Indigenous academics inject complexity, nuance into media representation of Aboriginal peoples

14 Nov Indigenous academics inject complexity, nuance into media representation of Aboriginal peoples

 

1   Introduction

In January of 2012, the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of British Columbia introduced a new course called Reporting in Indigenous Communities. The class aims to “improve media coverage of aboriginal communities” and has been hailed as the first of its kind in Canada (McCue, quoted in Henderson 2011). The course instructor is CBC television reporter Duncan McCue, who is Anishnaabe. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has partnered with the course, and has expressed a great deal of interest in publishing the materials produced by the students.

The existence of this course begs the question, what is different about working as a journalist in Aboriginal communities, and why do they merit special consideration? The failures of mainstream media to represent Aboriginal people and issues in nuanced and accurate ways is well documented. The 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stated that media mostly portrays Aboriginal people as pitiful victims, noble environmentalists and angry warriors. Duncan McCue (2011) notes in his online guide to the Reporting in Indigenous Communities that when Aboriginal people are represented by the media, they are too often portrayed as warriors, drunk, dancing, drumming or dead.

What is the responsibility of a journalist to do if they want to do a better job when reporting stories about Aboriginal people? McCue is quoted in a news article as saying, “As journalists we assume because we are objective we can throw ourselves in to another community, but it’s not that simple” (Henderson 2011: 3). He argues instead that a basic cultural literacy goes a long way in doing justice to complex stories, and that his course is designed towards this end. I am a student in Duncan’s course, and I also wanted to contribute some knowledge of my own to enhance the relationship between journalists and Aboriginal communities.

 

1.1    Rationale

Expert and academic sources play an important role in media. As McCombs notes, expert contributions to media act as a kind of information subsidy, filling the journalist’s gaps in knowledge. In their day-to-day work, journalists are expected to become knowledgeable on various subjects in a very short amount of time, and turning to an expert for guidance in these cases is a helpful resource. Additionally, in straight-news reporting, journalists are discouraged from putting their own opinions into stories. The frame, or angle, of a piece, therefore relies on the inclusion of outside voices and perspectives. Approaching an expert for comment is one way that a journalist can push a certain story angle while at least nominally keeping their opinions to themselves. The role that Aboriginal academics have in shaping media coverage is therefore of potential significance, although journalists highly value their editorial control over stories.

The University of British Columbia facilitates communication between academics and media. Their public affairs office helps connect journalists with experts on relevant topics. I have heard from fellow journalists who say that reporting stories involving Aboriginal people can be especially difficult because phone calls are often returned too late or never. On the other hand, I have spoken to Aboriginal academics who feel that they are tokenized by journalists, asked to speak to issues outside of their area of expertise, or asked to explain something to a journalist who simply has not done their homework. What is clear is that both journalists and Aboriginal academics have cultural baggage that can make collaboration difficult. The starting point for moving forward is acknowledging the history of underrepresentation and misrepresentation of Aboriginal people by the media, and understanding that this history matters.

My study examines the ways in which Aboriginal academics at UBC have been represented in newspapers as a way of contributing to a conversation about how journalists can improve reporting about Aboriginal communities, and what the role of academics might be in that discussion.

 

1.2   Research questions

My study will address the following three research questions. Further information about how I will about answering them will be provided in the methodology chapter.

1. What topics, themes and frame do articles that quote Aboriginal academics employ, and how do they represent Aboriginal topics and people?
2. To what extent do Aboriginal academics have agency with respect to their representation in mainstream newspapers?
3. How are Aboriginal academics represented with respect to the overall frame of the article in which they are quoted?

 

2   Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

The purpose of this literature review is to ground my study within the existing scholarship about media representation and Aboriginal people. I will focus on two related and overlapping areas of research. The first section will introduce ideas from communications research that tie my own study to theories of agenda setting, framing and sourcing. The second section will review existing analysis of media representations of Aboriginal people in Canadian newspapers.

 

2.1   Agenda setting, framing and sourcing

Communications research is a heterogeneous, diverse, and constantly evolving field of study. As Loffelholz (2008) shows, there is no single obvious trend in theoretical approaches, but rather several approaches which overlap, compete, compliment and build on each other. I root my own work primarily in theories of agenda setting. This is an appropriate framework for my study because it grounds itself in empirical research that contributes to understandings of how and why the news media affects public opinion. The real value and significance of studying representations of Aboriginal people in the media lies in understanding the ways in which those representations are transferred to and interpreted by the public. This is the core question addressed by theories of agenda setting. I also consider theories of framing and sourcing in journalism as they relate to, challenge, and add to understandings of the processes of agenda setting.

McCombs (2004) traces the roots of agenda setting theory to Walter Lippman’s 1922 classic, Public Opinion, which proposed that people respond not to the environment itself, but to a pseudo-environment constructed by the news media. It wasn’t until 50 years later that the first empirical study was published demonstrated a cause-and-effect relationship between the agenda of the media the public agenda. Hundreds of empirical studies from around the world have since established the existence of a significant level correlation between issues given prominence by the media and issues reported as important by the public. They have crucially also established a time-order: The news media first sets the agenda, then the public responds by mirroring that agenda. Time-order is conditional to establishing evidence for a cause and effect relationship. Early research found evidence of the media’s agenda setting role, but these findings demanded further study towards a more complex understanding of these effects.

Over 40 years of study, understandings of how agenda setting works and why it works have become increasingly nuanced. One of the consistent findings is the limited size of the public (and the media) agenda. McCombs (2004) finds that at any given time, there are usually no more than five issues that have a high level of salience among the pubic. He suggests that the public’s agenda is limited by time and psychology, while the size of the media’s agenda is limited primarily by newsroom resources and the amount of space or time available for print or broadcast.  The result is intense competition between issues seeking the attention of both media and public.

Within this landscape it is perhaps unsurprising that Aboriginal issues rarely generate sustained media attention. The Royal Proclamation on Aboriginal Peoples (1996a) affirms that Aboriginal people are underrepresented in and by the media, and that the representations that do exist are incomplete and distorted. Given the causal link between the media’s agenda and the public agenda, what issues receive attention in the media is of no small consequence.

The media’s agenda does not translate into the public agenda in a consistent way. The accumulated evidence shows that agenda setting effects are stronger for “unobtrusive issues” (those that the public confronts primarily via media) than for “obtrusive issues” (those that the public confront directly and experience in every day life) (McCombs 2004: 60). While earlier scholarship labeled topics in a dichotomy, recent research shows that issues exist on a continuum between obtrusive and unobtrusive, and this attribute is variable between individuals (McCombs 2004). That is to say, members of the public who do not confront Aboriginal issues directly in their lives are more likely to turn to the media for guidance on those issues. RCAP (1996a) confirms that Canadians receive most of their information about Aboriginal people from news, entertainment, and other media. Media portrayals of Aboriginal issues are therefore likely to have a real impact on popular perceptions of Aboriginal people.

Within the institutions of journalism, ethical standards dictate that, in order to avoid and correct misrepresentations of marginalized people, journalists should seek out a diversity of sources in their coverage. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics dictates that journalists should “Give voice to the voiceless” and “Diligently seek out the subjects of news stories” (1996: 1). These standards of practice have their roots in early theories of journalism, which focused on “normative individualism” and understand the journalist to be an independent actor largely free of societal and organizational constraints (Loffelholz 2008: 16). Some scholarship, however, challenges the extent to which the inclusion of diverse voices can, alone, address misrepresentation in the news media. Harding (2006), for example, argues that the selective inclusion of Aboriginal voices in the media in recent years has not changed the overall framing of Aboriginal people as innately inferior.

The literature on framing goes beyond inclusion and exclusion from the media, and addresses the deeper questions of representation and the consequences of that representation. Gitlin describes framing as the “persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which symbol-handlers routinely organize discourse” (1980: 7). In order to package information in a way that can be efficiently delivered and easily digested by audiences, journalists rely on a kind of shorthand that places actors and events in familiar roles and narratives. Through structure, inclusion and exclusion, readers are asked to “accept the ‘preferred readings’ embedded in news accounts” (Hackett and Zhao 1996: 48). Scholars elsewhere have referred to this process as a “common sense” strategy for producing and interpreting the news (Anderson & Robertson 2011, Harding 2005, Furniss 2000).

The literature on framing also intersects with theories of agenda setting. McCombs explains the process in terms of a “second-level agenda-setting” (2004: 87). If the first level of agenda setting determines which issues are included in the media agenda, the second level determines how the issue is presented and which attributes are included or highlighted. The first level tells the public what to think about, while the second tells them how to think about it. This is what journalists refer to as the news angle. Given that story angles are largely determined before the work of reporting begins, to what extent can individual sources affect the framing of a story? Or, if the media are setting the public agenda, who is setting the media’s agenda?

Hall et al. (1978) put forward the highly influential and widely debated theory of primary definition. The authors argue that official or state sources are the “primary definers” of news events and are therefore able to control any subsequent conversation related to that topic (Hall et al. 1978: 59). Although many media scholars agree that there is a hierarchy of access to the news, the theory is critiqued for it’s lack of understanding of the variety of pressures that influence news reporting. Miller (1993) uses coverage of conflict in Northern Ireland to show the limits to the dominance of official sources. He establishes that different official sources often provide competing viewpoints on the same event, that the official definition is often contested before any interaction with media, that competing definitions sometimes do overthrow the initial definition, and that different media outlets often adopt the official definition in different ways. While official sources may have significant roles in shaping media narratives, the landscape remains a highly contested space where no single entity can be consistently considered the primary definer of news events.

While some scholars have proposed that alternative media challenge the dominance of official sources, this too is a contested idea. Atton and Wickenden show through an analysis of the UK activist newspaper SchNEWS that alternative news sources do, superficially at least, privilege “ordinary people” over elite sources (2005: 357). However, a closer reading shows that the preferred sources are activists and protesters, and the voices of truly ordinary citizens are nearly absent. Their finding suggests that alternative media may reject traditional source hierarchies, but they construct their own internal hierarchy of access based on the ideology of the organization. This scholarship supports the idea that the organizational culture of newsrooms has significant impacts both on the selection of issues and their framing.

Agenda setting theory has also studied the extent to which official agendas are able to dominate media agendas. An examination of various US presidents’ State of the Union addresses and subsequent media coverage showed that while sometimes the official agenda directs the media agenda, other times the president’s agenda follows media and public opinion (McCombs 2004). The limited capacity of the state agenda to direct the media agenda should not be surprising, given that journalism as we know it today was founded on ideals of being independent from and watchdogs over government (Hackett and Zhao 1996).

Though media may not collude directly with government, their “independence” is still contested. A survey of 21 years of coverage in the New York Times and Washington Post found that nearly half of articles relied substantially on pre-packaged information from press releases, press conferences and background briefings (McCombs 2004). Communications professionals and public information officers provide subsidized information that significantly impacts the media agenda. Additionally, evidence points to inter-media agenda setting, where “elite” news sources dictate the agenda of other media outlets (McCombs 2004: 113).

Scientists, academics and other “expert” sources provide another form of subsidized information that helps to guide the media agenda (McCombs 2004: 103). Expert contributions are designed to provide important information and commentary, but also to give a perception of credibility and authority. However, while experts play an important role in framing news coverage, the choices made by the journalist about which experts to contact and how they are represented with the article are still quite significant. Chan (1998) shows in her study of the role of experts in the media, the opinions put forward by experts in the media do not transfer to the public opinion in a uniform way. Choices by the journalist about how to represent experts change the way the information the experts provide is interpreted by the audience.

The ways that journalists choose to represent the academics in my study is therefore significant. It is useful to note that Aboriginal academics are not consulted by the media exclusively in an “expert” role. They are also sought out by journalists in their roles as activists, community leaders, doctors, lawyers, educators, and citizens. If the articles where they are quoted express the full range of their roles and personalities, it would present a challenge to the existing scholarship about representations of Aboriginal people in the mainstream media.

 

2.2   Representations of Aboriginal people in the Canadian print media

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (1996b) determined that three stereotypes define much of what Canadians see of Aboriginal people in the news: the noble environmentalist, the angry warrior, and the pitiful victim. More recently, Duncan McCue (2011) has suggested five key ways in which Aboriginal people make the news: be a warrior, beat your drum, start dancing, get drunk, or be dead. The scholarly literature supports the idea that Aboriginal people are frequently represented through stereotypes. However, the debates around Aboriginal representation have become increasingly nuanced, the representations of Aboriginal people in the media have become more diverse and the level of analysis has deepened.

Daniel Francis’ (1992) The Imaginary Indian: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Culture is a foundational text in exposing the ways that Aboriginal people have being constructed in the non-Aboriginal Canadian imagination. Although the methodology of this work is more haphazard than systematic, further research in this area of study has been greatly influenced by the premise of this text. Francis argues that, within non-Aboriginal culture, the notion of “Indian’ is imaginary — it is a produced concept that has very little to do with empirical reality. As such, Francis positions his book as a study of the non-Aboriginal culture that produced the image of the Indian, and not as a study of Aboriginal culture itself. “The Indian began as a White man’s mistake, and became a White man’s fantasy. Through the prism or White hopes, fears, and prejudices, indigenous Americans would be seen to have lost contact with reality and to have become “Indian”; that is, anything non-Natives wanted them to be” (Francis 1992: 5).

Much of the research on representations of Aboriginal people in Canada supports Francis’ claims. Notably, Furniss (2001) shows how coverage of the same event differed significantly when comparing articles from the Williams Lake Tribune and the Vancouver Sun. She analyzed coverage related to the 1992 Caribou Chilcotin justice inquiry into allegations against the RCMP of discriminatory treatment against Aboriginal people. Furniss found that coverage in the Tribune focused on procedural and governmental matters (such as costs of the inquiry to the public) and not on the substantive complaints of Aboriginal people against the RCMP (the actual content of the inquiry). This is in stark contrast with the Vancouver Sun accounts of the same events, which dealt primarily with the substantive complaints of Aboriginal people against the RCMP, and portrayed their grievances largely in a sympathetic light. However, Furniss argues that the Sun coverage also rested on discursive tradition and cultural factors, resulting in a reliance on the stereotype of the noble savage. “Thus urban and rural presses alike are adept at manipulating news frames as a strategy of political containment: rural presses deflect criticisms of local Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal conflicts into rural-urban dichotomies, while urban presses deflect challenges to state authority by evoking noble savage imagery and reducing Aboriginal claims to localized conflicts” (Furniss 2001: 29). Furniss’ study shows how media texts are culturally situated within the community that produces them. Portrayals may be based in fact, but the selective choice of elements to include or highlight (the framing) presents a distorted version of the truth that says more about the content producer than it does about the object of representation.

Other studies use comparative analysis in a similar way to come to the same conclusion. Keller (1996) shows how the English language Gazette offered more favourable portrayals of the Mohawks involved in the Oka crisis compared with French language La Presse. Skea (1993-1994) also studied coverage of the Oka crisis, but analysed coverage in the English language press across the country. Skea proposes that “Canadian newspapers individually constructed reality in the reporting of the Oka crisis” (1993-1994:28). This statement is supported by the observation that different newspapers would use the same article from a wire service (the Canadian Press supplied 36% of the articles surveyed) but make editorial choices, such as the wording of the headline, that were more or less favourable to the interests of the protesters. Findings from both of these authors support the theory that newspaper coverage is not a simple reflection of reality, but is influenced by the organizational cultural of the newspaper internally, as well as the context within which the newspaper exists.

In the 1990s, research about newspaper representations of Aboriginal people focused largely on portrayals of conflict. Media coverage of the 1990 Oka crisis informed at least three quantitative content analysis studies (Skea 2003-2004, Grenier 1994, Keller 1994). Perhaps this focus should not be surprising, given Grenier’s finding that coverage of the protest at Oka increased dramatically once “a real or perceived potential for physical hostility” existed (1994: 329, emphasis in original). In fact, the author argues that the dominant frame of the Oka-related news was one of conflict, finding that 47% of headlines contained “conflict-based themes” (Grenier 1994: 328). This is consistent with Wilker et al’s (2010) finding that protests that disrupt the lives of others not directly involved in the protest (for example, road and rail line blockades) achieve higher prominence in coverage. On the other hand, the size and length of a protest are not correlated with increased media attention. Like the newspapers, early scholarship in this area focused largely on the us vs. them narratives that pitted Aboriginal people against non-Aboriginal Canada.

The academic conversation about Aboriginal representation in mainstream Canadian media has since become increasingly complex. For example, Lambertus (2004) compliments her content analysis of coverage of the 1995 Gustafsen Lake Standoff with interviews with the journalists who did the reporting. She found that the most frequent labels applied to the Aboriginal people involved in the protest were “rebels”, “renegades” and “squatters”, all of which “cast a prejudgement of lawlessness that was consistent with the RCMP definition of the situation” (Lambertus 2004: 152). A cursory reading of this would support the theory of “primary definition” (Hall et al. 1978). However, she also found that many journalists who considered (and challenged) the use of language, labels and stereotypes in their reporting. Her work suggests that while official sources may have significant impact on reporting, these representations can be challenged and in some cases overturned.

Henry and Tator (2002) also deepen the debate by analyzing the tools that journalists use to construct Aboriginal people as inferior. The first of two case studies explores coverage of the trial of Alberta Reform MP Jack Ramsay, accused of raping an Aboriginal woman 30 years earlier while serving as an RCMP officer in Pelican Narrows, Saskatchewan. The authors find that Globe and Mail coverage relied on negative stereotypes about Aboriginal people and reserves, including images of poverty, violence, and alcoholism in their portrayal of the accuser, while representations of the accused focused on his middle-class existence, previous good works, and strong family support system. Despite the fact that Ramsay was found guilty of the crime, representations of him were generally positive, in stark comparison to those of his victim. In a second case study, authors dissect editorial coverage in the National Post about the 1999 controversy over Aboriginal fishing rights in Atlantic Canada. They show how journalists use literary techniques including irony, ridicule and humour to belittle the claims of Aboriginal groups. Use of negative stereotyping and use of literary techniques both allow the journalist to frame the event in a way that encourages the reader to accept a preferred reading.

The most recent and comprehensive analysis of media representations of Aboriginal people in Canada is found in Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers. Using techniques of discourse analysis, authors Mark Cronlund Anderson and Carmen L. Robertson deconstruct 12 media events about Aboriginal people from 1869 through 2009. The premise of the author’s argument is that coverage has not improved in any substantive way over the past 150 years. They argue, “It seems fair to think that many Canadians would be surprised, even shocked, to discover that newspaper imagery has not changed significantly since that time with respect to the application of colonialism as a lens through which to consider Indigenous people.”  (Anderson & Robertson 2011: 267). Furthermore, the authors expose three stereotypes that guide coverage over the period of study: “In general, it avers that Aboriginals, when compared to white Canadians, exemplify three essentialized sets of characteristics — depravity, innate inferiority, and a stubborn resistance to progress.” (8) However, their selective methodology allows for an incomplete picture of how media representations have evolved over Canada’s history. For example, for their analysis of the most recent coverage the authors look to the writing of conservative Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente. While many of her articles certainly do support the overall premise of the book, the existence of this material does not preclude the existence of articles that challenge stereotypes and colonial narratives.

Robert Harding (2006) undertakes a similar historical comparison of Aboriginal representation. In his article, “Historical Representations of Aboriginal People in the Canadian News Media,” Harding also uses discourse analysis and a case study approach to interpret single event coverage. He compares four media events in British Columbia, two taking place in the 1860s, and two in the 1990s. Harding names three primary frames that shape both the 1860s and 1990s stories: Aboriginal people as inferior/child-like, heroic white man saving primitive aboriginal people, and the triumph of reason over emotion. The first two frames dominate in the 1860s coverage, while the third is strongest in the stories from the 1990s. Like Cronlund and Anderson (2011), Harding argues that colonialism still dictates the dominant portrayals of Aboriginal people in the media. However, he also notes that some small progressive steps can be found in the articles from the 1990s. “The voices of aboriginal people, and many other voices that were formerly excluded altogether, have been selectively incorporated into discourse. The public has also demonstrated the potential for resisting racist and stereotypical interpretations of events” (Harding 2006: 231). Again, this analysis points to the frame as contested space. Certain narrative patterns may dominate, but they are rarely homogenous and unchallenged.

However, the extent to which the inclusion of Aboriginal voices alone can redirect framing is a subject for debate. Analysis of mainstream news media where Aboriginal people are quoted is quite limited. This is understandable, given that for much of Canada’s history, Aboriginal people’s voices were excluded from the media almost completely (Cronlund and Anderson 2001; Harding 2006). However, two studies by Robert Harding (2005, 2008) offer some preliminary findings. In “The Media, Aboriginal People and Common Sense,” Harding (2005) examines the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal actors and roles in 90 articles about Aboriginal issues from three BC newspapers from June 1 through September 30, 2002. For each article, up to three Aboriginal actor and three non-Aboriginal actors were coded for role as Hero, Villain, Survivor, Victim, None or Other (which could be written in). The author found that while 57 percent of non-Aboriginal actors in the news stories were coded as Heroes, only ten percent of Aboriginal actors were. Aboriginal actors were most likely to be described as Survivors (34%) or Villains (31%) (Harding 2005: 321). Harding acknowledges that this section of the coding methodology could be refined, as roles can be nuanced and multiple. He suggests the inclusion of a code for “Ally to Aboriginal People.” However, in Harding’s 2008 study on representation of Aboriginal child welfare in the media, he uses the same methodology to determine the roles of the various Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal actors. He examines 151 articles from 1993, 1998, and 2003 from the same three BC newspapers. He finds in this case that Aboriginal actors are most often portrayed as Victims, while non-Aboriginal actors are most ofter cast as Heroes and Villains. He also finds an increase of Aboriginal actors portrayed as Villains in 2003 compared with 1998 and 1993. While both of these articles are limited by their methodology and sample size, they provide a cursory look at how Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal actors are treated differently by the media. The findings suggest that simply including Aboriginal perspectives and voices may have limited consequence for the ways that Aboriginal people are framed in the media overall.

Another gap in the literature is analysis of Aboriginal people as active participants in the mainstream media and seekers of media attention. There is a great deal of scholarship analysing the use of Aboriginal media platforms, but little looking at the active role of Aboriginal people withing the mainstream media. However, two studies do acknowledge this process, if in peripheral ways. Robert Harding’s 2009 article, “News Reporting on Aboriginal Child Welfare: Discourses of White Guilt, Reverse Racism and Failed Policy,” compares the media coverage of two incidents where a child died under the care of a child welfare agency. Harding finds that involving a non-Aboriginal child and a non-Aboriginal welfare agency, responsibility for the death is first placed jointly on the child welfare system and the individual case workers involved. However, after two days the coverage shifts to focus the problem on the system on not on the mistakes of social workers. This shift was “possibly due in part to lobbying by social workers and their parent union, who protested that social workers had been unfairly targeted by the medical examiner’s report” (Harding 2009: 33). In the case involving an Aboriginal child under the care of an Aboriginal organization, no such shift occurs in the coverage. The findings suggest that unequal access to the media may persist in spite of active attempts by Aboriginal groups to shift and shape media discourse. However, the available evidence does not allow for any conclusive analysis of this relationship. Further investigation is not within the scope of my own research, but is a worthwhile area for further study.

A second article by Wilmer et al (2010) frames Aboriginal people as seekers of attention by the mainstream media. In “Packaging Protest: Media Coverage of Indigenous People’s Collective Action,” the authors attempt to discern which features of protests result in higher quality coverage by the press (length of articles, placement, inclusion of photo, quantity of coverage). Unlike other researchers in the area of press coverage of Aboriginal protest, the authors are not concerned with whether or not the coverage is favourable to Aboriginal interest groups, but only with the prominence that the issue receives in coverage. This framing suggests inclusion of Aboriginal issues on the media agenda positive thing in and of itself, and differs from other studies, which largely portray all or most media coverage of Aboriginal people as damaging. Although I don’t agree that prominence in portrayal is a necessarily desirable outcome of protest in all cases, the fact that Aboriginal people are actively engaged with mainstream media offers an important challenge to the stereotype of Aboriginal people as passive recipients. Although it is not the central question of my study, I will show how some Aboriginal academics have actively sought out representation in the mainstream media through the authoring of letters to the editor and opinion pieces. I hope to contribute to further conversation about Aboriginal people as actors in framing their own representations in the media.

 

3   Methodology

In order to answer the questions presented by my study, I will employ techniques of quantitative content analysis. Content analysis is a popular methodology for journalism research, as “observation of media content is a necessary condition for the analysis of possible media effects” (Kolmer 2008: 118). Several recent studies of Aboriginal representation in Canadian media have employed techniques of quantitative content analysis (Grenier 1994; Harding 2005, 2008; Keller 1994; Lambertus 2004; Skea 1993-1994; Wilker et al 2010). My study will consider both manifest and latent content. Manifest content includes data that can be unequivocally observed and counted, whereas latent content analysis based on reading “between the lines” (Kolmer 2008: 120). In analysing latent content of my sample, I rely also on techniques of frame analysis (Gitlin 1980, Hackett & Zhao 1996, Harding 2006). News frames are composed of “persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis, and exclusion, by which symbol-handlers routinely organize discourse” (Gitlin 1980: 7). Through structure, inclusion and exclusion, readers are asked to “accept the ‘preferred readings’ embedded in news accounts” (Hackett and Zhao 1996: 48).

 

3.1   Data sample

I have chosen to focus my study on the 27 self-identified Aboriginal faculty members at the University of British Columbia, as represented on UBC’s Aboriginal portal (http://aboriginal.ubc.ca/faculty). I searched each name using the UBC library Summon tool, which aggregates major article databases, including Canadian Newsstand Complete, Factiva, Access World News and other databases of news media content. I limited my search to “newspaper articles” from January 1, 2002 onward. Only articles from Canadian sources were included.

Additionally, the academic had to be quoted directly or indirectly in the piece. The quote could be from any source (e.g. interview, email, public appearance, press release, research report, other written work). Articles where the individual was mentioned but not quoted were excluded, as in these instances the academic cannot be considered a news source. This step excluded many articles where the academic was simply mentioned but not quoted. For example it would not be sufficent for inclusion in the sample to say, “National Aboriginal Day begins at 1 p.m. with an opening prayer and traditional presentation by Musqueam elder Larry Grant”. It is important to note that a bulk of articles were excluded on this basis, as they do not provide sufficient information for an in-depth analysis of how the academic has been represented.

Articles where the academic authored the piece in its entirety (letters to the editor, opinion pieces, special reports) were included, as they represent examples of Aboriginal academics actively engaging the news media and their audiences. This sub-set of the data was analysed separately as anecdotal evidence, and as a contrast to the main data set.

The search technique had to be refined for those academics with more common names, where a simple search yielded an unmanageable number of results. In these cases, I refined the search by adding additional keywords. Starting with “UBC” and “University of British Columbia,” I attempted to filter out articles referring to the specific individual I was looking for. In the interest of thoroughness, I also tried additional keywords from the faculty member’s biographical information, including research interests, affiliations and geographical locations. By trying multiple different searches until I was confident that I had hit the articles referring to the specific person I was looking for, I was able to distill my sample.The process yielded 151 articles representing 17 of the 27 Aboriginal faculty members at UBC.

 

3.2   Category selection

According to Holsti (1969), “categories should reflect the purposes of the research, be exhaustive, be mutually exclusive, independent, and be derived from a single classification principle” (95, emphasis in original). My study developed and adapts coding techniques from previous studies, particularly Harding (2008). The coding protocol was divided into three sections. The first recorded basic publication details, the second looked at content of the article overall, and the third looked at how the Aboriginal academic is represented specifically.

 

3.3.1   Publication details

This section recorded the headline of the article, the date of publication, the name of the newspaper, the name of the quoted academic, as well as any instances of re-publication over a news wire service.

 

3.3.2   Attributes of the article overall

In this section, I coded each article by topic. For each article, a primary topic was designated, and where applicable, a secondary topic. Topics were definted broadly, and additional topics could be written in so as to include all of the articles.

Next, the coding protocol asks, are Aboriginal topics included in the article at all? The inclusion of Aboriginal topics is defined broadly as any article that includes words such as “Aboriginal”, “Indian”, “Native” “First Nation(s)” “Indigenous”, when these terms are used in specific reference to the North American indigenous population. Reference to a specific tribe, band, nation or group (including “Metis” and “Inuit”) also qualify. The citation may occur anywhere in the article, including in reference to the Aboriginal identity of the quoted source. This question acknowledges that Aboriginal academics may be consulted by the media for reasons that extend beyond their Aboriginal identity and their expertise on Aboriginal topics.

A deeper investigation of Aboriginal content and themes was then conducted only for those articles where Aboriginal topics were mentioned. First, a cursory analysis of topics presented was collected on a “mention” basis. I looked for themes in portrayals, beginning with McCue’s (2011) WD4 rule: Warrior, Drumming, Dancing, Drunk, Dead. The list of common representations expanded to include other themes that came up in the articles, including negative statistics, poverty, health problems, and lack of educational success. Multiple mentions could be coded for each article.

A common complaint about news reporting is that it never includes sufficient history and context. I next considered a similar line of analysis based on “mentions” of historical events and other elements that add context to present day realities. Mentions were coded and grouped into themes, with multiple mentions being accepted for each article.

Next, I combed the articles looking for acknowledgement of present systemic barriers faced by Aboriginal people. I looked specifically for mentions of systems, institutions, laws or policies that unfairly disadvantage Aboriginal people today. The distinction between blaming current conditions on historical injustice and acknowledging continued structural barriers is a subtle but crucial one, and this question strives to create a measure for it.

Finally, a deeper analysis of narrative themes was then conducted. Specifically, I was looking for elements of Aboriginal culture that were being protrayed either as negative or positive within the framing of the article. It is crucial to note that this valuation does not represent my own interpretation of these elements as positive or negative, only my analysis of how they are framed within the story.

 

3.3.3   Representation of academics

The next section of the coding looked specifically at the role that the Aboriginal academic plays in the narrative. The first few questions established facts about the source’s inclusion in the story. Did the source author the article himself or herself? This question established the sub-set of letters-to-the-editor and other articles authored by Aboriginal academics and published in newspapers.

For the articles not authored by the academic, I asked a further set of questioned designed to establish their role in the piece. Is their Aboriginal heritage mentioned? This question established whether or not the academic’s Aboriginal heritage is overtly mentioned, and distinguished between specific mentions (e.g. “Metis”, “Sto:lo”) and general mentions (e.g. “Aboriginal”, “First Nations”). I asked this question to better understand if journalists consider Aboriginal heritage an important piece of information to convey to their readers.

I next asked, how did the journalist access the source? For inclusion in the data set, the academic had to be quoted in the story. However, they could have accessed the source either through a direct interview, or indirectly through a report or public appearance. The code allowed for “direct access”, “indirect access”, “both”, and “unclear”, for those articles where it was hard to tell how the journalist accessed the source. This question is significant because, in cases of indirect access, the academic has little agency in terms of directing the frame of the article, or even giving permission for their inclusion in the article.

I next asked two questions about the role of the academic in the article. The first distinguished between the source as “news-maker”, “affected party”, “explainer” and commentator”. They were considered a news maker when something they did or said was the subject of the news piece. The “affected party” code was used when the main subject of the article was about something someone else did or said, and the academic was consulted on the basis of how that action would affect them. In the rest of the articles, the academic was approached to either provide further explanation or commentary. In some cases they provided both facts and opinion, and in these cases I coded “commentator”.

I next asked, in what role was the academic included in the story? Each of the articles fell into one of the following four codes: “Expert / academic”, “Community leader / activist / politician”, “Artist”, and “Citizen”. If they filled more than one role, I asked what their primary role is and coded accordingly. I also recorded, for all articles, when an academic affiliation was listed. Since not all of the Aboriginal academics in my study have been at the University of British Columbia for over ten years, previous academic affiliations did come up in the data set.

The final question of the coding protocol integrated an understanding of the source’s role in the story with an evaluation of the overall frame. I determined whether the source challenges or supports the primary frame of the story. Hallin’s (1986) theory of the “spheres” of journalism is useful when considering this question. He suggests that works of journalism exists in one of three categories: legitimate controversy, consensus, and deviance. What we think of as “balance” in news stories (presenting both sides or all sides of the issue) exists only in the sphere of legitimate controversy. When there is a presumed societal consensus around an issue, on the other hand, “the journalist’s role is to serve as an advocate or celebrant of consensus values” (Hallin 1986: 117). Similarly, if there is presumed consensus around the deviance of a person or value, there is no perceived need to give voice to that perspective. The selection of the sphere is taken for granted, although it is in fact a tool for framing the narrative.

How much consensus or controversy does the journalist presume in constructing their article, and where is the Aboriginal academic placed within the debate? A determination of valence (positive, negative, neutral) can be difficult to code reliably. Here, I adapted the system presented by Kolmer (2008) for determining valuation regarding actors in news stories. He suggests six categories: neutral, positive, quite positive, ambivalent, quite negative, and negative (Kolmer 2008: 126). I suggest that the valuation of the actor be judged with respect to the overall frame of the article. Framing can be determined by analysing latent information from headlines, structure and content. The valence of the source’s role can be considered positive when it is in line with the overall frame of the article, and negative when it challenges that frame or presents an opposing view. The representation was considered quite positive or negative when it results in an implicit character judgement, similar to the categories of Hero or Villain employed by Harding (2008). With respect to Hallin’s (1986) theory, “Very positive” designation correlates with “consensus” narratives, whereas “Very negative” correlates with “deviance” narrative. The “Ambivalent” code exists in the sphere of  “legitimate controversy”, or the classic “he-said, she-said” narrative often associated with news reporting. The “Neutral” code was reserved for instances where information was insufficient to determine a frame and the academic’s place within it. This typically comprised of value-neutral, information based language on an un-controversial topic. This question is significant in it’s potential to add to understanding of how Aboriginal academics have been represented by the media.

 

4   Findings

Of the 27 academics listed at aboriginal.ubc.ca, 17 have been quoted in Canadian print media in the last 10 years. The search returned 101 unique articles, an average of six per academic. Fifteen articles from the sample were republished in at least one additional publication, usually through Canadian Press or other news wire service. In total, there we 50 instances of republication. For the purposes of the bulk of my analysis, only unique articles will be included in the data set, although I will note how many times an article was republished and by what source. It is, however, interesting to note that one duplicate article exists for every two unique articles. This finding confirms the trend noted in the literature towards increased reliance on prepackaged material and information subsidies (McCombs 2004).

 

4.1   Publications represented

Considering briefly the full sample including replications, 46 publications are represented. The Vancouver Sun accounted for over one fifth of the sample, followed by the Vancouver Courier, Windspeaker, and the Canadian Press. Prominence in Vancouver-based publications is perhaps unsurprising given that all of the academics are employed at the University of British Columbia. It is also understandable that Windspeaker accounts for a significant percentage of the sample, giving its focus on Aboriginal topics.

 

Table 1   Publications represented

Publication (n=151)	% of sample
Vancouver Sun	22
Vancouver Courier	7
Windspeaker (Edmonton)	6
Canadian Press (Toronto)	6
Globe and Mail (Toronto)	5
Whitehorse Star	4
Times-Colonist (Victoria)	3
Toronto Star	3
Observer (Sarnia)	3
National Post	3
Other	38

 

4.2   Topics

The rest of the findings consider only unique articles (n=101). The most frequent primary topics for the articles were politics/government, education, health/medicine, and the Ipperwash inquiry.

 

Table 2   Primary topic

Primary Topic (n=101)	% of sample
Politics / government	15
Education	15
Health / medicine	11
Ipperwash inquiry	10
Arts	7
Land claims / Aboriginal rights / Law	6
Media	6
Other	30

 

Land claims, Aboriginal rights, law, and residential schools were significant secondary topics in the articles.

 

Table 3   Topics presented (primary and secondary combined)

Topic (Primary or Secondary; n=101)	% of sample
Education	22
Politics / government	19
Land claims / Aboriginal rights / Law	17
Health / medicine	15
Ipperwash inquiry	10
Residential schools	9
Arts	7
Media	7

 

4.3   Aboriginal themes and content

Seventy-seven percent of the articles mentioned “Aboriginal” or another word denoting the indigenous people. This number jumps to 85 when excluding letters to the editor and other articles authored by the Aboriginal academic. All but two of these articles deal with Aboriginal topics or themes in a substantive way (beyond a one-off, throw-away mention).

The sample of articles where “Aboriginal” or a related word is not mentioned includes 14 articles authored by journalists and an additional authored by an academic himself. Charles Menzies, associate professor of anthropology at UBC, was quoted often in the media for his role in local education and politics, and none of these articles explicitly mention Aboriginal topics or perspectives. Menzies accounts for 12 of the articles and one of the letters-to-the-editor where there is no mention of indigeneity. Rod McCormick, associate professor of counselling psychology, wrote eight letters-to-the-editor over the sample period, none of which mention his Aboriginal heritage or respond to Aboriginal topics. Instead, he writes on a variety of topics, including local politics and consumer issues, often responding to previously published articles. Though anecdotal, these two examples point to the fact that Aboriginal academics have multi-faceted personalities, roles and experiences. Neither their Aboriginal identity nor their academic lives pervades every aspect of all that they do, as is apparent in these cases.

The next section of data presents findings related to those 76 articles that do deal with Aboriginal topics, meaning any article that mentions “Aboriginal” or a related word indicating indigeneity.

4.3.1   Themes and stereotypes in representations

Articles were coded for themes and stereotypes in representations of Aboriginal people. For the purposes of this question, any mention in the article would be coded as such, so long as it related to Aboriginal people in general, or a specific Aboriginal person. This question does not account for how these themes and representations were framed, and this will be addressed at a later point in this chapter. Two thirds of the articles mentioned at least one of the themes / attributes included in this list. The image of the Aboriginal person as protester / warrior was most common, followed by negative statistics about Aboriginal people as compared to non-Aboriginal people, and issues of poverty.

 

Table 4   Stereotypes and themes in portrayals

Stereotyped portrayal (multiple mentions accepted; n=76)	% of sample
At least one mention	66
Protestor / warrior	20
Negative statistics, as compared to non-Aboriginal people	18
Poverty / inadequate housing / “third world” conditions	17
Health problems (diabetes / HIV/AIDS / SIDS / H1N1 /cancer / reduced lifespan)	16
Alcohol / addiction	13
Failing / under-educated / illiterate	10
Dancing / drumming	9
Emotional	9
Violent	4
Suicide	3
Corruption	1
“Negative social challenges”	1

4.3.2   Inclusion of history and context

Despite these stereotyped representations, the majority of the articles mentioned relevant points of Aboriginal history or other contextual information. Like the previous question, any mention anywhere in the article was coded as such, regardless of the context in which the information was presented. Twelve percent of the articles mentioned the pre-colonial history of Aboriginal people in Canada. For example, one article mentioned “7,000 to 8,000 years of sustained use” of fisheries resources. Many articles mentioned elements of colonial history, especially land claims and treaties. For example, many articles about the Ipperwash inquiry detail the historical events that formed the context of the conflict there, as told to the inquiry by law professor Darlene Johnston. One reads, “In return for their allegiance, the British government bought up nearly 400,000 hectares of land to give to the displaces Six Nations people in 1784”. The residential school history was another frequently cited topic, usually as an explainer for current social problems faced by Aboriginal people. One such article mentions a high dropout rate for Aboriginal students, and then states, “Much of this stems from the pain and loss they suffered by being forced into residential schools”. One fifth of the articles mentioned colonialism, assimilation, and/or oppression overtly.

 

Table 5   History and context mentioned

History and context (multiple mentions accepted; n=76)	% of sample
At least one mention	57
Land claims / treaties	26
Colonialism / assimilation / oppression	20
Residential schools	16
Colonial history (other)	14
Pre-colonial history	12
Indian Act	5
“Sixties scoop”	1

 

There is a significant overlap between articles that provide stereotyped portrayals (from the previous question) and those that provide history / context.

 

Figure 1   Overlap between mentions of stereotypes and history / context (%)

 

4.3.3   Mention of current structural biases

There is a substantive difference between blaming current social ills on past injustices and acknowledging current structural barriers that contribute to ongoing inequality. In many articles, a reference to residential schools becomes short-hand for the sum total of the causes of all of the social problems facing Aboriginal people today, and in doing so rejects responsibility for examining current institutional inequalities. This allows for a “get over it” reaction to persistent social inequalities.

Examples of structural biases mentioned in this sample include acknowledgement of barriers to access in the health care system, recognition of how issues of governmental jurisdiction when it comes to Aboriginal people often find them excluded, and mention of the contribution of legal and bureaucratic barriers to timely resolution of land disputes. In comparison to over half of the articles mentioning historical context, 24 percent mention present-day systemic injustices. Nearly a quarter of these came from the alternative publication Windspeaker. Still, this number is not insignificant, and there is evidence that the Aboriginal academics had some agency in pushing these narratives: in over half of these cases, the mention of structural biases comes directly from a quote from the Aboriginal academic. In all cases, the mention comes from a news source, meaning that it is put forward by a character in the article and not by the journalist. This suggests that while journalists are open to the inclusion of these ideas, especially if they are voiced by an “expert”, they have to accept them as a legitimate frame. None of the articles focused on, investigated or deconstructed the structural bias mentioned by the source, it was simply mentioned and then the article moved on to the next point.

Finally, it is worth noting that the existence of institutional barriers that disadvantage certain groups remains a highly contested issue. In the only example in this sample where the journalist overtly attacks the perspective put forward by the academic, it is on this point that the journalist takes issue. With reference to a proposed Aboriginal-focusing mini school in Vancouver, opinion writer Mark Hasiuk accuses professor Jo-Ann Archibald of blaming the failure of Aboriginal students on “institutional racism,” and says that in doing so she “absolves aboriginal parents and students of personal responsibility”. He suggests that Aboriginal learners are in fact “richly served” by the current school system as compared to other ethnic groups, who by contrast have much higher learning outcomes. This example well expresses the tension between individualized and structural explanations for lack of success.

 

4.3.4   Narrative themes

When coding for narrative themes, I looked specifically for elements of Aboriginal culture framed within the article either as either strengths or weaknesses. I relied on both manifest and latent content to determine the valuation of these elements. For example, the mere mention of residential school history would not constitute a “victim” narrative, however a description of the experience as “devastating” would. Similarly, narratives of individual triumph over adversity may be critiqued for their tendency to individualize both the problem and the solution rather than look at root causes, however if it were framed within the article in a positive light, it was coded as such.

It is important to note that both the positive and negative narrative themes could in some cases be considered stereotypical representations, which potentially limit depth and diversity of representations of Aboriginal people. However, the finding that nearly a quarter of the articles expressed that reinvigorating Aboriginal culture, tradition and/or language is part of the solution to current inequalities is a hopeful one. This thesis is put forward by many of the Aboriginal academics quoted in these articles, and it appears that, to some extent, their message is being heard.

 

Table 6   Narrative themes

Narrative themes (multiple mentions accepted; n=76)	% of sample
At least one positive mention	55
Culture / tradition / language as part of the solution	22
Innately spiritual / connected to ancestors	22
Wisdom of elders / stories / oral history	14
Individual triumph over adversity	12
Stewards of environment / connected to land	12
Culture as business opportunity (e.g. tourism, cultural products)	4
Resiliency / cultural vitality	3
At least one negative mention	30
Victims / tragic / devastated	17
In conflict with development	8
Needy / dependent / drain on resources	4
Tradition in conflict with science / medicine	3

 

On the whole, narrative themes that framed Aboriginal people or elements of Aboriginal culture in positive ways were more pervasive, with over half of the sample expressing at least one mention. Additionally, there was a significant overlap, with one fifth of the sample expressing both positive and negative narrative themes.

 

Figure 2   Overlap between mentions of positive and negative narrative themes (%)

 

4.4  Self representation

Of the sample, 11 articles were authored by the Aboriginal academic, either as letter to the editor or full article or op-ed. Eight of these were authored by two of the academics, and a total of four academics are represented in this sample. Interestingly, all but one of these articles do not mention Aboriginal topics or issues at all. These letters discuss local politics, government, education, media and consumer issues without any mention of Aboriginal specific issues or perspectives. Perhaps not surprisingly, the authors do not self-identify as Aboriginal in any of these cases. With one exception, the author represents him/herself as “citizen” and does not list an academic affiliation. In the exceptional case, the article is written from an expert perspective, and an academic affiliation is given.

There is only one example of a self-authored article where the academic self-identifies as Aboriginal and speaks to Aboriginal topics. In this case, Richard Vedan critiques the Vancouver Sun for inaccurate and incomplete representations of a welcoming ceremony performed by the Okanagan Nation Alliance at the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan campus. He identifies himself as a member of the Secwepemc First Nation and as the director of UBC’s First Nations House of Learning. In this case, both his Aboriginal identity and his academic affiliation add gravitas to his critique, and it is therefore not surprising that this information is included.

While the sample of this section is quite limited, is does provide evidence for active engagement with the mainstream media on the part of Aboriginal academics. Furthermore, the almost total lack of examples where the academic references Aboriginal topics supports the idea that an academic’s Aboriginal identity does not limit them to commenting on Aboriginal issues.

 

4.5  Representations by journalists

The rest of this findings chapter will look at the 90 articles that were authored by a journalist and not self-authored by the academic.

 

4.5.1   Role

More than half of the time, the quoted academic was a news-maker: Something they did or said was the subject of the news piece. However, this designation is not perfect, as in many cases the thing being done that is the subject of the article is an act of explaining or commenting. For example, a large portion of the sample reported on the testimony given by law professor Darlene Johnston at the Ipperwash inquiry. Her testimony was the central subject of the news pieces, and her role was therefore coded as “news-maker”. However, within the context of the inquiry her role was that of an expert giving informational history and background that would inform the questions of the inquiry.

Aboriginal academics were also quoted in the news as commentators and explainers in a strict sense, meaning that the main subject of the article was an action undertaken by someone else, and the academic was approached as an outside expert perspective offering contextual information and / or opinion. They were least likely to fill the role of affected party, meaning someone who is directly affected by the action that forms the basis of the article, and is asked to comment from that perspective.

This data is significant because it shows that much of the time when Aboriginal academics are in the news, it is as a result of some action that they have taken. They may have limited ability to choose whether or not to engage with media when they are the subject of the piece, rather than when they are called up to comment on a story in which they are not directly involved.

 

Table 7   Actor type

Actor type (n=90)	% of sample
News-maker	56
Commentator	27
Explainer	16
Affected party	2

While the subject’s role in the article is most likely to be that of an expert or academic, they are also quoted in their roles as community leaders, activists, politicians, artists, and citizens. For example, Musqueam elder Larry Grant is far more likely to be included in a news piece based on his leadership within the Musqueam community than based on his affiliation with UBC. Visual artist Dana Claxton and Dr. Evan Adams have both been quoted in the media based on their artistic endeavours, unrelated to their academic pursuits. And on occasion Aboriginal academics got caught up in a news event in which they represent an every-day citizen, such as when psychology professor Rod McCormick’s electricity was shut off by B.C. Hydro because his home had been illegally rewired by a previous resident.

 

Table 8   Role

Role (n=90)	% of sample
Expert / academic	72
Community leader / activist / politician	17
Artist	9
Citizen	2

An academic affiliation is listed 63 percent of the time. This figure jumps to 72 percent among the articles where the primary role is as an expert / academic (n=65).

 

4.5.2   Mention of Aboriginal heritage

Despite the fact that the vast majority of the articles deal with Aboriginal content and themes, most of them do not mention the Aboriginal heritage of the quoted academic. However, when a heritage is given, it is more likely to reference a specific band or nation affiliation, rather than a general word indicating indigeneity such as “Aboriginal” or “First Nations”.

It is difficult to speculate on why the Aboriginal heritage would be omitted in the majority of articles. Presumably in many cases the journalist did not ask, either because they did not feel it was relevant information or felt like the question might be interpreted as inappropriate. In some cases, it is possible that the heritage is implied instead of stated outright. For example, referring to Dr. Evan Adams as the “aboriginal health physician adviser” does not necessarily mean that he is himself of Aboriginal heritage, although it is possible that the journalist assumed that the reader would be led to that conclusion.

Whether or not the journalist chooses to provide that information explicitly points to whether or not they believe it to be significant information. Does Aboriginality convey a level of expertise when speaking to Aboriginal issues? Does it matter if the “aboriginal health physician adviser to the Provincial Health Officer” is himself of Aboriginal heritage? While the academic does in most cases have some control over how they represent themselves to journalists, ultimately it is up to the journalist to decide what information is included and excluded.

 

Table 9   Aboriginal heritage

Aboriginal heritage (n=90)	% of sample
Specific	33
General	9
None given	58

 

4.5.3   Access to source

The journalist had direct communication with the academic in about two thirds of the articles. In other cases, they accessed the academic through reports, press releases, public appearances or other indirect means. This is significant because it means that in nearly a third of the sample, the academic had no direct interaction with the journalist responsible for their representation. In these cases, the ability of the academic to direct the framing of the article can be assumed to be quite limited.

 

Table 10   Method of access to source

Method of access to source (n=90)	% of sample
Direct (interview in person, by phone, by email)	64
Indirect (press release, research report, public appearance, etc.)	29
Both	4
Unclear	2

 

4.5.4   Valence

In contrast to the idea that reporting should tell “both sides of the story”, this study found that the majority of articles presented a single thesis or perspective, and included voices supporting that view. Overwhelmingly, the contribution of the academic supports the overall frame of the article. This is perhaps unsurprising since the act of framing involves a process of inclusion and exclusion; the academic’s voice is necessarily a part of the framing by virtue of its inclusion. Furthermore, given that the academic is the primary “news-maker” in over half of the articles, it is unsurprising that the overall thesis of the article falls in line with the academic’s contribution. For example, when a headline reads, “Iroquois have unique history on their side, professor says,” the reader expects that the article will detail and explain the possition put forward by the professor. This, however, does not mean that the article represents a full or accurate representation of the position expressed by the academic, as the journalist could have selectively included information in order to support a thesis that they had conceived of previously.

In 10 percent of the sample, the academic was spotlighted, celebrated or otherwise featured in order to merit a “very positive” designation. In considering this designation, I looked for positive, value-laden terms describing the academic or their work, such as “brilliant”, “highly praised”, or “highly honoured”. It is worth noting that nearly half of these articles came from Windspeaker, the only alternative and Aboriginal-focused publication in the sample. This publication was much more likely to praise and celebrate Aboriginal academics than mainstream news sources.

Eighteen percent of the articles took an ambivalent he-said-she-said approach, with the academic representing one side of the story on an issue where there was legitimated controversy. Nearly half of these came from articles that spoke to local politics, with no mention of Aboriginal topics or perspectives. Political reporting lends itself easily to this ambivalent presentation, given its partisan nature.

The valence was coded as negative in only one instance. In this opinion piece, the position of the academic was presented and then attacked by the journalist, who proposed an opposing view of the problem. The “very negative” code was reserved for instances when the academic was presented as a villain or as deviant, and no examples of this exist in the data set.

None of the articles were coded as neutral, as the act of selectively including information in a story is not a neutral act and necessarily contributes to a frame or perspective.

 

Table 11   Valence

Valence (n=90)	% of sample
Very positive	10
Positive	71
Ambivalent	18
Neutral	0
Negative	1
Very negative	0

 

5   Discussion and Conclusions

The conclusions put forward by this study are limited by the sample size. I have looked only at 27 academics from one institution, only 17 of whom have been quoted in newspapers over the last ten years. As this study has shown, Aboriginal academics are far from homogenous group, and their individual careers, histories and experiences greatly affect the ways in which they are represented in the media. A sample of 27 different Aboriginal academics certainly would have turned up a different set of results. Still, the findings of this study point to reasons to be cautiously optimistic.

There is evidence that the articles included in my study do not simply represent the same old stories about Aboriginal people. First of all, a great diversity of topics is represented. A portion of the sample does not discuss Aboriginal people, topics or issues at all, an acknowledgement that an Aboriginal identity is not an all-consuming identifier of all aspects of a person’s life.

However, reporting that focuses on “problems” associated with Aboriginal communities and cultures still dominates. The mention of social problems is not in itself a bad thing, as this acknowledgement is often a necessary starting point for moving forward towards healthier futures. That being said, when much of the reporting about Aboriginal people is problem-based it excludes and diminishes the experiences of Aboriginal people that do not fit within this framework.

A common critique of reporting about Aboriginal people is that it does not include sufficient historical and contextual information to understand present-day realities. This sample showed that there were in fact frequent mentions of pieces of history and context, especially as explainers for current social problems facing Aboriginal individuals and communities. However, a deeper look at this question reveals that references to colonial abuses, especially the residential school system, is represented as a catch-all explanation for the current inequalities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. This simplified explanation does not allow for an exploration of current structural barriers facing marginalized communities.

Perhaps the most promising finding of this study is that present-day structural barriers are mentioned in a significant percentage of the data set, although beyond mentions they are not given much space, consideration or exploration. These mentions are invariably given in someone else’s words (besides the journalist’s), and this can be interpreted as an indication that journalists view ideas about structural biases as valid opinions but not accepted facts. This suggestion is supported by the existence of an opinion piece where the journalist challenges the academic’s stance on institutional racism, putting forward in its place an individualized model of success. Although a substantive discussion about the roles and implications of systemic barriers does not occur in the articles under examination in this study, journalists do for the most part seem to be open to the suggestion, and academics appear to have a significant role in relaying the message.

However, the agency of an academic quoted in a news article is limited for several reasons. In nearly a third of the sample, the journalist did not have direct access to the academic, meaning that they quoted the individual based on a report, public presentation, or other public transmission. In these cases, there is no direct, back-and-forth communication between the journalist and the academic. Although academics have control over how they present themselves publicly, they have little say on how this presentation will be interpreted by journalists. From this it can be inferred that any pre-existing frames or assumptions held by the journalist are likely to go unchallenged.

Even when an academic has direct access to a journalist, they only have control over there representation in the context of the interview itself. Besides checking facts and quotes, it is rare for journalists to return to a source for advice on story content, format, structure or angle. This lack of agency is not necessarily a bad thing. As a journalist myself I believe that journalists must retain editorial independence over their work, and be faithful to their own observations and interpretations. However, journalists also have a duty to report all stories with a willingness to be flexible and accept new and challenging information. It is not the duty of academics to educate journalists on Aboriginal culture and history, although they perhaps may find themselves in this role.

This study presents both a challenge and a promise to journalists and Aboriginal academics alike. This admittedly small sample of articles appears to in some cases challenge much of the literature about the ways in which Aboriginal people have been represented in Canadian newspapers. However, this is not the end of the story. My hope is that this research will foster new conversations between and among Aboriginal academics and journalists about how to deepen and improve the media narratives about Aboriginal people in this country.

Bibliography

Anderson, Mark Cronlund and Carmen L Robertson (2011). Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

 

Atton, Chris and Emma Wickenden (2005). “Sourcing Routines and Representation in Alternative Journalism: A Case Study Approach,” Journalism Studies 6(3): 347-359.

 

Chan, Sophia (1998). Media Use of Expert Souces and its Effect on Public Opinion. PhD thesis. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

 

Francis, Daniel (1992). The Imaginary Indian: The Image of the Indian in Canadian Culture. Vancouver: Arsenal.

 

Furniss, Elizabeth (2000). The Burden of History: Colonialism and the Frontier Myth in a Rural Community. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

 

_____ (2001). “Aboriginal Justice, the Media, and the Symbolic Management of Aboriginal/ Euro-Canadian Relations.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 25:2, pp. 1-36.

 

Gitlin, Todd (1980). The Whole World is Watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.

 

Grenier, Marc (1994). “Native Indians in the English-Canadian Press: The Case of the Oka Crisis,” Media, Culture & Society 16: 313-336.

 

Hackett, Robert A. and Yuezhi Zhao (1996). “Are Ethics Enough?: Objective Journalism versus Sustainable Democracy.” Pp. 44-58 in Deadlines and Diversity: Journalism Ethics in Changing World. Valerie Alia et al, eds., Halifax: Fernwood.

 

Hallin, Daniel C. (1986). The ‘Uncensored War: The Media and Vietnam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Harding, Robert (2005). “The Media, Aboriginal People and Common Sense.” Canadian Journal of Native Studies 25:1, pp. 311-335.

 

_____ (2006). “Historical Representations of Aboriginal People in the Canadian News Media.” Discourse & Society 17, pp. 205-235.

 

_____ (2008). “Aboriginal Child Welfare: Symbolic Battleground in the News Media.” Pp. 290-329 in Aboriginal Canada Revisited. Kerstin Knopf, ed., Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

 

_____ (2009). “News Reporting on Aboriginal Child Welfare: Discourses of White Guilt, Reverse Racism and Failed Policy.” Canadian Social Work Revue 26:1, pp. 25-39.

 

Henderson, Paul (2011, September 6). “Course aims to improve native reporting”. Chilliwack Times.

 

Henry, Frances and Carol Tator (2002). Discourses of Domination: Racial Bias in the Canadian English-Language Press. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

 

Holsti, Ole R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. London: Addison-Wesley.

 

Keller, Elizabeth Andrea (1994). Anglos with Feathers: A Content Analysis of French and English Media Coverage in Quebec on the Oka Crisis of 1990. MA thesis. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.

 

Kolmer, Christian (2008). “Methods of Journalism Research – Content Analysis”. Pp. 117-130 in Global Journalism Research: Theories, Methods, Findings, Future. Martin Loffelholz and David Weaver, eds., Oxford: Blackwell.

 

Lambertus, Sandra (2004). Wartime Images, Peacetime Wounds: The Media and the Gustafsen Lake Standoff. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

 

Loffelholz, Martin (2008). “Heterogeneous – Multidimensional – Competing: Theoretical Approaches to Journalism – An Overview”. Pp. 15-27 in Global Journalism Research: Theories, Methods, Findings, Future. Martin Loffelholz and David Weaver, eds., Oxford: Blackwell.

 

McCombs, Maxwell (2004). Setting the Agenda: The News Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity.

 

McCue, Duncan (2011). “News Stereotypes of Aboriginal People,” Reporting in Indigenous Communities.http://www.riic.ca/the–guide/at–the–desk/news–stereotypes–of–aboriginal–peoples/

 

Miller, David (1993). “Official Sources and ‘Primary Definition’: The Case of Northern Ireland,” Media, Culture and Society 15: 385-406.

 

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996a). Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: The Commission.

 

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996b). People to People, Nation to Nation: Highlights from the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.

 

Society of Professional Journalists (1996). Code of Ethics.http://www.spj.org/pdf/ethicscode.pdf

 

Skea, Warren H. (1993-1994). “The Canadian Newspaper Industry’s Portrayal of the Oka Crisis,” Native Studies Review 9(1): 15-31.

 

Wilker, Rima, Catherine Corrigall-Brown & Daniel J. Myers (2010). “Packaging Protest: Media coverage of Indigenous people’s collective action,” Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadien