Canada's Self-Esteem Issues

[I miss Reagan]

Once again the experts are pointing out the obvious, that Canada has an inferiority complex when it comes to the US. This time one of those to point it out was a Liberal! Maybe we are entering bizzaro world. I hope everyone got a chance to read what Frank McKenna said last week. Simply, Canadians need to stop being smug and take the chip off their shoulders. He also pointed out that Americans don't take much notice of us, but when they do it usually about Canadian attacks, "endlessly moralizing about what they should be doing differently".

That Frank McKenna....

More recently the Fraser Institute published a report proving gross Anti-Americanism in reporting by the CBC. (like we needed scientific proof).

The main issue, constituting 27 percent of the coverage, was relations

between Canada and the United States. Within this category 41 percent of

statements were neutral. Of the remainder, statements were over twice as

likely to be negative as positive regarding Canada/US relations (39 percent

versus 18.9 percent).

In total, despite the relative short period of time after the 9/11

attacks, the CBC's opinion statements of America during 2002 were

overwhelmingly critical of American policy, American actions, and American

purposes.

    "CBC has certainly claimed an important agenda-setting role for itself.

To the extent it deserves the reputation it covets, the corporation is at

least partly responsible for enhancing and sustaining anti-Americanism in

Canada following the 2001 terrorist attacks. CBC, in short, helped turn the

joint outrage of Canada and the United States at the terrorists into mistrust

and animosity between the two neighbours," Cooper concluded.

News Wire

[Newfie Canadian]

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Wouldn't this be more at home in Canada/US Relations?

I digress.

I like Frank, he's, well, frank about it.

I think our preoccupation with and concentration on the US needs to be lessened considerably. Granted it's hard to do the amount of integration there is.

[Guest eureka]

Like the Fraser Instituts would know waht positive or negative or neutral mean! They start with the bias that anything that does not laud "Right Wing" economics is negative or, at best, neutral.

Also, have they considered that in the time period since the WTC, just about everything America has done deserves negative comment?

Is there one positive to say about the Bush administration or the direction it has taken in any sphere.

If those figures bear any semblance to reality, then I am going to complain ti the CRTC about the CBC's bias towards "Right Wing" economics and American Jingoism and aggression.

[The Terrible Sweal]

More recently the Fraser Institute published a report proving gross Anti-Americanism in reporting by the CBC.

The Fraser Institute are distortionists par excellence. Consider:

The main issue, constituting 27 percent of the coverage, was relations

between Canada and the United States. Within this category 41 percent of

statements were neutral. Of the remainder, statements were over twice as

likely to be negative as positive regarding Canada/US relations (39 percent

versus 18.9 percent).

In other words, almost 60% of reports were neutral or favourable.

[I miss Reagan]

I like Frank, he's, well, frank about it.

I think our preoccupation with and concentration on the US needs to be lessened considerably. Granted it's hard to do the amount of integration there is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you read the Fraser article Newf? It seems to support the conversations you and I have had before on this topic. That anti-Americanism is more a product of Southern Ontario rather than regions like the Maritimes and elsewhere. Pretty interesting that it supports our own anecdotal experiences.

Like the Fraser Instituts would know waht positive or negative or neutral mean! They start with the bias that anything that does not laud "Right Wing" economics is negative or, at best, neutral.

Read the article and the methodology ya spaz.

In other words, almost 60% of reports were neutral or favourable.

I know Sweal, for you this is simply unacceptable. Perhaps if you got a job at the CBC you could lobby to work that number down to at least 25% neutral and 75% negative.

[Black Dog]

Red Star columnist on why the Fraser is out to lunch again.

1. The National is just one program on two of CBC's four over-the-air networks. But the study extends its ''anti-American" charge to the entire corporation.

That's just junk science, the label Fraser Institute types affix to claims of global warming.

2. The period is hardly representative. It was a highly-charged political time in Canada, when there was much debate over joining the U.S. war effort.

More bad science.

BTW: The Fraser Institute might not like to remember this, but most Canadians opposed that war. Now most Americans disapprove of how the war is being waged.

3. It did not help that four of our troops were killed and eight injured when an American F-16 dropped a bomb on them in 2002.

But the Fraser study only mentions that incident once, and in passing, and says that it was given a "negative spin."

And the positive spin would be ... um ... er ... ?

In other words, almost 60% of reports were neutral or favourable.

I know Sweal, for you this is simply unacceptable. Perhaps if you got a job at the CBC you could lobby to work that number down to at least 25% neutral and 75% negative

Textbook IMR stuff here, folks: his premise shot to pieces, he ralllies by reading his opponent's mind!

[I miss Reagan]

I'm shocked! I'm shocked a Toronto Star blogger would defend the CBC. Especially after the article pointed to S. Ontario as the prime anti-American market feeding the CBC's bias. And Global Warming!? WTF? Talk about a Red Herring. "Textbook leftist stuff" here BD, attack the source when you can't refute the substance. I think the fact that you leftists and the Toronto Star so adamantly defend the CBC only further proves what is so obviously true. That the CBC is state-run propeganda machine. I can't help but laugh when I think of Maplesyrup claiming how balanced the CBC is. We all know his point of view.

[Black Dog]

"Textbook leftist stuff" here BD, attack the source when you can't refute the substance.

Wow, you copy and paste good. That doesn't change the fact that Sweal's point stands.

[Newfie Canadian]

Did you read the Fraser article Newf? It seems to support the conversations you and I have had before on this topic. That anti-Americanism is more a product of Southern Ontario rather than regions like the Maritimes and elsewhere. Pretty interesting that it supports our own anecdotal experiences.

Yes, finally, after a missing cat and my daughter's kindergarten graduation.

I found the report intriguing, especially the notion of the Garrison Mentality.

I can agree with parts of it, like the difference in attitudes of Canadians in different parts of the country towards the US, but I believe that the numbers have to taken with a grain of salt, because the methodology used and materials used have to be subjective. There can't be a hard and solid line to differentiate between positive, negative and neutral.

For example, how negative does it have to be to be negative?

[I miss Reagan]

Yes, you certainly have to take any use of numbers and statistical analysis with a grain of salt. And yes what constitutes a negative or a positive comment could be subjective. However, I'm not sure if it was in the report or I heard Cooper discussing the methodology, but they used 2 "independent" researchers to decide what comment was negative, positive or neutral. When neither could agree on whether the comment was positive or negative is went in the neutral category.

[Newfie Canadian]

You're right IMR, it's in the report.

Two researchers from the University of Windsor performed the content analysis. One researcher conducted the text search, compiled the statements on America, and provided an initial categorization and assessment of “spin.” A second researcher also categorized the statements,

acting as a second opinion on the “spin” of the statement. In other words, all statements were categorized by two people working independently. Disagreements

were noted and, if agreement could not be reached, the statement was identified as ambiguous.

I stand corrected.

As I said though, an intriguing article.

I even took the opportunity to do a little research on Northrop Frye.

Interesting guy.

[August1991]

That Fraser Institute Report is interesting.

At the centre of a mythical and symbolic anti-Americanism is what Frye called the “garrison mentality,” a broad view of the world disproportionately maintained and believed in by Canadians living in the Loyalist heartland of southern Ontario. Other parts of the country—Newfoundland and Alberta, for example—have contrasting forms of consciousness and contrasting myths that accord little or no significance to emotional anti-Americanism. The anti-Americanism of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), we argue, is a faithful reflection of “garrison mentality.”

In Quebec, there is a similar division. People outside of Montreal are less anti-American than those in Montreal. The greatest anti-Americanism is among Montreal anglophones.

Thus, for example, a generation ago John Warnock concluded his editorial in Canadian Dimension, “Why I am Anti-American,” with the words “I am a Canadian nationalist, or as the Liberals prefer, anti-American”.  For him, the two positions, anti-Americanism and Canadian nationalism, were interchangeable. In his essay, Warnock emphasized his distaste for the American values of competitiveness, free markets, and self-interest. By the same token, attacking American values is also an attack on otherwise loyal, not to say patriotic, Canadians who share them.

With respect to the finding that 49% of reports were neutral:

This is somewhat smaller than what previous studies have found. It should be noted that the proportion of neutral statements on other issues such as unemployment fall in the range between 68% and 75%. The CBC was the outlier in that study, where 55% of their statements were neutral.

(34% were negative, 16% positive and 1% ambiguous.)

BD, this is not junk science. The bulk of CBC stories concerned specifically Canada-US relations - not the events of September 2001 which, if anything, seemed to have a positive spin.

This is a classic example of the kind of bias the report found:

It is certainly true that Jean Chrétien was the focus of the increasingly tense relations between the two countries. So far as CBC was concerned, however, the good relations existing between former Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, and the two Bush administrations was also a problem. Thus on November 19, 2002, when Mulroney’s portrait was hung in the gallery of the House of Commons, a CBC reporter, Paul Hunter, noted that it was “a moment of pride for Mulroney, though marred today by a reminder of an oft-cited criticism against him that he was too cozy with the Americans.”

BD, I think you have an ideological disagreement with the US government and perhaps even with "USian" society. That is your right. But the bias demonstrated in this report is the knee-jerk, schoolyard "My Dad is better than your Dad" type.

Trudeau learned quickly that to get votes in English-Canada, he had to tweak the American nose every so often. Since it was in his nature to tweak noses, I'm sure he felt comfortable in the role.

[Fortunata]

When there is something positive that happens in the USA then it will be reported positively. Unfortunately there hasn't been much in the past couple years. Even Global's USA coverage is negative lately. I mean how positive can you be about a country that reneges on NAFTA treaties like they were never signed, their constant yammering on about how terrorists are pouring over the border from Canada, that wages war on countries just because they can, not because they have to (Iraq), that ignores international treaties/conventions because they want to; that malign anyone or any country that dares to say no to them or dare criticize them? I mean c'mon. Just how much positive is there these days?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Two researchers from the University of Windsor performed the content analysis. One researcher conducted the text search, compiled the statements on America, and provided an initial categorization and assessment of “spin.” A second researcher also categorized the statements,

acting as a second opinion on the “spin” of the statement. In other words, all statements were categorized by two people working independently. Disagreements

were noted and, if agreement could not be reached, the statement was identi?ed as ambiguous.

This is the very defnition of junk science. This little squib epitomizes dishonest representation. What's pathetic is the transparency of the stupidity.

One (Institute selected) researcher at U of W selected the items and put her initial spin on it. A second (institute selected) researcher reacts to the spin of the first. And the Fraser Insttiue pretends they are somehow independent and objective. Mindboggling.

[August1991]

TS, do you know what the word "independent" means?

You are welcome to quibble over the number of people (two) involved but the methodology is sound.

[The Terrible Sweal]

TS, do you know what the word "independent" means?

You are welcome to quibble over the number of people (two) involved but the methodology is sound.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Come on, August, have a little regard for your own credibility. The methodology is a joke. The researchers are neither independent of the Institute, nor of eachother. And the ctegoizing process each used seems to have been entirely subjective.

It's just ridiculous. The headline should be: "CBC biased: Two rightwing grad students agree!"

[Shakeyhands]

When there is something positive that happens in the USA then it will be reported positively.  Unfortunately there hasn't been much in the past couple years.  Even Global's USA coverage is negative lately.  I mean how positive can you be about a country that reneges on NAFTA treaties like they were never signed, their constant yammering on about how terrorists are pouring over the border from Canada, that wages war on countries just because they can, not because they have to (Iraq), that ignores international treaties/conventions because they want to; that malign anyone or any country that dares to say no to them or dare criticize them?  I mean c'mon.  Just how much positive is there these days?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly... Great post Fortunata. Some will support the US no matter what, its nice to see an honest post as to why you'd be inclined not to....

Beef, Softwood, Wheat, Foreign Policy, WTO, UN etc etc... the list goes on and on.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... John Warnock concluded his editorial in Canadian Dimension, “Why I am Anti-American,” with the words “I am a Canadian nationalist, or as the Liberals prefer, anti-American”.  For him, the two positions, anti-Americanism and Canadian nationalism, were interchangeable.

Classic Fraser Institute distortion. Clearly Warnock was arguing that others saw Canadian nationalism as equivalent to anti-americanism.

How can people take an organization like the FI seriously when it continues to produce this kind of pure mischief?

This is a classic example of the kind of bias the report found:

... on November 19, 2002, when Mulroney’s portrait was hung in the gallery of the House of Commons, a CBC reporter, Paul Hunter, noted that it was “a moment of pride for Mulroney, though marred today by a reminder of an oft-cited criticism against him that he was too cozy with the Americans.”

A protester had interrupted the ceremony that day. How the hell is Hunter's comment reflective of any kind of bias???

[I miss Reagan]

Interesting. Recent poll supports the theory of the Canadian "Garrison Mentality".

Canadians believe U.S. President George W. Bush is almost as great a threat to our national security as Osama bin Laden, according to a government opinion poll obtained by the National Post.

Bush = BinLaden. Fits well with the rhetoric from the usual suspects eh?

Bush = BinLaden

[The Terrible Sweal]

Interesting.  Recent poll supports the theory of the Canadian "Garrison Mentality". 

Canadians believe U.S. President George W. Bush is almost as great a threat to our national security as Osama bin Laden, according to a government opinion poll obtained by the National Post.

Bush = BinLaden. Fits well with the rhetoric from the usual suspects eh?

Bush = BinLaden

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'Canadians believe'. What were the actual numbers, I wonder. Wouln't it be more likely that 'Equal numbers of Canadians view Bush as a threat as view bin Laden as a threat'?

[theloniusfleabag]

IMR,

Bush = BinLaden.  Fits well with the rhetoric from the usual suspects eh?

Well, you've heard it on this forum, you've heard it in the news, now there is a poll that echoes the sentiments..(mind you, I have only seen you use the 'equals sign'). Have you a point or a rebuttal?

[I miss Reagan]

IMR,

Bush = BinLaden.  Fits well with the rhetoric from the usual suspects eh?

Well, you've heard it on this forum, you've heard it in the news, now there is a poll that echoes the sentiments..(mind you, I have only seen you use the 'equals sign'). Have you a point or a rebuttal?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm at a loss. I think the poll and the comments speak for themselves. How can I argue with irrational opinions except to respond with my own rational opinion. That opinion would be that those who would compare the US (Bush) with AlQueda (OBL) are either clueless and or willfully ignorant. But I don't want to degenerate this thread into the same old Bush bashing tantrums. The point of the poll was to support the premise that Canadians are fed, and eat up, anti-Americanism.

[Shakeyhands]

IMR,

Bush = BinLaden.  Fits well with the rhetoric from the usual suspects eh?

Well, you've heard it on this forum, you've heard it in the news, now there is a poll that echoes the sentiments..(mind you, I have only seen you use the 'equals sign'). Have you a point or a rebuttal?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm at a loss. I think the poll and the comments speak for themselves. How can I argue with irrational opinions except to respond with my own rational opinion. That opinion would be that those who would compare the US (Bush) with AlQueda (OBL) are either clueless and or willfully ignorant. But I don't want to degenerate this thread into the same old Bush bashing tantrums. The point of the poll was to support the premise that Canadians are fed, and eat up, anti-Americanism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So again, please remind us, seeing as though the 'Left Wing Media" doesn't, what it is exactly that the US is doing to garner our unconditional support and allegiance? It one thing to point out how evil us Canucks are in our staunch anti Americanism, quite another to support some arguments as to why we should or shouldn't have these opinions... ?

[Black Dog]

I'm at a loss. I think the poll and the comments speak for themselves. How can I argue with irrational opinions except to respond with my own rational opinion. That opinion would be that those who would compare the US (Bush) with AlQueda (OBL) are either clueless and or willfully ignorant. But I don't want to degenerate this thread into the same old Bush bashing tantrums. The point of the poll was to support the premise that Canadians are fed, and eat up, anti-Americanism.

Your "rational opinion"? That's a larff. Your opinion is the same as anyone else who spouts off about Canadians' congenital anti-Americanism. No analyisis, nor do you question why Canadians who believe "U.S. Foreign Policy" (not George W. Bush, as the story suggests) poses a threat to our national security believe as they do. It's knee-jerk pro-Americanism. A child's faith in their daddy.

My real question here is, even if "Canadians are fed, and eat up, anti-Americanism", SFW?

The U.S. doesn't care what we think. Our opinions, positive or negative, have no bearing on U.S. policies and opinions. Canadians know this and are getting fed up with the constant hand-wringing from pundits who wail about how anti-American sentiment is posioning relations between the two countries. The past few years have shown Canadians that our opinions are not respected in Washington, whether it's on issues of trade, security or international relations. The current U.S. regime demands obediance and fealty, and does not welcome diversity of opinions. This is not a recipe for cordial discourse. Quite simply Canadians have looked across the border at the political and social climate and don't like what they see.

Do Canadians have an inferiority complex with respect to the States? Sure, but that's what living under a constant barrage of opinions (again, usually from the right) saying Canada is weak, Candians are stupid, etc etc. will do. Imagine two kids, one big, strong, loud and aggressive; the other, younger, quieter, more bookish and introspective. Imagine how kid #2 would turn out if he spent his entire life being told to be more like his big brother and that he's "weak" and "irrelevant" because he's not. Think that kid would have an inferiority complex?

[I miss Reagan]

Your "rational opinion"? That's a larff. Your opinion is the same as anyone else who spouts off about Canadians' congenital anti-Americanism.

There you are BD, I was wondering if you respond to the "rational opinion" comment . To be honest BD, as much as I can't stand your political opinions, I do think you are sincere for the most part. I actually think you want what's best for society.

My real question here is, even if "Canadians are fed, and eat up, anti-Americanism", SFW?

Actually a good question. Ya so what if Canadians are anti-American? I have no problem with the differences we have on issues like BMD, health care, decriminalizing MJ, etc. I don't even have a problem with Canadians being annoyed with Americans. What bothers me is when it crosses the line into hatred and utter intolerance, which it has. Even more troublesome are politicians and the government run TV station encouraging this with hate talk. Not only is it unfair, but it's hypocritical coming from a country that prides itself on being open and accepting of all peoples no matter where they come from. It's personally offensive to me. As ideolically right we may be, it doesn't help our cause to spit in their face just to make ourselves feel better. It doesn't help our farmers, our forestry workers, our auto workers, or our fishermen.

The U.S. doesn't care what we think. Our opinions, positive or negative, have no bearing on U.S. policies and opinions. Canadians know this and are getting fed up with the constant hand-wringing from pundits who wail about how anti-American sentiment is posioning relations between the two countries. The past few years have shown Canadians that our opinions are not respected in Washington, whether it's on issues of trade, security or international relations. The current U.S. regime demands obediance and fealty, and does not welcome diversity of opinions. This is not a recipe for cordial discourse. Quite simply Canadians have looked across the border at the political and social climate and don't like what they see.

I think you are right, they don't care what we think and don't give us much thought... except when we go out of our way to offend them. And I agree, that we aren't treated fairly by the US in terms of trade. They take advantage of our small size and generally ignore us. Does this mean we should act the same way or take it to an even lower level by bitterly spewing hate whenever we're given a platform? And in terms of defence, security and international relations I'm not sure how someone can argue that we should have any say when we do not make any significant contributions, and I'm not talking about going to war in Iraq. In fact in many cases we appear to hinder the US in defence rather than help them, but that should be save for another thread.

Do Canadians have an inferiority complex with respect to the States? Sure, but that's what living under a constant barrage of opinions (again, usually from the right) saying Canada is weak, Candians are stupid, etc etc. will do. Imagine two kids, one big, strong, loud and aggressive; the other, younger, quieter, more bookish and introspective. Imagine how kid #2 would turn out if he spent his entire life being told to be more like his big brother and that he's "weak" and "irrelevant" because he's not. Think that kid would have an inferiority complex?

I don't see it to this extent. I don't think the US is really saying Canadians are weak and stupid, as much as they are just oblivious to our existance. But when you think of it in a global context, why should Canada be given any more say than any other country of our size like Poland or Spain. For some reason Canada seems to feel entitled to major world decisions with making the necessary contributions. Nevertheless, the neighboring smaller country to the larger country with a similar culture often looks upon the larger as big, arrogant and uncaring towards its' needs. Ask an Austrian what he thinks of Germany, a New Zealander of Austrailia, a Nepali of India, etc. they'll all have some gripes. But like I said, Canada seems to be taking to the next level.