by Augie Fleras
Communications in Canadian Society, 4th Edition, 1995
Republished with permission

Introduction: Framing the Problem 

Minorities are increasingly perceived as a legitimate and integral component of Canada's much vaunted "mosaic." This commitment to diversity has been strengthened in recent years with passage of the Multiculturalism Act in 1988, the constitutional entrenchment of multiculturalism in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1985, and the proclamation of a federal department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship in 1991. The combined effect of these legislative and constitutional changes should not be taken lightly. A revised political and social agenda has evolved that underscores a shift in the management of diversity. Racial and ethnocultural differences are no longer dismissed as anomalies, to be shunted aside in the never-ending quest for national growth, identity, and unity. Diversity is promoted instead as a legitimate contender in the competition for scarce and valued resources. Major institutions such as education and criminal justice have come under additional pressure to foster organizational responsiveness and equity. This emphasis on institutional accommodation through removal of discriminatory barriers has altered the magnitude and scope of official multiculturalism, in the process consolidating Canada's reputation as the world's first post-multicultural society.

Multicultural initiatives for "managing diversity" continue to attract worldwide attention and global acclaim. But such accolades gloss over certain discrepancies between official rhetoric and the institutional exclusion of minorities. Criticism has proliferated in recent years, with many pouncing on official multiculturalism as little more than "undertheorized romanticism", both simplistic and reductionist, as well as divisive and misplaced. There is some element of truth to these charges. Not all institutions have contributed equally to the multicultural reconstruction of Canadian society. Neither is there any wholesale commitment to multiculturalism beyond what is necessary to stay one step ahead of the law (in this case, compliance with the Employment Equity Act of 1986). Few institutions, however, with the possible exception of urban policing, have attracted as much criticism and concern for their negligence as the mass media.

As repeatedly observed in the literature and research, media treatment of aboriginal and racial minorities in Canada is mixed at best, deplorable at worst. Academics and activists have reproached the mass media for their unbalanced, biased, and inaccurate coverage of minority groups, many of whom continue to be insulted, stereotyped, and caricatured - when not actually ignored by the media. Media institutions have come under scrutiny for disregarding minority representation and meaningful input, thus robbing them of credibility as a progressive force within the community. People of color have been rendered "invisible" by selective depictions in TV programming, newscasting, and advertising. Minority experiences continue to be filtered through the fears and fantasies of a dominant white culture. The cumulative impact of such discriminatory behavior is unmistakably clear: the media are accused of acting irresponsibly toward minorities in a society where multicultural principles prevail but do not always translate into practice. To be sure, a single, isolated image out of context is not likely to create problems, but difficulties arise from the long-term effects of discriminatory actions from varied sources.

Strides in media integration of racial and aboriginal minorities have not gone unnoticed. These are evident in the U.S., where African-Americans (but not Hispanics or Asians) are increasingly featured in TV commercials - from high-powered executives to personal-product advocates, once deemed off-limits to people of color. But much of the existing research continues to underestimate the challenges of restructuring media-minority relations. In looking to tarnish the media for wrongdoings - both real and perceived, by omission or commission - many studies overlook the commercial logic inherent within media dynamics. The constructed character of media reality is also ignored, as are deeply entrenched media values, distinctive agendas, organizational priorities, and corporate commitments. Reluctance to confront these sometimes knotty issues has made it relatively easy to criticize the mass media. Yet refusal to recognize media agendas and priorities in restructuring media-minority relations can only hinder securing a multicultural balance between media goals and minority aspirations.

Canada is universally acclaimed as a multicultural society, whose commitment to managing diversity at institutional levels is globally admired and occasionally copied. Yet the media in Canada still have a long way before claiming to collectively mirror ourselves. The mass media have been singled out as visibly negligent in responding positively to Canada's aboriginal and racial diversity. In an effort to determine the "what," "why," "who," and "how" of this contradictory state of affairs, the principles and practices of media-minority relations are examined and analyzed. The perils and pitfalls of the restructuring process are explored in relation to the evolving demands of a post-multicultural society. The following questions provide a basis for sorting out relevant issues:

What, precisely, is the nature of media-minority relations in a multicultural society such as Canada? How is this problem expressed at the level of newscasting, TV programming, and advertising?

Why does the problem continue in the face of increased awareness and growing pressure for reform? Who and what is responsible? Racism and discrimination? Or does it reflect a combination of ignorance, fear, and economic calculation? To what extent is the problem systemic and inherent within the logic of the media?

How are media misrepresentation and underrepresentation being dealt with? What are the impediments to change? What are the successes?

The Context: Multiculturalism in Canada

Everyone agrees that Canada is a multicultural society. Many, however, disagree on the nature and scope of Canadian multiculturalism. Neither is there much consensus about the impact of multiculturalism on society at large, much less upon minorities in particular. In general, multiculturalism is concerned with the principles and practices of "accommodating diversity" in a way that ensures interconnectedness, without loss of the constituent units in the process. The objective of multiculturalism is not the promotion of minorities per se, but the creation of a society in which diversity is recognized as a legitimate and integral component. Much of the confusion associated with multiculturalism rises from failure to recognize differences between empirical fact, ideology, policies and programs and process.

As fact, nearly 45 percent of Canada's population acknowledges some degree of non-British, non-French ancestry according to 1991 census data. Those who identify themselves as aboriginal now stand at over one million, or 3.7 percent, of the total population - an increase of 41 percent since 1986, according to another Statistics Canada report. Visible minorities comprise between 9 and 10 percent of the population (based on preliminary results from the 1991 census data), with most concentrated in the major urban centres of Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. This expanding diversity should come as no surprise, since immigration patterns reflect a high proportion (nearly 75 percent between 1981 and 1991) of new Canadians from "nonconventional" sources such as Asia, Africa, and South and Central America. Both national and urban figures are expected to escalate in light of government projections for expanding immigration flows by 250 000 per year until 1996.

As ideology, many Canadians uphold the ideal of diversity in its own right, as well as a means to end. The set of ideas and ideals associated with the "mosaic" are endorsed as part of Canada's distinctiveness and distance from the American "melting pot." A multicultural ideology "prescribes" a preferred course of action that endorses the "celebration of differences." Many Canadians appear comfortable with the ideals and principles of multiculturalism. They take pride in themselves as a fair and tolerant people who subscribe to cultural diversity as a matter of course. Numerous polls, surveys, and studies since the early 1970s have demonstrated consistent support for multiculturalism by a majority of Canadians. To be sure, these ideals do not always match reality. Support for multiculturalism diminishes when social, political, cultural or economic costs are deemed excessive in relation to anticipated benefits. Nevertheless, levels of endorsement remain encouragingly high even when multicultural principles are transformed into official policy or practice.

At the level of policy, Canada is officially multicultural (within a bilingual framework). The commitment to diversity is formally entrenched, making Canada the first (and only) country to enshrine multiculturalism at constitutional and legislative levels. Official multiculturalism originated in 1971 and continues to flourish as an instrument of state intervention for the effective management of racial and ethnic diversity. Various agencies and funded programs have been established by federal, provincial, and municipal authorities to achieve that goal. The recent shift in multicultural directives is clearly in progress, from an initial focus on culture and ethnicity ("celebrating differences") to one which emphasizes antiracism and equity "managing diversity". This emphasis on managing diversity and institutional accommodation strikes at the core of Canada's post-multiculturalism. With passage of the Multiculturalism Act in 1988, institutions under federal control are now obligated to make appropriate adjustments for minority accommodation through improved entry, access, representation, and treatment. This post-multicultural mandate - to implement programs and policies that reflected, reinforced, and promoted Canada's multicultural realities - was extended to include media institutions such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the National Film Board (NFB), and Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). The act also empowered the CRTC to withhold the broadcasting licenses of stations that failed to abide by the new rules.

Finally, Canada is multicultural in terms of process. Both politicians and minorities have taken advantage of multiculturalism as a valued resource for promoting personal or group interests. For politicians, multiculturalism remains an essentially political tool to achieve political goals in a politically astute manner. For racial and ethnic minorities, multiculturalism serves as a key resource in the competition for recognition, power and status. This interplay of competing forces injects multiculturalism with a certain dynamism and developmental character - at times in new and exciting directions, at other times in directions not always envisaged in policy or ideology.

As mentioned, Canadians are generally supportive of multiculturalism, in principle if not always in practice. This support has been known to fluctuate over time, with variations from one region to another, as well as because of differences in age, socioeconomic status, level of education, and (possibly) gender. There is mounting evidence of an emergent backlash against multiculturalism as divisive, disruptive, irrelevant, ornamental, and impractical. Though accurate to some extent - after all, any policy or ideal possesses shortcomings when taken to its logical extreme or assessed against some utopian ideal - much of the criticism can be seen as groundless or off target. Still, progress toward institutional "mainstreaming" has been slow by most accounts. The mass media in particular would appear especially resistant to accommodation and change - despite government initiatives to restructure a relationship that historically embraced "pale male" priorities and anglocentric agendas, and have not yet integrated the principles of multiculturalism into their operational philosophy and procedures. Racial and aboriginal minorities have accused Canada's mass media of slanted coverage, ranging from the unfair and inadequate to allegations of outright racism. The media have defended their actions by pointing to improvements in a field historically resistant to change.

The Problem: Media (Mis)Treatment of Minorities

As might be expected, the relationship between the media and minorities is complex and elusive, as well as fraught with ambiguity and stress because of upheavals in Canadian society. The media in Canada convey information (both deliberate and inadvertent) about minorities, including who they are, what they allegedly want and why, how they propose to achieve their goals, and with what consequence for Canadian society. How accurate and representative is the coverage of media- minority relations? Who makes the decisions, and on what basis? Answers to these questions are, frankly, subjective and subjective to diverse interpretation. Nevertheless, common themes can be discerned in describing media treatment of minorities. Minorities are portrayed (1) as invisible and irrelevant, (2) in terms of race-role stereotyping, (3) as a social problem, and (4) as tokens for entertainment or decoration. These patterns furnish a convenient point of departure for sorting out issues in media-minority relations.

1. Minorities as Invisible

Aboriginal and racial minorities have long been ignored by the mass media, except when it has been convenient to do otherwise. Whether in advertising, newscasting, or TV and film, minorities are rendered virtually invisible through under-representation in programming, staffing and decision-making. Minorities have appeared to be unworthy of coverage unless caught up in situations of conflict or crisis. In a scathing indictment, the advertising trade magazine Marketing even praised certain types of South African "mixed" beer advertising as more enlightened than Canada's "lilywhite" images.

In a recent study on billboard advertising in Montreal subway stations, Fo Niemi and Mario Salgado found minorities featured on only one billboard (a promotion by Ontario Tourism featuring the image of a black ballerina repeated 10 times) from a total of 163 on display. Another study, by Robert MacGregor, underscored the invisibility of visible-minority women in Maclean's magazine over a 30-year period. Most were also restricted to limited roles as well as to a narrow range of goods and services. This observation was made nearly a decade earlier by Doreen Indra in her study of minority-women depiction's in the Vancouver press. Even substantial representation in certain sectors may be misleading, others argue, if the minority presence is slotted into a relatively small number of narrowly defined programs.

The dearth of minorities in the media is the rule rather than the exception. A 1984 survey of English-language broadcasting revealed that racial minorities represented 9 percent of the characters in dramas, 2 percent of news anchors, 4 percent of reporters, 5 percent of the guests on news features, and 6 percent of music and variety-show participants. Statistics from a 1984-88 national survey on advertising disclosed the presence of racial minorities in 7 percent of the advertisements, including 3 percent in alcohol ads and 11 percent in Ontario government ads. The findings elsewhere were even less positive. A 1987 ACTRA (Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists) study found minority actors comprised only 3 percent of the characters on Canadian stages, less than 3 percent in commercials, and 5.5 percent of television performers. However, a recent study by Media Action Média points to some improvements, with minorities occupying 16.6 percent of the appearances in a select sample of Canadian-produced TV shows.

The assertion that minorities are "neutralized" by the media must be qualified. It is not so much that minorities are ignored by the media; it can be argued that they are overlooked when it counts but spotlighted when it doesn't. Take for example the presence of African-Americans on TV. There is no question that African-American performers are disproportionately represented on TV programming, particularly during the early evening slots. This may be linked to audience studies that show that blacks are the heaviest consumers of prime-time fare. Yet African-Americans are rarely seen outside the "ghetto" of situation comedies. They are likely to appear instead as grist (either as criminals or victims) for the mills of detective or "realism"-based police shows. Thus, African-Americans may be tolerated as comics or criminals, but are routinely ignored after the 9 p.m. slot - outside of cameo appearances for certain period pieces. The situation is similar in newscasting. Not only are minorities routinely rebuffed by the media unless convenient for "selling copy," but their opinions rarely solicited outside the "narrow sourcing" of the racial or ethnic community. That newscasting endorses a black-and-white view of the world also exacts a toll on minorities. A one-sided image of minorities is fostered that defines them as less than human because of a taste for violence and propensity for crisis. Paradoxically, the reality of minority experiences as seen through TV news (with its predilection for violence, drugs, crooks, or victims) is at odds with their depiction in entertainment programming as models of middle-class virtue, as in The Cosby Show, ironically being telecast at the same time as the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

A further problem is the absence of racial minorities in creative positions (such as those of director, producer, editor, or screenwriter). Fewer still are employed in the upper levels of management where key decision-making occurs. The experiences and realities of racial minorities are thus distorted or attenuated. Largely white, middle-class personnel are unable to comprehend the world from such diverse points of view, much less to appreciate the intensity of minority problems. As well, images of racial and aboriginal minorities are filtered through prisms that refract superficial encounters or the cumulative effects of previous reporting. For women of color, the situation is accentuated. They are doubly jeopardized by "pale male" ideologies that devalue women's contributions, distort their experiences, limit their options, and undermine self-confidence. The magnitude and scope of such insensitivity and inaccuracy suggest that discrimination and racism are indeed a "natural and necessary" component of the mass media.

How do we assess the impact of minority marginality? In psychological terms, media "whitewashing" (especially advertising) intensifies the invisibility of minorities in society. As one author put it, minorities are restricted in ways that "deny their existence, devalue their contribution to society, and trivialize their aspirations to participate, as fully-fledged members...."39 The absence of minorities serves to consolidate the status quo, with its prevailing distribution of power and resources. As noted elsewhere, those with the power to define others through images and representations are positioned to control and manipulate. The exclusion of people of color also perpetuates the "white face" of Canada, leaving others with "feelings of rejection, of marginality, and of non-belonging." "Whiteness" is conveyed not only as the norm from which all else deviates but also as a source of privilege - invisible and unearned - but real and at the expense of the nonwhite. One might conclude that what is not said by the media is as important as what is explicitly articulated.

2. Minorities as Stereotypes

Aboriginal peoples and racial minorities have long complained of media stereotyping. Historically, minorities were presented in a manner consistent with prevailing prejudices and attitudes. Images of minorities were steeped in unfounded generalizations - virtually to the point of near parody. For example, media stereotypes of aboriginal peoples dwelt on themes of "the noble savage", the"savage Indian," the "drunken Native," and the "subservient squaw." Other racial minorities were labeled as dropouts, pimps, and drug pushers, while still others were stigmatized as mathematical or scientific geniuses. Blacks in film and TV roles were often portrayed in one-dimensional ways - as entertainers or sport figures, villains, victims, buffoons, and domestics. Only rarely did minorities appear with something significant to say or do. Their lived experiences were reduced to the level of an "angle" or "jolt" for spicing up plot lines. Minority characterization rarely led to critical views of prevailing myths of society, namely, (a) things will get better, (b) systemic racism is not a problem, (c) working within the system is the way to get ahead, and (d) whatever your color, the American dream is within reach. Through stereotypes, minorities were put down, put in their place, or put up as props and adornments for audience gratification.

The film industry, as an important cultural institution, must shoulder its share of the blame for perpetuating stereotypes. According to Michael Parenti, the author of Make Believe Media: Politics of Film and TV, minorities were historically caricaturized as heathen savages or as subordinates in devoted service to white masters (e.g., Tonto for the Lone Ranger and Cato for the Green Hornet). Minorities were obligated to know their place on the silver screen, a subservience often conveyed by deferential actions related to serving, smiling, or shuffling. Similarly, Third World women of color were slotted into the category of background or filler as servant, alternatively as dangerous or evil, with potential to destroy all that is civilized or ordered. In other situations, minority women were deemed to be helplessly in need of paternalistic protection. This negativity was softened only when women of color internalized colonialist attitudes and modern values.

Progress toward eliminating mass media stereotyping is proceeding at glacial speed. Race-role images continue to be reinforced, perpetuated, and even legitimized through selective media coverage. Identifying a person by racial labels even when irrelevant to the story ("race-tagging") remains an occasional problem. In advertising, minorities are often cast into slots that reflect a "natural" propinquity for the product in question. Who better to sell foreign airlines, quality chambermaid service in hotels, or high-cut gym shoes? They are associated with exotic and tropical areas, portrayed as famine victims (usually children) in underdeveloped countries, enlisted as congenial boosters for athletics and sporting goods, or ghettoized in certain marketing segments related to "hip-hop" or "rap."

The net effect of this stereotyping is that minorities are slotted or labeled as unusual or negative, and this "foreignness" precludes their full acceptance as normal and fully contributing members of society. As well, stereotyping obviously conveys false information. The presence of a few highly visible entertainers or athletes in advertising is hardly typical of minority life chances. Particularly disheartening is the message that minority success is just a dribble or a dance step away for those with "natural" ability, "rhythm," or a "funny-bone." Herein lies a social function of stereotypes. In an industry geared to image and appeal, there is pressure to enforce the rule of homogeneity and conservatism through stereotyping. Images of consumer goods need to be sanitized and stripped of controversy or negative connotation for fear of lost audiences, hence revenue. Stereotypes "sanitize" our perceptions of the world. Majority apprehension of minorities is rendered less threatening through exposure to familiar and reassuring images.

3. Minorities as Social Problem

Generally speaking, aboriginal and racial minorities exemplify a "social problem" as far as the media are concerned. They are described in the context of having problems in need of solutions that expend an inordinate amount of political attention or a disproportionate slice of national resources. In addition, the media are likely to define minorities as villains who "create problems" by making demands unacceptable to the social, political, or moral order. Time and again, aboriginal peoples in Canada are portrayed as "troublesome constituents" whose claims for self-determination and inherent self-government are contrary to Canada's liberal-democratic tradition. People of color come across in a "dazzling array of trouble spots: hassling police, stumping immigration authorities, cheating on welfare, or battling among themselves or with their families." This "us versus them" mentality is conducive to minority scapegoating for an assortment of social or economic misfortunes. Such a mindset can generate resentment against those who do not conform in outlook, appearance, and practice with some mainstream ideal.

Mass media portrayals of aboriginal and racial minorities are as likely to inform and reveal (if selectively) as they are to misinform, conceal, and evade. There is no shortage of examples about information whose one-sidedness borders on propaganda. How often does media coverage of the Jane-Finch corridor in Greater Toronto veer outside the confines of a high-density concrete jungle composed mostly of African-Canadians immersed in drugs and guns? Reporting on aboriginal peoples is equally negative, although public sympathy for them remains high. The First Nations are portrayed as a threat to Canada's territorial integrity (the Lubicon blockade in 1988) or national interests (the Innu protest of NATO presence in Labrador); a risk to Canada's social order (the Oka crisis); costly (over $5 billion in federal expenditures); an economic liability (the massive land claims in the North); a crisis for the criminal-justice system (disproportionate numbers incarcerated); and a medical concern (suicides and rehabilitation). Finally, media dealings with refugees are often couched in terms of illegal entry and associated costs of processing and integration into Canada.

Several studies support these examples. In a 1986 content analysis, researchers reviewed the national newspaper coverage of Canada's immigration policy between 1980 and 1985. Items were examined in terms of several persuasion techniques: the positioning and layout of the story, article length and type size, content of headlines and kickers (phrases immediately after the headline), use of newspeak or inflammatory language, use of quotes, statistics, and racial origins. Researcher Michelle Ducharme found that use of these criteria resulted in immigrant portrayals that were both racist and discriminatory - albeit in a subtle, almost subliminal, manner. The use of clichés, stereotypes, and provocative language combined to escalate the negative aspects and perceived costs of immigrants and immigration policy. DuCharme writes:

By emphasizing the problems immigrants cause for the system, obvious solutions are suggested: entrance rules have to be made tougher, quotas have to be set, amnesty policies have to be questioned, refugee totals have to be cut, visa card systems need to be reconsidered to curb illegal entry, and marriages of convenience must be refused. These are but a few examples from newspaper articles that suggest that readers may come to believe that Canada has a serious "immigration problem" and that immigrants themselves pose a threat, not only to the system, but also to Canadians as individuals.

In other words, immigrants are perceived as troublemakers who steal jobs from Canadians, engage in illegal activities such as drugs or smuggling, and offer nothing to Canada in return for its largesse. Moreover, we can wonder if this deviance is proportionately greater or less than in mainstream communities. By contrast, articles of depth and scope pertaining to progressive community development by such minorities and immigrants are rarely considered for inclusion. Neither is there much space devoted to depictions of minorities as average, normal, tax-paying Canadians with a broad range of opinions and activities beyond the ethnic community. It is worth mentioning that comparable situations exist in the U.S. and the U.K where both respected newspapers and the right-wing "gutter" press take exception to the presence of racial minorities.

Media images of racial minorities pivot around the negative, unusual, and problematic - not the least because of the way news is defined. Minority realities are "boxed in," then sanitized, by the constraints, demands, and priorities of the mass media. Such treatment of minorities could be dismissed merely as an annoying quirk were it not for its repercussions. As pointed out in the magazine Report on Equality News, "Alternating between denying or exaggerating their presence, the media create a strong psychological barrier between visible minorities and the rest of Canadian society."

The cumulative effect of constant negative messages may be to marginalize minorities as irrelevant or as a threat to society. Minorities are likely to suffer when depicted as a "social problem" or as "having problems" typical of "others" or "foreigners." They come across as violent and emotionally unstable, with a diminished respect for human life or basic decency. The "moral panic" generated in media "hype" of conflict situations may leave authorities with no other (perceived) recourse but to intervene and control. Law enforcement and militia may be pressed into service to quell minority disturbance and impose order - as was the case in the aftermath of the Oka conflict. Equally damaging is the implication of a single, comprehensive solution to minority problems. Reality is more complex and convoluted than implied by the media, and proposed solutions may be simplistic to the point of disservice.

4. Minorities as Tokens

Minorities have frequently been cast as tokens that provide entertainment, serve ornamental purposes, caricature themselves through exaggeration, and reinforce a status of irrelevance. Television programming followed the historical lead of Hollywood in this respect, in casting minorities as comedians in sitcom ghettoes, or as hapless children and subservient adults. They may be viewed only as part of a crowd, or as "walking away from the camera" - an observation noted by jazz pianist Oscar Peterson in describing the presence of black musicians on beer commercials. The restrictive effects of such actions have served to trivialize minority aspirations. The narrowcasting of minorities as ciphers or as decorative not only distorts their image, but desensitizes the audience by making it more callous toward and indifferent to minority experiences.

Such entertainment angles become manifest at the newscasting level. This was illustrated recently with media coverage of the conflict involving pro-and anti-gambling factions on the St. Regis-Akwesasne Reserve near Cornwall, Ontario, in May 1990. Time and again the media focused on the escalation of hostilities and violence between factions in the "Mohawk Casino Wars," which culminated in two shooting deaths. The audience was repeatedly exposed to the dramatics of gun-toting Indians, heavily armed paramilitaristic Warrior Society members, and a sundry array of roadblocks, evacuations, death lists, and acts of arson. Age-old stereotypes about bloodthirsty savages were dusted off and circulated for the benefit of audiences who were fascinated and horrified by the vision of Mohawk against Mohawk. There was little attempt to put the conflict into some kind of historical or contemporary context. With the exception of several opinion pieces by aboriginal writers, few writers bothered to deal with prickly topics such as aboriginal self-determining rights, preferring instead to dwell on sensationalistic and confrontational as part of the total entertainment package. A similar assessment may be applied to the 1990 armed stand off at Oka, Quebec, between Mohawk activists and law-enforcement agencies.

Why the Problem? From System to Person

Media mistreatment of minorities is routinely acknowledged by the literature even if its precise nature remains unclear. What is less explicit are the reasons for this negligence. Why are minorities not reflected to any significant degree in consumer, advertising, on TV programming, or in news accounts? Such media neglect may arise for a variety of reasons, which may range in scope from hard-boiled business decisions reflecting market forces to a lack of cultural awareness and deep-seated prejudices. Progressive action may be thwarted by outdated presuppositions about minorities in terms of who they are and what they really want. Institutional constraints may also inhibit positive relationships. Two sets of responses predominate when delving into questions about negative media-minority relations. One set points to institutional resistance and media logic; the other looks at the dynamics of discrimination.

Media Logic

Negative portrayals of minorities are unfortunate but not surprising in light of the logic behind media operations and objectives. The media are involved in the construction of reality through the processes of socialization, legitimization, and agenda-setting (the latter accomplished through selective exposure, limited range of options, or established priorities). The mass media not only codify and shape perceptions of reality, they constitute a constructed reality of diverse forces, internal and external constraints, and personalities. This constructed character imposes restrictions on what the media may or may not do. Foremost among these constraints is the commercial logic that no longer exempts even public broadcasting from financial considerations. In seeking to secure as large an audience as possible for revenue purposes, mass media constitute business whose bottom line is profit and accountability TV shareholders. The corporatist nature of the media puts a bureaucratic clamp on organizational outputs, often at the expense of conventional social values. This should not automatically portray the media as reactionary. The media are neither homogenous nor monolithic, but allow ambiguities and openings for dissent or change, at odds with conservative values.

Understanding the input of the media in media-minority relations reinforces a key conviction; despite protests and pretensions to the contrary, the media are part of the establishment. They rarely occupy the cutting edge of change, are poorly equipped to deal with race and aboriginal issues, and resist the voices of the marginal and disorganized. Media dynamics cannot be divorced from the political and economic milieu that creates, sustains, and modifies media-minority relations. As well, the media resemble organizational forces in their own right, with a corresponding assemblage of symbols, meanings, and aesthetics. Locating the media as a social force within a broader context is pivotal to exposing the "unspoken assumptions" governing media dynamics. What is the nature of this "hidden agenda," and how does it shape - however inadvertently - media perception of aboriginal and racial minorities?

The Logic of Newscasting

What eventually becomes the "news" is not something tangible, with clearly marked labels that everybody can agree upon; neither is it a random but objective reaction to disparate events by detached professionals. News is a socially constructed process, shaped in part by a collective set of intrinsic values and created through the interplay of uneven forces. The socially constructed dimension of news is distilled from a vast range of potentially newsworthy events or personalities. Decisions about "newsworthiness" must take into account media perceptions about who or what is important to the audience. Gatekeepers (such as editors) are actively involved in the news selection process, which is influenced by various factors including organizational imperatives, personnel demands, audience constraints, sponsorship needs, and the bottom line. A pervasive bias in newsmaking reflects the interaction between private ownership and profit imperative. Various biases are inherent within the news process, but especially vulnerable is coverage, news collection, reporting, the news source, editorial gatekeeping, and presentation. Increasingly intense competition for the consumer dollar encourages the repackaging of news as entertainment with an informative slant ("infotainment"). The net result resembles a "residue" of news that is "print to fit," which says more about media priorities than reality itself.

TV Logic

Television programming is similarly constrained by inherent limitations. Despite the illusion of diversity, TV programming conforms to a proven formula in effect since its inception. Under the slogan of "safe, simple, and familiar," TV content is sanitized for fear of disturbing the consuming public. Characters are typecast within a restricted span of roles consistent with public expectations - lest this disturb the flow of advertising messages. The cumulative effect of TV programming is the perpetuation of a "boxed-in reality." It is not so much that television programming transcends reality, but that reality is "boxed-in" to conform with the practical constraints of a 26-inch screen, a half-hour time slot for resolution of plot and problems, and a storyline filled with unblemished characters of implausible virtue and free-spending habits. If the audience in general is poorly served by this "bracketing" of reality, then minorities are doubly jeopardized by the pull of TV programming to homogenize ("whitewash") pluralistic experiences for majority consumption.

Advertising Logic

Nowhere is the one-sidedness of the media more evident than in the area of advertising, which is central to media processes. Media dynamics revolve around securing an outlet for advertising, primarily by attracting a wide audience to maximize product sales. In deference to the buying public, advertising conforms to an underlying code that seeks to (a) attract viewer attention; (b) arouse interest; (c) target an audience; (d) manipulate images; (e) neutralize reservations; and (f) create conviction. The advertising media capitalize on consumer fantasies as one way of massaging the message of "more and more." But media messages often exclude minorities from such definitions, in effect banishing diversity to the margins of society. People of color are infrequently used in the advertising of beauty-care and personal-hygiene products, so entrenched is the image of "whiteness" as the preferred standard of beauty. Rarely are they advertised in conjunction with high-priced or luxury items. The loss of sophistication or exclusiveness is too much for the media. Reluctance amongst advertisers is further fueled by anxieties over a white boycott of minority-endorsed products, despite an overwhelming lack of evidence to this effect.

Media-Minority Relations as Propaganda

This negative portrayal of minorities is consistent with media logic, operations, and objectives. Newscasting, advertising, and programming are guilty by commission or omission in contributing to double standards and closed doors. The nature of this relationship can be critically explored by reference to the concept of propaganda. This can be defined expansively or narrowly, but we prefer to see it as a communication process in which behavior is influenced through emotional and one-sided manipulation of words or images. In taking this perspective, we do not equate propaganda with blatant brainwashing or crude displays of totalitarian-state censorship. Nor do we subscribe to the notion that propaganda constitutes a deliberate attempt at disinformation. Propaganda as discourse may reflect unconscious processes or unintended outcomes in the same way that systemic discrimination is based on the negative consequences of even well-meaning rules, equal standards, or uniform procedures rather than simply intent. Yet even unintended consequences are anything but inconsequential. As outcome or process, propaganda may lead to the exclusion of alternate points of view, reduction of dissent, and disagreement, manufacture of consensus and consent, compliance with the dominant ideologies, and definitions of outer limits of permissibility in society.

The impact of the media as a system of propaganda is subtle and oblique. This very unobtrusiveness transforms the media into a powerful agent of domination and control. The media fix the premises of public dialogue by defining the outer parameters of debate, thus massaging audience perceptions of what is normal or necessary. Media images about normalcy or acceptability are absorbed without much awareness of the indoctrination process. Spirited discussion and lively dissension may be encouraged, but only within the confines of an elite consensus. The fundamental premises upon which our society is founded - the virtues of materialistic progress, private property and market forces, and competitive individualism - are rarely scrutinized. Also unexamined are the tacit assumptions underlying the interpretation of reality from "pale male" perceptions.

The dynamics of propaganda provide a vantage point for analyzing media treatment of minorities. Propaganda within media imposes a cultural context for framing our experiences of social reality. Media images become interwoven into the fabric of society and culture, serving as instruments for molding opinion and public discourse. As well as crystallizing power in the hands of those who do the defining, these images reinforce and transmit the prevailing values and beliefs of society, thus defining collective experience, shaping social consciousness, and legitimating the status quo. A clear message is articulated about who is normal and what is desirable. Our dependency on the media as a basis for reality construction assumes even greater relevance when alternate and balanced sources of information are unavailable.

Discrimination and Racism

Discrimination and racism are frequently acknowledged as manifest within the mass media. One of many examinations of media treatment of minorities, the Report of the Committee on the Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society (better known as Equality Now!) in 1984 issued a blistering indictment of media treatment of racial minorities in Canada. The report accused the mass media of fostering a "white only mentality" that generated "fantasies" or circulated "lies" about racial groups. Advertising was castigated for its commitment to "white sells" as largely out of touch with Canada's multicultural and multiracial reality.

How justified are such accusations? Does media mistreatment of minorities imply the presence of personal prejudice or overt discrimination? Or does it reflect a preference to act out of self-interest and according to marketplace dictates, especially during economic recessions and periods of corporate restructuring? Is it racism, or are media personnel unsure of how to deal with diversity without detonating a series of cultural landmines in the process? Do advertising moguls fear marketing mistakes that could attract negative product publicity, or worse still, incite a consumer boycott? Are minorities themselves unwilling to enter media professions because of low status associated with such employment? Answers to these questions are critical, but often begin with the assertion that media-minority relations are driven by racism and discrimination - at times deliberate, at other times inadvertent.

Polite Discrimination

Blatant expressions of discrimination or racial slurs are rarely encountered in the mass media. Overt hostility and discrimination is neither acceptable nor legal in Canada. Various human-rights codes and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibit discriminatory behavior on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Yet coverage remains that is "politely" racist. According to Effie Ginzberg, a content analysis of columns and editorial in The Toronto Sun between 1978 and 1985 exposed a "biased, inaccurate, and unbalanced portrayal of visible minorities." Prejudicial attitudes were directed at racial and aboriginal minorities through circulation of stereotypes, defensive strategies (denial of racism in Canada), biological racism (genetic superiority of whites), scapegoating, and incitement of fear and hatred toward racial outgroups. Such hostility may be muted, yet the accumulative effects may be powerful and long-lasting. Robert Fulford explains:

For instance, racism itself can mask as a belief that the majority group is somehow losing out to minorities in jobs or housing It may appear as criticism of multiracial immigration: someone who wants fewer Asians admitted to Canada, and yet does not call them genetically inferior, is still arguing for discrimination on the basis of race - which is what most people mean by "racism." Ideas of this sort, expressed occasionally in isolation, may be regarded as purely eccentric, like Porter's eugenics. But when they come together in one place, and are repeated by various writers, they may form an attitude that amounts to institutionalized racism.

Polite forms of prejudice and discrimination continue to fester beneath the surface in the refusal to hire or promote racial minorities for one reason or another. The exclusion of minorities from advertising, for example, is discriminatory in consequence (if not in intent) because it leads to the restriction of employment opportunities. This is not overt discrimination, but can be "justified" on political, economic, or social grounds.

Systematic Discrimination

How pervasive is institutionalized discrimination within the mass media? Under institutional discrimination, rules and procedures are deliberately invoked to exclude racial minorities from equitable treatment, as in former times in South Africa and some parts of the U.S. Even more powerful in many ways is "systemic" discrimination, a term that often is ill-defined but that generally refers to bias within organizational procedures and policies that falls outside of conscious awareness of its existence or impact. It consists of barriers that may be involuntary and hidden in rules and procedures that seem neutral, yet lead to discrimination against individuals, not because of lack of merit or credentials but because of their membership in a devalued group. No one sets out to flagrantly violate the rights of others. Yet those in positions of authority may inadvertently contribute to the problem by invoking seemingly neutral rules, standards, and expectations. Hence, systemic discrimination arises from the consequences of well-meaning but misguided actions. It thus may arise from the application of universal standards to unequal situations.

Coverage of minorities is couched within the context of crisis or calamity with an emphasis on the negative or spectacular at the expense of a long-term, multifaceted struggle for development. While such events do occur, the absence of balanced coverage results in distorted perceptions of who minorities are, and what they collectively want. Objectively, such events may be true, and the distortion resulting from selective coverage is not deliberately engineered. Media preoccupation with readership and advertising revenues may lead to selective coverage. The flamboyant and sensational are highlighted to satisfy audience needs, without much regard for the effects on racial minorities. The mass media may not be aware of its discriminatory impact, arguing only that the news is being reported. The result is unavoidable - an unflattering portrayal that distorts minority experiences under the guise of information or entertainment.

What is the Solution? Mainstreaming the Media

Two Steps Forward....
The media in Canada have come under pressure to change and adjust. A preoccupation with economic incentives and organizational agendas has left the media poorly prepared for managing Canada's diversity. Some progress is evident in delineating a more positive and realistic portrayal of racial minorities and concerns. Reforms within the CBC include sensitivity training for program and production staff, language guidelines to reduce race and role stereotypes and the monitoring of on-air representations of racial minorities. Rules are in place to deter abusive representations of individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion, or disability. The Broadcasting Act of 1991 has firmly endorsed the concept of "cultural expression" by expanding air time for ethno-racial minorities. As well, the CRTC has made it known that broadcasters will be evaluated on the basis of employment equity hiring when licenses come up for renewal. These initiatives are consistent with the provisions of the Multiculturalism Act, with its expectations that all government departments and Crown agencies improve minority access, equity, and representation. In addition, the Employment Equity Act of 1986 requires annual progress reports on minority hiring and equity goals from federally regulated agencies. To be sure, formal sanctions and quotas are absent at present, but minority representation in the workplace is likely to expand in response to government action against non-compliance.

Some ambiguity remains with respect to policy. This raises many questions such as: What is fair in terms of minority participation and presentation in the media process? Who decides, how, and why? How should diversity be incorporated into the media (e.g., by way of sensitivity training for white personnel or through balanced programming)? Are minority needs better served through minority ownership and control over the media? How do we restructure the media to make them more diverse, accessible, and accountable, as well as fair, just, and equitable, while still encouraging freedom of expression? Various recommendations have been proposed for attainment of a media reflective of Canada's emergent plurality. Some have suggested government intervention to ensure the salience of multiculturalism at all levels of mass media. Others propose to establish government advisory bodies (such as Media Action Média) to monitor the coverage of racial minorities, as well as to establish codes and standards with "teeth." Still others argue for more hiring and promotion of aboriginal minorities at all levels in the media industry. Such accommodation makes good business sense in view of the increasing economic power of minority-group members.

The Third Media

The expansion of the "third media" (including minority publications and broadcast programs) is a prime example of minority empowerment. In Southern Ontario, the multicultural channel CFMT delivers a much-needed service. Inroads are also evident in the private sector where multicultural issues have been addressed by Toronto's CITY-TV and on-air programming, such as the acclaimed series Degrassi High. In advertising, racial minorities are appearing more frequently across a broader range of products and services. Companies that utilize diversity are now perceived as sophisticated and cosmopolitan compared with their all-white counterparts, who come across as staid and outdated. As well, the mass media are beginning to recognize the vast, untapped market potential and commercial clout of racial and ethnic minorities.

Aboriginal Media

One of the most successful examples in the third-media experience is in Northern Canada, where aboriginal communities have attained control of the local media. The CBC began operating a northern service in 1958, albeit from objectives that reflect priorities of the South, including industrial expansion, cultural and national integration, and protection of Canadian sovereignty. However, it was not until the advent of satellite broadcasting that expansion could make northern TV a commercially viable proposition for isolated communities. In 1975, Ottawa promised satellite TV for every Inuit community with a population over 500. Despite widespread acceptance, there was concern over loss of traditional lifestyles, normal social interaction, invasion of alien values, and a pending generation gap. To overcome these concerns, the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation was established in 1981 with the express purpose of controlling the airwaves through Inuit-produced programs about themselves, in the language of their ancestors. The verdict is mildly positive as CBC programs are counterbalanced by community-based, culturally sensitive programming as experienced through the visions and priorities of the Inuit rather than the South.

There are additional aboriginal-controlled radio and TV systems, such as TVNorth Canada, Northern Natives Broadcasting Access Programs, and Wawatay. Each employs a modern system of technology and communication to preserve the aboriginal language and culture. The impact and implications cannot be underestimated. The Task Force on Broadcasting Policy, co-chaired by Gerald Caplan and Florian Sauvageau in 1986, singled out the needs of aboriginal peoples and racial minorities as a starting point for improving future initiatives. The task force claimed that measures were required to protect and promote indigenous languages and cultures against the onslaught of Canadian assimilationist pressures. Aboriginal communities now possess the resources to blunt the electronic imperialism of foreign radio/TV programming with its capacity to distort aboriginal realities. Aboriginal-owned media are currently in a position to assert their own cultural values in a way that reflects their needs. Finally, aboriginal media encourage communities to break out of their isolation and to align themselves with the concerns, aspirations, and developments of indigenous peoples elsewhere. Politicizing aboriginal awareness through exposure of comparable movements in the area may prove the most long-lasting benefit of aboriginal media.

Ethnic Press

The ethnic press is an important factor in serving the minority community. Evidence suggests that ethnically owned media perform several major functions. Heritage-language papers create safe havens for ethnic cultures to flourish, while simultaneously fostering newcomer adaptation to the new cultural environment. They also facilitate the integration of immigrants into society by serving as a buffer and agent of socialization. Others, however, such as Kim and Kim, concede that ethnic newspapers (Korean papers in Canada in this case) may isolate the ethnic community through emphasis on heritage-culture values and links with the home country. Black and Leithner refute this position on the basis of findings that reveal modest increases in ethnic political involvement.

....One Step Back

The media have come under pressure to make appropriate adjustments in the multicultural management of diversity. Yet moves to convey a positive image of minorities have faltered on occasion, in the process suggesting that concessions may be more apparent than real. A study by Media Action Média that monitored eight Canadian-produced TV programs between September and December of 1992 concluded that 16.6 percent of the 1295 characters were persons of color - 4.2 percent women and 12.4 percent men. Such representation is striking because they accounted for only 9.3 percent of the 1991 population. It may well be that advertisers, and hence network management, are becoming more aware of the increasing financial power of such minorities.

Similarly, there is evidence of improvement on the newscasting front. People of color are employed increasingly as front-line reporters and anchors, but overall employment levels remain low. Further, there remains the question of negative co-worker attitudes because many minority-group members may be seen as having been employed simply to meet equity-hiring rules. Yet, even such efforts by media to improve representation may backfire. Positive portrayals and inclusive programming may be scorned as window dressing, condescending, tokenistic, and unrealistic by minority-group members. Critics' reaction to change is instructive. The highly rated Cosby Show received numerous accolades as one of the first all-African-American prime-time shows to dispense with many familiar stereotypes. Yet compared with the impoverished reality of many African-American lives and life chances, the Huxtables exuded a degree of affluence that few could realistically attain. Several themes prevailed on The Cosby Show: collectively, minorities could have it all if they wanted it; negation and internal discord were scrupulously suppressed, except as a minor inconvenience to surmount; and happiness was synonymous with material affluence and social success. The show was criticized for desensitizing whites to the problems confronted by minorities in the competition for success. If the Huxtables could make it, what was holding back others? Even the notion of the Huxtables as an "African-American experience" came under scrutiny by those who saw the trappings of a typical middle-class family but with "black" pigmentation to bolster plot lines or improve sight gags.

In short, the media have been criticized for both action and inaction. Ontario Hydro ads that involve a judicial mixture of minorities and non-minorities are taken to task as token gestures. Benetton ads that prominently display minorities in a variety of positive or negative situations are praised by some as progressive and cosmopolitan, yet denounced by others as exploitative and a trivialization of minority concerns. Once again the media find themselves in a double bind, in a no-win situation where they are dammed if they do, and dammed if they don't. Bewildered and taken aback by criticism for their efforts, the media have moved cautiously in accommodating diversity.

Conclusion - Contesting the Terrain: Toward a Post-Multicultural Media

Canada is undergoing a period of profound upheaval at demographic, social, and political levels. Time-honoured rules and conventional practices are slowly crumbling under the onslaught of new realities. Many, however, remain firmly entrenched as vested interests balk at discarding the tried-and-true. New visions are gaining credence as they filter into our national consciousness. Yet these ideas often lack political clout or singularity of purpose to displace traditional patterns. This interplay between the old and the new can be disruptive, especially when both the ideas and their audiences are torn between competing world views and evolving agendas. But it is precisely these circumstances that hasten institutional change.

In a seemingly progressive society such as Canada, the media have lagged behind in mainstreaming diversity, a situation that, as I have indicated, is not always of their own making. Yet progress has been made in the restructuring of minority/media relations. It goes beyond the introduction of programs intended simply to mollify activists or politicians. What is at stake is nothing less than a fundamental transformation of the media, which have historically ignored many of the interests of minority-group members. As in any great restructuring of social systems, the process is crystallized around the struggle for power. The competition for power in the struggle for scarce resources thus transforms the media into an importantly contested site that requires our continual attention.

Dr. Augie Fleras teaches in Toronto, and is co-author of Breaking the Mould: Redefining the Representational Basis of Media Minority Relations in a Multicultural Canada, a project looking at 25 years of media minority images.