Did The MSM Fail Canadians On The Quebecois Nation Resolution?
There's no question that the "Quebecois nation" resolution passed in the House of Commons last night suffered from a lack of clarity. But the question I have is: Did the mainstream media news outlets further complicate or clarify what was being proposed, for Canadians? And as a secondary question: Was the analysis regarding the impact of the resolution on the Liberal leadership campaign accurate?
In my view, many in the MSM did fail Canadians, in both cases. First, the terminology used by print and television journalists was all over the place. Whatever deficiencies the resolution had, it in no way proposed recognizing the Province of Quebec as a nation. And yet, journalists repeatedly used the terms Quebecois (Quebecers) and Quebec interchangeably. As a result, they further complicated the issue for Canadians.
The use of the word "Quebecois" in the English translation should have got reporters antennas up. Regrettably, that issue began to be investigated only Monday, after it was raised by a number columnists, including Lysiane Gagnon yesterday:
I suspect many journalists (and t.v. news producers) were plagued by a kind of cognitive inertia. In the course of covering the Liberal leadership race, they became accustomed to thinking in terms of "Quebec is a nation" and/or "Quebec as a nation". As a consequence, when it became time to transition from "Quebec, the province" to "Quebecois, a group of people", their thinking was predisposed to stick with "Quebec", rather than change to "Quebecois".
This leads directly to the issue of the coverage of the "Quebecois nation" resolution and its impact on the Liberal leadership race.
Initial reporting and commentary portrayed the introduction of the motion as a vindication for Michael Ignatieff. But Ignatieff's proposal, not to mention the resolution of the LPC-Q, is to recognize the Province of Quebec as a nation, either constitutionally or legally, (I know, I know, "When the conditions are right".) and not simply as a resolution of the House of Commons.
However, the Harper resolution rejects turning the legal jurisdiction of Quebec into a nation and instead emphasizes the people, les Quebecois. This is a significant and meaningful difference that journalist failed to articulate, early on. So when the Ignatieff campaign sold this as triumph for their man and the ideas he advocated, the claim went unchallenged.
Related to this was the failure of journalists to draw attention to Stephane Dion and his long held view that the Quebecois form a sociological nation. Journalists saw the motion before the House through the lens of the conflict between Dion and Ignatieff over LPC-Q resolution (which Dion opposes), and they didn't sufficiently reevaluate the views of either candidate, in the context of the "Quebecois nation" resolution.
It seems to me, that the conduct of journalists in the context of the "Quebecois nation" resolution story, could serve as teachable moment for Journalism Schools. A broadbased content analysis of t.v. and print reports would be a valuable exercise for future journalists to engage in, and the conclusions may prove enlightening for professional reporters and Canadians, in general.
In my view, many in the MSM did fail Canadians, in both cases. First, the terminology used by print and television journalists was all over the place. Whatever deficiencies the resolution had, it in no way proposed recognizing the Province of Quebec as a nation. And yet, journalists repeatedly used the terms Quebecois (Quebecers) and Quebec interchangeably. As a result, they further complicated the issue for Canadians.
The use of the word "Quebecois" in the English translation should have got reporters antennas up. Regrettably, that issue began to be investigated only Monday, after it was raised by a number columnists, including Lysiane Gagnon yesterday:
By using the French word "Quebecois" in English, Mr. Harper makes it clear that the "nation" he refers to, far from being the political territory of the province, is the French Canadian community; in Quebec, the word "Quebecois" often stands for "French Canadian."
I suspect many journalists (and t.v. news producers) were plagued by a kind of cognitive inertia. In the course of covering the Liberal leadership race, they became accustomed to thinking in terms of "Quebec is a nation" and/or "Quebec as a nation". As a consequence, when it became time to transition from "Quebec, the province" to "Quebecois, a group of people", their thinking was predisposed to stick with "Quebec", rather than change to "Quebecois".
This leads directly to the issue of the coverage of the "Quebecois nation" resolution and its impact on the Liberal leadership race.
Initial reporting and commentary portrayed the introduction of the motion as a vindication for Michael Ignatieff. But Ignatieff's proposal, not to mention the resolution of the LPC-Q, is to recognize the Province of Quebec as a nation, either constitutionally or legally, (I know, I know, "When the conditions are right".) and not simply as a resolution of the House of Commons.
However, the Harper resolution rejects turning the legal jurisdiction of Quebec into a nation and instead emphasizes the people, les Quebecois. This is a significant and meaningful difference that journalist failed to articulate, early on. So when the Ignatieff campaign sold this as triumph for their man and the ideas he advocated, the claim went unchallenged.
Related to this was the failure of journalists to draw attention to Stephane Dion and his long held view that the Quebecois form a sociological nation. Journalists saw the motion before the House through the lens of the conflict between Dion and Ignatieff over LPC-Q resolution (which Dion opposes), and they didn't sufficiently reevaluate the views of either candidate, in the context of the "Quebecois nation" resolution.
It seems to me, that the conduct of journalists in the context of the "Quebecois nation" resolution story, could serve as teachable moment for Journalism Schools. A broadbased content analysis of t.v. and print reports would be a valuable exercise for future journalists to engage in, and the conclusions may prove enlightening for professional reporters and Canadians, in general.
----------
Murphy's Point has done excellent work on this subject, here. And you can find my initial post on this, here.
posted by Peter Wrightwater at
1:01 PM
6 Comments:
Interesting point i read on someone elses website, that the motion leaves the door open to there being more than one nation in the province of quebec, leaving the door open to partition.
That makes sense, since the Supreme Court left issue open, and the "within Canada" provision would seem to permit that. What was the website?
The Quebecois within the english version, was brought up by Jeffery Simpson on last Thursday, and by Rex Murphy on Saturday.
If a certainly staunch federalist party had challenged it, then maybe the media would have covered it. (a little more)
Kyle,
And by me on Wednesday!
You're right about that, I'll make the necessarry edits. But journalist shouldn't just regurgitate what politicians say. That part of the problem -- lack of initiative on the part of some reporters.
http://demosthenes.blogspot.com/
At the end of the article titled "deftness", 4 or 5 articles down.
Proatria, Thanks
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home