”, weeding out the “bad apples”, and thus reinforcing the larger status quo. As Robert Hacket and Yuezhi Zhao put it: “Critical media reports may bring down individual politicians who do not play the game well, but they seldom question the rules of the game itself.”[43] Similarly, although journalistic “muckraking” has brought about many reforms over the years, in a sense these reforms serve to reinforce the social order by placating dissenters without overturning the larger power structure.[44] “By and large,” writes media veteran Peter Trueman, “the media avoids new and uncomfortable ideas like radioactive fallout, and either hoots and jeers with the multitude when a political leader is courageous enough to put a new notion forward, or simply maintains a comfortable silence.”[45] All these structural realities facing the news media serve as constraints on the power of media owners to sway the bias of their holdings very far from the centre.

One last argument must be advanced against the contention that media ownership plays much of a role in shaping the news. “The people who own television stations and newspapers are not radically different,” writes Trueman. “Whether they are actually members of the traditional Canadian establishment, or only knocking on the door, they exhibit little stomach for challenging the old order….”[46] Wallace Clement and many others have noted the extent to which the richest and most powerful families in Canada either made their fortunes in the media business or now own the media.[47] Canada’s richest family, the Thompsons, once owned a good slice of the Canadian media market, including the venerable Globe and Mail. K.C. Irving, worth as much as the Queen of England, has passed his Maritime media empire on to his sons. And often the line blurs between the economic and political elite, such as when Brian Mulroney became the Chairman of the Sun newspaper chain, or when Kissinger sat on the Hollinger board. The point is that, given the similarity in outlook of the small economic elite who can afford to own a media company, it matters little whether 100 rich white men own the nation’s media, or 10. They will all impose, to the extent that it is possible and desirable, more or less the same bias on their media – a cautious, middle-of-the-road, favouring of the status quo. If owners do significantly influence the media, they all influence it the same way; concentration does not change anything.

The evidence for increased media concentration, and the effects of that concentration, is mixed. But the focus on concentration is a red herring. First, the effect of ownership on media bias is dwarfed by structural factors, such as dependence on advertising, sources, and consumers. And second, media owners all belong to a like-minded economic elite, so calls for greater diversity within this homogenous group are nonsensical. If we really want to promote a greater diversity of voices within our media, we should not be looking at restricting media concentration. Instead, we should look for ways in which other forms of media might overcome the structural bias inherent in today’s mass media – giving marginalized voices, or at least non-millionaire voices, an outlet in the media panoply. While it is beyond the scope of this essay to suggest what those means might be, I will say this: we should tread carefully. All of this essay has been devoted to the oft-noted problem that the media is a public good in private hands; yet the principle of freedom of the press dictates that the media should not be in government hands either. Any attempts to democratize the media will have to contend with this difficult tight-rope walk. One thing at least is certain: if media owners were as talented at mind control as many people fear, there would not be the healthy debate about media concentration that Canada has experienced in recent years.  

 

      


[1] Rand Dyck, Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches, fourth edition (Nelson, 2004) p. 250

[2] ibid.

[3] David Taras, Power and Betrayal in the Canadian Media (Broadview Press, 2001) p. 30

[4] Frederick J. Fletcher and Daphne Gottlieb Taras, “The Mass Media: Private Ownership, Public Responsibilities”, in Michael S. Whittington and Glen Williams, eds., Canadian Politics in the 1990’s, fourth edition (Nelson Canada, 1995) p. 297

[5] David Demers, “Corporate Newspaper Bashing: Is It Justified?”, Newspaper Research Journal, Vol. 20, Issue 1 (Winter 1999)

[6] David Taras, The Newsmakers: The Media’s Influence on Canadian Politics (Nelson Canada, 1990) p. 15

[7] Richard Keshen and Kent MacAskill, “’I Told You So’: Newspaper Ownership in Canada and the Kent Commission Twenty Years Later”, American Review of Canadian Studies 30.3 (Autumn 2000), p. 315-25

[8] Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, Interim Report on the Canadian News Media, Fourth Report, April 2004

[9] Gordon Pitts, Kings of Convergence: The Fight for Control of Canada’s Media (Doubleday Canada, 2002) 

[10] Canada, Interim Report on the Canadian News Media

[11] ibid.

[12] ibid.

[13] ibid.

[14] ibid.

[15] ibid.

[16] ibid.

[17] ibid.

[18] ibid.

[19] Demers, “Corporate Newspaper Bashing”

[20] Canada, Interim Report on the Canadian News Media

[21] ibid.

[22] [author and title of chapter], in Joseph Harper and Thom Yantek, eds., Media, Profit and Politics (the Kent State University Press, 2003) p. 163

[23] Taras, Power and Betrayal, p. 213-214

[24] [author and title from 22], p. 164

[25] Taras, Power and Betrayal, p. 213

[26] [author and title from 22] p. 163

[27] Keshen and MacAskill, “’I Told You So’”

[28] Taras, The Newsmakers, p. 14

[29] Canada, Interim Report on the Canadian News Media

[30] Pitts, Kings of Convergence, p. 2

[31] Aaron J. Moore, “Ownership: A Chill in Canada”, Columbia Journalism Review 40.6 (March-April 2002) p. 11

[32] Allan Fotheringham, Birds of a Feather: The Press and the Politicians (Key Porter Books, Toronto, 1989)

[33] Fletcher and D.G. Taras, The Mass Media, p. 305

[34] Dyck, Canadian Politics

[35] Council of Canadians website, http://www.canadians.org

[36] Demers, Corporate Newspaper Bashing

[37] Demers, Global Media, p. 102

[38] Ibid.

[39] Fletcher and D. Taras, The Mass Media, p. 306

[40] Ibid., p. 312

[41] Demers, Global Media

[42] Ibid.

[43] Taras, Power and Betrayal, p. 58

[44] Demers, Global Media

[45] Peter Trueman, Smoke and Mirrors: The Inside Story of Television News in Canada (McClelland and Stewart, 1980) p. 169

[46] Ibid. p. 165

[47] Dyck, Canadian Politics, p. 260

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: