Media and Reconciliation: The TRC’s Calls to Action in Canadian Media
Murray Sinclair, TRC commissioner/Murray Sinclair, commissaire de la CVR
By Art Babych/Shutterstock.com
Par Art Babych/Shutterstock.com
Philippe Haddad
(FR) Dans l’article suivant, Philippe Haddad a pour but de mettre en avant l’un des nombreux devoirs des sources médiatiques canadiennes ; c’est-à-dire la réalisation des Appels à l’action de la Commission de vérité et réconciliation du Canada, en mettant un point d’honneur sur ceux qui touchent aux problèmes dans le paysage médiatique canadien. Il soutient qu’un sujet crucial qui se doit d’être abordé concerne les reportages à propos des actions collectives et des mouvements sociaux autochtones, en grande partie du fait de leur importante couverture médiatique au sein des nouvelles autochtones. Haddad explique tout d’abord l’impact que le choix de cadrage a sur ces mouvements sociaux et collectifs, et traite également de leur importance. De plus, il renforce son argument en exposant les trois Appels à l’action spécifiques qui abordent les médias canadiens, ainsi que les avantages principaux de leur mise en œuvre. En tant que conclusion, il traite de la charge de tels changements dans les médias canadiens et leurs structures, en se concentrant sur les institutions fédérales et scolaires.
In the past half-century, the Canadian state made tremendous strides towards the creation of a multicultural image. Through its efforts to increase the visibility of racialized, gendered, and sexual minorities in various levels of government and commerce, Canada took on the status of a cultural “mosaic” in comparison to its American “melting pot” counterpart. Nevertheless, in 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission highlighted various issues affecting Canada’s Indigenous population. Though it focuses on the legacy of residential schools, the Commission also highlights legal, socio-cultural, health, and representational issues. Included among these are Indigenous media coverage as well as the accuracy of news reporting on Indigenous matters. Research presented in the Commission’s final report clearly outlined several concerns regarding the presentation of Indigenous-related news reports, including misinformation and crude stereotyping of Indigenous peoples. As per Charles Bury, the former president of the Canadian Association of Journalists: “The country's large newspapers, TV and radio news shows often contain misinformation, sweeping generalizations and galling stereotypes about natives and native affairs…The result is that most Canadians have little real knowledge of the country's native peoples or of the issues that affect them" (Switzer, 1997: 21-22). As a result, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission outlined three specific Calls to Action in Calls 84, 85, and 86 which call for reform in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the support of Indigenous news sources, and journalistic education reform respectively (Summary of the Final Report [Summary], 2015; 292-297). In this paper, I will argue that one of the media’s many roles in Canadian politics should be to initiate the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action on Reconciliation and the Media, especially as they pertain to the coverage of Indigenous collective action and social movements. I will begin by explaining how the media impacts public perception through their framing of social movements and collective action, as well as their importance in Indigenous news coverage. I will further support my argument by outlining the three aforementioned Calls to Action and the key benefits of their implementation. To conclude, I will discuss the Canadian media and its supporting structures’ responsibility in implementing such changes, focusing on federal support and education bases.
The Framing of Social Movements and Collective Action
The first key point in understanding why Canadian media should reflect the Commission’s Calls to Action in their coverage of Indigenous collective action and social movements is that news goes beyond reality as we experience it. The news, as reported, is a product of multiple perspectives, biases, and ideologies. As explained by Professor Augie Fleras from the University of Waterloo, news “is not something tangible, with clearly marked labels that everyone can agree on” (1995: 407). The information that is eventually presented to the public through various forms of media is deemed “newsworthy” by gatekeepers such as journalists, editors, or owners who are influenced by factors such as corporate sponsorships, organizational mandates, and thematic preference (Fleras, 1995). Fleras further contends that “various biases are inherent within the news process, but especially vulnerable is coverage, news collection, reporting, the news source, editorial gatekeeping and presentation” (1995: 408). As such, we must be wary of misinformation and negative stereotyping in the media and actively aim to reform it. A lack of accountability in journalism may not only misrepresent an entire community, but may also create fissures between different populations within Canada.
Social movements act as a catalyst for progress, therefore it is necessary to be cognizant of the importance of Indigenous visibility in collective action. According to a report prepared by the Journalists for Human Rights, a Canadian journalistic organization, “When Aboriginal people choose to protest or ‘make more noise’ the number of stories focused on the community increases. Aboriginal people often resort to direct action initiatives because they result in much needed media attention, followed by a response from government” (Buried Voices, 2013: 19). To make themselves more visible to the Canadian public, Indigenous groups place themselves in critical positions from which they may receive more media attention despite an increased likelihood of negative stereotyping, a notion which has been explored extensively in academic scholarship (Corrigal-Brown and Wilkes, 2011; Baylor, 1996; Skea, 1993).
The importance of framing and its use in portrayals of social movements and collective action cannot be understated. Robert Entman defines framing as the selection of certain aspects of a perceived reality to make them more salient in communication to promote a particular interpretation of the item in question (1993: 52). In the construction of news stories regarding protests and social movements, framing is often employed in a manner that favors one group over another. In support of other scholarship, Corrigal-Brown and Wilkes (Shoemaker and Reese, 1996), studies of textual framing show that “in events and situations where there are multiple parties and claims being made, media accounts tend to give some actors, such as officials, and their claims more credence than others, such as challengers” (2011: 226). The result is the marginalization of these challengers as their causes are perceived to be illegitimate (Corrigal-Brown and Wilkes, 2011: 226). McLeod and Hertog explain that “one of the keys to whether a protest group is 'isolated' or 'accepted' by the larger society is the mass media's treatment of the protesters” (1992: 260). In doing so, they refer to the fact that “routinized” journalistic practices of protest coverage often take away from the messages of the protest themselves: “Journalists are socialized to focus on the actions, conflict, and especially violence of protests. Often, the emphasis on action obscures the issues raised by the protesters" (McLeod and Hertog, 1992: 260). The overreliance on official sources with biased framing of information marginalizes both protestors and their issues, resulting in what some have referred to as the "protester paradigm" (McLeod and Detenber, 1999: 3).
The importance of such framing and the widespread use of the “protester paradigm” in the coverage of Indigenous social movements comes from the Canadian public’s reliance on media for information. Professor John Miller of Ryerson University explains that due to the reach of mainstream media and the lack of visibility surrounding Indigenous protests, “the public and politicians often have no choice but to rely on media accounts to form their opinions and to make public policy about aboriginal people” (2005: 2). By relying on a voice of information that often echoes one primary theme in its coverage without nuanced perspectives, the Canadian media inherently misrepresents a disproportionate number of Indigenous issues. As per Fleras:
Time and again aboriginal people come across as ‘troublesome constituents’ whose demands for self-determination and the right to inherent self-government are contrary to Canada’s liberal-democratic tradition. Aboriginal activism tends to be framed as a departure from established norms regardless of the context or urgency, while protesters are frequently labeled as dangerous or irrational (2001: 315).
As a result of this problematic framing and sourcing of information, Indigenous peoples in Canada are marginalized by journalistic practices, misrepresented in media coverage, and ultimately downtrodden in the public eye. Miller, to whom the Truth and Reconciliation Commission often referred in their findings, outlines that “the way aboriginal people get ‘framed’ and described in the media reinforces the idea that they are a threat to dominant interests” (2005: 2). He elaborates that the media does this “by labeling and publicizing certain extreme actions, ignoring background context, amplifying the danger by linking one event to others elsewhere in the country, and providing scapegoats onto whom public fears and fantasies are projected” (2005: 2). This manifests in reality as, according to a media monitoring report referenced by the Commission in their summary, the Journalists for Human Rights found that before the Final Report’s publication, as late as in 2013 only 0.46% of all news stories focused on Indigenous peoples or issues in Ontario alone, and 39% of these were presented in a negative tone (Buried Voices: Changing Tones, 2016: 6). If the Canadian media were to continue such practices, there is no doubt that such misinformation would continue. To counter this, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued Calls to Action 84, 85, and 86.
The Key Benefits of Calls to Action 84, 85, and 86
In its summary report on issues affecting Indigenous peoples in Canada, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission clearly outlines the role that the media and its supporting institutions, namely the federally-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and various journalistic education institutions, have to play in the marginalization of Indigenous peoples. These Calls outline actions to increase Indigenous representation and issue visibility in the media:
84: We call upon the federal government to restore and increase funding to the CBC/Radio-Canada, to enable Canada’s national public broadcaster to support reconciliation, and be properly reflective of the diverse cultures, languages, and perspectives of Aboriginal peoples […;]
85: We call upon the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, as an independent non-profit broadcaster with programming by, for, and about Aboriginal peoples, to support reconciliation […;]
86: We call upon Canadian journalism programs and media schools to require education for all students on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal-Crown relations. (Summary, 2015: 335)
Calls 84 and 86 each address a glaring issue in the current Canadian journalistic system, either through funding and representation or education. Call 85 and its subclauses call for the increased support of Indigenous media, namely the APTN, in its mission to accurately present news for and by Indigenous peoples. If properly followed, these calls have the potential to greatly alter the Canadian-Indigenous media landscape in a variety of positive manners. These include increased Indigenous representation and programming, an increased variety of First Nations languages in programming, a decrease in misinformation, and greater potential for the efficacy of social justice and reconciliation.
The issue of representation and the promotion of Indigenous programming is referred to often in the Commission’s report and researched extensively in political scholarship (Summary, 2015; Cukier et al, 2019). In its report, the Commission specifically addresses the relatively low representation of Indigenous peoples in federally supported media, primarily the CBC: "As of March 31, 2014, Aboriginal people made up 1.6% of the CBC workforce, well below the demographic makeup of Aboriginal people, who represent 4.3% of the total Canadian population” (Summary, 2015: 293). According to the Government of Canada’s webpage, which records the progress made on every Call to Action, there has been some movement towards the desired goal of increased representation. In Northern provinces and territories, there is an increase in Indigenous staffing and the digitization of years of audio programming in numerous Indigenous languages, including Cree, Chipewyan, Inuktitut, and Dogrib (Government of Canada, November 17, 2020). The issue of language availability has been considered paramount in the preservation and rejuvenation of Indigenous culture. Going beyond increased access to information pertaining to Indigenous groups, numerous Indigenous scholars such as Taiaiake Alfred and Jeff Corntassel have explained that access to Indigenous language is key to their communities: “Language is Power – our people must recover ways of knowing and relating from outside the mental and ideational framework of colonialism by regenerating themselves in a conceptual universe formed through Indigenous languages” (2005: 613).
In a broader sense, the application of these Calls to Action in journalism also holds tremendous potential for both reconciliation and social justice. Concerning the former, Professor Joyce Green from the University of Regina explains that “Truth-telling in a reconciliatory process is meaningless if the truth is not heard by those who have benefited from or inflicted the damage” (Enacting Reconciliation, 2016). From an idealistic standpoint, those who are most affected by specific issues should have a right to know about them, a principle which should be considered in the grand scheme of media coverage. Media organizations are tasked with covering the news and producing a story that they may deem newsworthy, yet they choose to either ignore stories happening in Indigenous communities, frame them in a manner that misinforms the public, or decide to hide them away for fear of reducing viewership. Nevertheless, public reactions to Indigenous issues prove that Indigenous news is no longer “niche” as it might have been in the past. According to Jorge Barrera, speaking on behalf of Journalists for Human Rights, “Indigenous stories consistently trigger such heated reactions from Canadians — including anger, sadness and outright racism — that many news organizations have chosen to no longer allow public comments on the online version of these pieces” (Buried Voices: Changing Tones, 2016: 21). As such, the mainstream Canadian media in the post-Truth and Reconciliation Commission era should take on the challenge of addressing these stories with the same attention that they do to others. As for the issue of social justice, increased media coverage on Indigenous issues, increased education of Indigenous history, and better representation among journalists could result in a positive impact. As explained by Anishinaabe journalist and adjunct professor at the UBC School of Journalism, Duncan McCue:
During periods of conflict and tension, what shapes the tone of media coverage is not necessarily journalists on the ground reporting facts, but senior writers based in urban newsrooms proffering opinion. Sadly, analysis of media coverage during flash points such as Oka, Ipperwash, and Gustafsen Lake has shown similar trends, and suggests these opinions are often rooted in century-old stereotypes rather than reality. (Buried Voices, 2013: 15-16)
That being recognized, if these Calls to Action are properly adhered to, we may see a change. By altering the reporting practices of such voices and by providing increased access to education, we may see movement towards increased Indigenous representation in the newsroom, in topics, and coverage. Consequently, by reducing bias among journalists and within organizations, social movements may be able to increase their visibility in the media and thus improve their standings in the federal government’s policy agenda. However, in responding to such issues, we are also faced with a question: on whom is the onus for change placed?
The Onus of Change
The potential benefit that can result from adhering to these Calls illustrates that not only is there much to be done to move towards reconciliation from the position of the Canadian mainstream media, but that there only recently has been a bigger movement towards accountability. In the grand scheme of reconciliation, it is clear that the Canadian political media should instate the Calls for Action, but in doing so we encounter the issue of the onus of change. The federal government plays a foundational role in the path towards reconciliation, but the Calls to Action highlight the importance of cooperation from federally funded public media in addition to private enterprises and even institutions of journalistic education. The varying roles and responsibilities of each of these institutions show that there is no easy path to accountability.
The Canadian federal government is a logical entity upon which to place a fair share of the onus of reconciliation, in no small part due to its complicity and direct participation in the mistreatment of Indigenous peoples throughout Canada’s existence. Nevertheless, the structure of the Calls to Action places specific expectations on the federal government that limit its responsibilities, including financial duties and demographic consideration. As a response to Call 84 thus far, the Government of Canada reinvested $675 million in the CBC and Radio Canada in 2016 to be allocated in a five-year span, though it has not yet been clarified if this was done to specifically support Indigenous programming (Government of Canada, November 17, 2020). There are a few issues that have arisen as early as 2016 regarding the representative and financial aspects of the federal response. As per Patricia Elliott of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: “Today, emerging journalists find themselves relegated to a pool of casual short-term contracts. This does not bode well for creating increased employment opportunities for Indigenous journalists” (2016: 8). Furthermore, recent systemic changes in the CBC have led to a variety of obstacles, including the sale of its assets, the limiting of specialized reporting, the centralization of services, and an increase in outsourced content (Elliott, 2016: 9). In a broader sense, scholarship centered around the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has outlined some additional concerns regarding federal action in reconciliation. Professor Avigail Eisenberg of the University of Victoria points out a concern that the Calls to Action may reinforce structural injustice: “rather than challenging the statist bias and international order, many of these calls reaffirm the power of the state by calling for actions that will legitimate state governance and allow the state to govern more securely” (Eisenberg, 2018: 27). Another concern is that of selective memory, explained by Peter Muldoon: “any attempt to recuperate the concept of reconciliation must […] be differentiated from the prevailing tendency to define it in terms of the national interest… any attempt to reduce it to a tool of national unity is only likely to add to the insults of colonialism by encouraging a kind of collective amnesia" (2003: 187). However, these calls were meant to work in conjunction with one another, which may help remove the weight placed on the federal government alone.
