Transcript 130Politicalinfluence

Political Influence, Elections
and Political Marketing
Propaganda Defined

An intentional program of selected information
used to advance a doctrine, ideology or practice
 Three characteristics of the narrow definition
 The Widening Definition of Propaganda
Four Sources of Political Influence

Constitutional and Legal or Regulatory Control
 As a dominant News Source: influence and
manipulate News Manufacture
 As a buyer of Advertising: using economic clout
over the media
 Regulation of Media Coverage During Elections
What Democratic States May do (Policy
Instruments)
– Democratic states may:
 Protect the Media in the Constitution
 Censor the Media
 Enact Freedom of Information Laws
 Act as an Owner of Public Media ( like the CBC)
 Make Laws on Foreign Investment ( daily press
20% cap)
 Regulate Media ( Broadcasting)
 “expect” media ( by using soft power) to
responsibly regulate their own profession ( codes
of conduct)
 Tax or Subsidize the Media/Advertising
Political Control of the Media
By What Rules Must the Media Play?
 How Accountable Should Media Be?

Legal Controls and Freedom of
Expression
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
 Section 2b) guarantees freedom of thought,
belief, opinion and expression, including freedom
of the press and other media of communication
 but Section 1 ( the preamble) states that:

– The guarantees (of ) the rights and freedoms set out
in it are subject only to such reasonable limits by law
as can be demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society
Constitutional Bottom Line:
 Canada’s law does not guarantee absolute
freedom of the media from State Control or
Judicial Review by the Supreme Court of Canada
 Freedom of Press is conditional
 A delicate balancing act:
– Between primordial State role in guaranteeing
national security ( collective rights) and
individual freedoms
– Between individual/media right to FOE and
‘rightness’ of selective censorship
Constitutional Limits

What are the limits?
– The Notwithstanding /PreambleClause (
section 1) if law can be demonstrably justified
– Entrenches equality rights ( S. 15):
 Every individual is equal before and under the law
and has the right to the equal protection and
benefit of the law withour discrimination…based on
race, national or ethnic origin, colour,religion, ses,
age or mental or physical disability
– Multiculturalism :Section 27:
 Consistent with the preservation and enhancement
of the multicultural heritage of Canadians
First Legal Controls: Protections of
National Security





Powers over security: imposition of acts to restrict civil liberties
When security threatened, State may censor to protect itself
Canada’s War Measures Act ( 1970); Alberta Law on Fair
Information (1937): gagged the press on security grounds
In time of real or apprehended insurrection the State does have
near absolute control: a throwback to the authoritarian model of the
press
In 2001 Canada enacted the Anti Terrorism Bill ( Bill C-36) to
respond to US pressure and an international convention to suppress
terrorism after September 11, 2001.
Second Grounds: Social Cohesion
and Domestic Security
Criminal Powers

State also introduces classes of criminal
expression:
– Incitement of ‘violence against state’ ( seditious libel)
– Incitement of cultural genocide: S. 319 of the
Criminal Code (1970): advocating killing of members
of an identifiable group
– S 117 : Prohibit willing spreading of false news ( fire!)

State may compel journalists to release their
sources in a criminal investigation
Hate Legislation
S. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977)
Updated by the Anti Terrorism Bill ( 2001):
prohibits communication which will expose a
person or identifiable group to hatred and
contempt
 A number of countries have extensive hate
legislation, censoring speech
 Circulates around the notion of security again:
the right of individuals and communities to live
free from manifestations of hate and
discrimination


Leading Case: Keegstra ( 1990)


Also: Zundel, Collins etc. under S. 319 (2)
Keegstra a teacher in Alberta who made anti-Semitic
statements to students
– Statements not in private
– Statements not in any effort to generate discussion for public
benefit ( instead, he advised students to accept his views and
gave better grades to students who echoed his views)
– Not trying to point out hateful things only to alleviate hate
Regina vs. Keegstra in Supreme Court of Canada ruled
4:3 against Keegstra
 Then Chief Justice Dickson argued if Canada is a
multicultural society, then the protection of
multiculturalism justifies censorship in some cases

Political Control 3:
NewsManufacture

Government is one of the biggest sources of news for
the media
– Media depend on governments for news
– Governments depend on media to reach their voters and
mobilize consent

On some matters, the Government offers the only
source of news ( eg. In times of crisis SARS etc., or on
economic productivity news from Statistics Canada
Media Protections: Freedom of
Information Legislation ( 1982)
Protects citizens and media from arbitrary concealment
of information during peace time
 Freedom of Information legislation may compel
governments to release information if requested by press
or public– depending on terms and conditions of the
legislation
 Freedom of Information Ombudsperson may help
 30 years later, ‘apprehended insurrection’ grounds found
false in the cabinet deliberations of the War Measures
Act
 Other cases: Pharmaceutical cases etc.
 FOI helpful as long as there is a vigilant/investigative
press

Induce Media to Set Up Standards
to Self-Regulate
For Example: after the Kent Commission a set of
regional Press Counsils was set up to hear
complaints about bias or unfair news
 The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council is
another
 The codes set out values with respect to press
independence, prohibition of conflict of interest,
fair comment, consistent with the Charter
 ( SEE OVERHEAD)

Direct / Indirect use of economic
clout
Governments are very large buyers of advertising:
economic clout
 As a consequence, newspapers or media may resist
biting the hand that feeds them… private press may selfcensor (eg. Resist coverage hostile to Bush’s invasion of
Iraq)
 Governments may potentially own/ produce news
agencies (eg. CBC News and Newsworld) which compete
for ad money with the private media sector– and keep it
‘honest’
 Governments may also potentially regulate competition
of the industry (eg.News) but have not done so in
Canadian printed press or have done so rarely in TV (
Lorimer,p. 47.)

Regulation during Elections

Political Advertising is strictly regulated
– Amount spent is capped: subject to appeal
– Proportional to popular vote of parties
Commentary must observe Equal Time to
all parties recognized by the Chief
Electoral Officer
 Complaints on Political Bias must be heard
by Press/Broadcast Councils

Rationale for Regulation of Election
Spending and Speech






Studies in the US find a direct relationship between
amount spent on a campaign and electoral success:
Money buys votes
Incumbent politicians have an advantage
Canadian legislation tries to establish a level playing field
among challengers and incumbents
Sets threshold on spending low enough for entry
Values minority expression ( proportionate to votes) and
guarantees it a space in comment
Conclusions





1. Canada’s legal framework for media aspires to social
responsibility model but is lighter on press than on
broadcasting
2. Freedom of Press is not as absolute in Canada as in
the US: balanced with responsibilities
3. There are four main avenues for State/ political
control/influence over the press during peace time:
4. The largest political effect of such influence is
ideological– framing for voters what is important or not
in democracy
5. The rise of Anti Terrorism legislation has carved out
large areas for democratic states to withhold
information, exercise censorship/ in the name of
democratic propaganda
Sources




A. Fleras, Mass Media in Canada. 2003. pp. 90-96.
John Keane, Media and Democracy 1991
Paul Nesbitt Larking, Politics, Society and the Media:
Canadian Perspectives 2001
Samuel V. LaSelva,” Pluralism and Hate: Freedom,
Censorship and the Canadian Identity” in Interpreting
Censorship in Canada, K. Petersen and Allan C.
Hutchinson. 1999.