This brings us to the question of Indigenous media; in both its report and its Calls to Action, the Commission praised the Aboriginal Peoples’ Television Network for their leadership in the Canadian media landscape. The reference made to the APTN in Call 85 was to encourage continued development of Indigenous programming and continued coverage of Indigenous issues in both First Nations communities and the general Canadian populace. Nevertheless, there are still concerns that merit discussion regarding the onus placed on them by the Calls to Action. Foremost among these are financial considerations as the APTN is outgunned due to the resources made available to the CBC and other major Canadian news conglomerates. Elliott reminds us that “it is important to view this call within the wider context that APTN, a nonprofit organization, is immersed in the dog-eat-dog world of for-profit cable conglomerates, with few external supports” (2016: 11). As of 2016, the APTN has worked on transitioning from purely cable content towards an online product, but its revenue streams have increasingly been coming from subscriber feeds rather than federal grants and funds (Elliott, 2016: 11-12). Beyond the APTN, there are other Indigenous media sources within which Indigenous perspectives may be found. Localized media, such as magazines, periodicals, radio, and TV shows, have all sprung up from time to time due to high interest in their communities but have received little funding or attention outside of these. Federal support has not been kind to them either: “When federal cultural programs are announced, this type of grassroots Indigenous media invariably receives mention as a special priority. Yet the reality is far different. Historically, federal support for Indigenous media has been parsimonious, erratic, and controlling” (Elliott, 2016: 13). Additional requirements placed on these publications for qualification towards certain grants, such as subscriber minimums or revenue-generating plans, reduce the presence of free publications and further reduce the variety of Indigenous news sources (Elliott, 2016: 14). Without federal funding being redistributed to these organizations and publications, either through an increase in available grants or a loosening of requirements, this Call to Action may be harder to achieve than previously expected.
A final consideration in the discussion of responsibility brings us to Call 86 and the implication of responsibility that is placed on educational institutions. Of all the Calls to Action that advocate for change in the Canadian media landscape, Call 86 is presented with the least obstacles to its ability to be executed. A brief review of course offerings shows that several universities have already begun to incorporate more Indigenous resources and courses in their curricula, including Ryerson University, Carleton University, and the University of Regina. Though a legally enforced obligation to provide Indigenous courses has not appeared, it appears as though it might not be required. Nevertheless, a suggestion to be made in this area would be a baseline assessment of Indigenous resources made available in all journalistic schools. In doing so, we may be able to compare the accessibility of resources and provide recommendations so that a future standard to be applied across all schools may be created.
Conclusion
The Canadian media landscape has traditionally followed colonial narratives, overriding Indigenous attempts to raise their voices and marginalizing Indigenous efforts to present issues to the public. Nevertheless, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its Calls to Action have presented guidelines to counter such action. In this paper, I have argued that one of the media’s many roles in Canadian politics should be to instate the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action on Reconciliation and the Media, especially as they pertain to the coverage of Indigenous collective action and social movements. I have done so by outlining the importance of the media’s framing of social movements and collective action as well as the use of public protest by Indigenous groups. I further supported my argument by outlining the relevant Calls to Action and illustrating the potential they may have for the improvement of the Canadian media in regard to reconciliation. Finally, I introduced the issue of the onus of such changes on the Canadian media and the concerns raised surrounding finances and federal support. I believe that the points brought forth in this paper raise some important questions, especially considering the impact of federal funding on Indigenous media: to what degree should the government intervene in bringing reconciliation to the media? Should there be laws placed to guarantee more Indigenous representation or incentivized hiring practices? How and where can the federal government go above and beyond the Calls to Action towards reconciliation? Though this paper did not directly address these issues, I firmly believe that to truly progress towards reconciliation with the First Nations peoples of Canada, the Canadian government must show itself willing to act beyond its requirements in good faith.
(EN) Philippe Haddad is a student at Queen’s University in Kingston completing a Bachelor of Arts Honor Degree while majoring in History and minoring in Politics. Haddad specializes in North American social history as well as contemporary Middle Eastern history and policy. He hopes to pursue a career in the fields of academia or legal studies.
(FR) Philippe Haddad est un étudiant à l’Université de Queen’s à Kingston qui souhaite compléter son Baccalauréat ès arts d’honneur avec une spécialisation d’études en histoire et une mineure en sciences politiques. Haddad se spécialise en histoire sociale nord-américaine ainsi qu’en histoire et politiques contemporaines du Moyen-Orient. Il espère poursuivre une carrière dans le domaine universitaire ou légal.