Announcer A:
Today and every day the American people must make decisions on which their whole survival may depend. To make sound decisions, the people must be informed. For this, they depend on the nation’s free press. How well is the nation’s press doing its essential job? The people have a right to know the truth. They have a responsibility to ask. The right to question.
Kimball:
I’m not a guest on the program you’re about to see. I am, like you, what might be called an eavesdropper. But I have an advantage over you. I’m right here in the studio. And my job is going to be to try to ask some questions. The kind of questions you might ask if you had the chance. Now the subject of the program today is
Canada. And the first question you might reasonably ask is, What do I need to know about
Canada?
And after that, are my usual sources of information – newspapers, TV, radio – are they telling me what I need to know about our closest and biggest neighbor? For example, I’ve heard it said by Canadians that they get mighty irritable sometimes with us Americans. Now that’s surprising news.
I don’t know many Americans who get irritated with Canadians. And for that matter I don’t know many Americans who think that much about
Canada at all, one way or another. And perhaps that’s the crux of the problem. What about it, Mr. Louis Lyons? I’m tossing that question to you.
Lyons:
To answer this important question, we have two particularly qualified guests. One is Harry Montgomery, Assistant General Manager of the largest news service in the world, our Associated Press, and Mr. Montgomery has himself been a correspondent in
Canada.
Announcer B:
Mr. Montgomery has been quoted as saying, “The US press does a creditable job of informing the people about
Canada. It should not be made a whipping boy. The press must not be expected to do the whole job of promoting better US-
Canada relations.”
Lyons:
Our other guest is the Information Officer of the Canadian Embassy in
Washington. And was formerly the managing editor of a leading Canadian newspaper, The Toronto Globe and Mail, Mr. Robert Farquharson.
Announcer B:
I quote, “The American press would do a far better job of coverage if Americans wrote about
Canada for America instead of leaving the job almost entirely to Canadians.”
Lyons:
Well, two people, two points of view. In just a moment we’ll get into this differences.
Announcer A:
The Press and the People. To answer our questions we have an assistant general manager of the Associated Press, Harry Montgomery; from
Washington, DC, the information officer of the Canadian Embassy, Robert Farquharson.
As moderator from Harvard University, the winner of the Peabody Award for television and radio journalism and the Lauterbach Award for outstanding contribution in the field of civil liberties, Mr. Louis Lyons.
Lyons:
Well Mr. Farquharson, you’ve been quoted as saying that the American press can do a far better job of informing us on
Canada. Will you state your position?
Farquharson:
First of all, I would like the American press to try to do the job itself, as it covers all other countries in the world.
Canada alone, as far as AP and the other great news services of the United States are concerned,
Canada alone does the job itself. The Canadian Press reports to the United States.
Stories written by Canadians, intended to be read by Canadians, go as a by-product to American newspapers. This is all right when you’re dealing with disasters and stories that have a universal language. When your dealing with politics, with economics, so much is left unexplained that the stories get thrown away. All I want to do is have the United States papers really cover
Canada.
Lyons:
Thank you, Mr. Farquharson. And Mr. Montgomery, you’ve been quoted as taking a quite different view that the American process is fully enough informed on
Canada. Won’t you state your position?
Montgomery:
I think the United States press does a good job of covering
Canada. Of course this job isn’t as thorough or as deep as people with special interests would like, people whose background or work gives them a special interest in
Canada. We must remember that the press has a function of informing the general public – not a specialized public – about events and trends all around the world, and now, even in outer space.
I think probably that the amount of news carried of
Canada and the press of the United States is a pretty bare reflection of the amount of interest – [cough] excuse me – that Americans have in
Canada. People who are concerned from time to time about the fluctuating status of relations between the United States and
Canada should not expect the press to solve the problems arising from these relations.
This is the job of government people, diplomats, statesmen, political leaders and businessmen who carry on the day-to-day relations between the two countries.
Lyons:
Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. Well, we’ve heard of a growing resentment in
Canada toward the United States. Now some of the reasons for this are economic, such as our exclusion of their zinc, lead, and oil, and a feeling in
Canada that their business, so largely controlled from the United States, is subordinated in management and interests to the United States.
And also a feeling that their point of view about our mutual defense, which is so important, and about foreign policy, takes for granted that they quite agree and sometimes we found there were really sharp differences. And also there is perhaps inescapably a feeling by many Canadians that their own culture tends to be smothered in this tremendous flow of American products, American movies, and books and magazines and news.
Well, Mr. Montgomery, if our news from
Canada is adequate, how does it happen that so many of us were so caught by surprise at the anti-American tone in their recent election.
Montgomery:
Well I think, Mr. Lyons, that people who follow the affairs of
Canada closely were familiar with that. It is not new to have various waves or degrees of antagonism against the United States and
Canada. And this particular time that you refer to was the time of a political election in
Canada, a general election.
And political leaders made statements for purposes that politicians make statements, that created a little heat. I notice that since the election of the government, the new government, the conservatives, the anti-Americanism if you want to call it that has gone down. And it will from time to time go either way.
Kimball:
Mr. Farquharson, what are all these fascinating and important things that are going on in
Canada that state-side Americans ought to know about.
Farquharson:
Well a lot of things are happening in a lot of parts of the country. The most spectacular development is in the far north, where railways are being built and roads built in country that was considered only a few years ago just Eskimo country. The economic development has been perhaps the most spectacular development of any country in the world in the last ten years.
Politically, there have been many things happen, so long had had one government that I can understand newspapers feeling that there wasn’t very much news in Canadian politics. Lately they’ve been much more interesting. Canadians themselves are reading more about the politics of
Canada. And also Americans are reading more. There has been an improvement in the amount. I would like to see the improvement greater.
Lyons:
Well Mr. Farquharson, as to the way we get our news, the sources of news, and who does write it, what, let’s get down to that.
Farquharson:
The Canadian Press feeds the Associated Press with copy written for Canadians. It comes as a byproduct. In the same way, world news from
Canada to
Canada comes from the Associated Press again as a byproduct. And we suffer by getting American news written by Americans instead of being written by Canadians.
I very much would like to see in both cases the stories recorded by people who understood the domestic scene and had the accent of their readers. In addition to the AP, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune have staff correspondents. The Wall Street Journal has a staff correspondent. Otherwise, the field is entirely covered by Canadians.
Lyons:
Well Mr. Montgomery, to most of our papers, clearly the Associated Press is a main channel of news from
Canada and from everywhere else. Now would you tell us a little about the volume of news that the Associated Press receives about
Canada.
Montgomery:
Yes, I’d like to elaborate on that. I think that the picture Mr. Farquharson drew does need a little elaboration. The Canadian Press does not feed news to the Associated Press. Now we have, to speak of just the Associated Press, we cover
Canada really through all the newspapermen in
Canada, through all the papers.
The Canadian Press is a cooperative
Canadian counterpart in effect of the Associated Press in the United States. A cooperative of newspapers. So that there’re nearly a hundred daily newspapers in
Canada whose product is handled by the Canadian Press. Now in New York, the Associated Press receives that report. Now that’ll run from twenty to thirty thousand words a day. Well that’s the equivalent of twenty-five to thirty-five columns, solid columns of news.
Lyons:
That’s your raw material.
Montgomery:
That’s the raw material, and it’s handled by people who are familiar with
Canada and of course in the beginning is handled by people who are familiar with the United States. I think there’s a fallacy in your position, Mr. Farquharson, that an American national, a United States citizen, is necessary to interpret the news of
Canada.
Now, just as an example, the
England of Charles Dickens’ day, was pretty well understood in this country through the writings of one Charles Dickens. The complicated social problems of the day were explained pretty well. This country was quite familiar with that phase of English life and with the goings-on of
England through the eyes of an Englishman.
Lyons:
Maybe we need more Charles Dickens in the newspaper business.
Montgomery:
Well, Charles Dickens was a good newspaperman.
Kimball:
Mr. Montgomery, I’d like to ask you a question. You spoke of all the great volume of
Canadian news that comes into the Associated Press. Well what happens to it before it gets to me, the reader?
Lyons:
Well as to how much of it gets through your wire, Mr. Montgomery, competition with everything else...
Montgomery:
Well, news flows and seeks a level of interest. The Associated Press has a great number of wires serving different parts of the country and serving newspapers of different sizes, so that no two newspapers receive exactly the same amount of
Canadian news or any other news.
Now this news and the wealth of
Canadian news that we have every day, we’ll select whatever seems to be important or significant for movement in that day. Now, this will fluctuate, but it is a fact that we carry on our wires to newspapers many times the volume of news of all kinds that a newspaper can print, and the newspaper from that volume selects what he wants.
The editor selects what he wants. This is true of
Canadian news or of
European news or any other news. So that in general, the American newspapers, newspapers in the United States, receive more
Canadian news than they print. Now the amount they print is governed by what the editors of the papers believe their public is interested in.
Kimball:
Mr. Montgomery, you’re saying it’s the editor’s fault then that we don’t get more news about
Canada, not the Associated Press’s fault.
Montgomery:
I don’t say there’s any fault at all. You must remember that the newspaper has to cover a great deal of things every day. And...
Lyons:
Well that brings up a point, Mr. Montgomery. I recall that you yourself were a correspondent of the Associated Press in
Canada. I believe in most foreign countries, the Associated Press does keep an American correspondent.
Montgomery:
Yes, that’s true.
Lyons:
Does this mean you take
Canada more for granted than other countries?
Montgomery:
Well there’s a lot to those, there’s a lot to that in the matter of American interest in
Canada. It’s not probably widely known that some of the best foreign correspondents from countries outside of
Canada which you mentioned, Mr. Lyons, appearing in United States newspapers is written by people who are not Americans or United States citizens.
The first thing - and this is important to remember – the first thing that a correspondent must be is a newspaperman. That’s number one. And his nationality may or may not have a bearing. Canadians understand the United States quite well, and I should mention that from time to time we send special correspondents into
Canada to cover events in
Canada.
We would, and do, before a general election and after a general election and from time to time on other stories. There’s these little things seem to add up to something that needs to be told we will send a specialist up there to do that. We do that frequently.
Lyons:
But if the AP no longer keeps a correspondent in
Canada as it once did, does that mean that the pressure of world events has mounted so that there just isn’t as much space for a quiet country?
Montgomery:
M: Yes. Yes, it does. It does. There’s relatively little interest in this country in
Canada, and that’s reflected not only in the case of newspapers, but magazines of general circulation. It’s reflected in colleges and universities who’ve for years have had courses on
Latin America. But only recently some of them have come around to having special programs on
Canada.
Farquharson:
Now Mr. Montgomery, I, I watch American newspapers constantly. I have noticed a very increase in the amount of editorial-page interest in
Canada. I have had letters from American editors asking for more and more stuff and asking why they get, don’t get more news.
I have had the feeling that quite often there’s no knowledge that a problem exists, because the story has been written, as it appears in
Canada by Canadians who have taken for granted that the readers knew what the American readers never had a chance to know because there was no one to work that special American background into the copy.
Montgomery:
Well I don’t think that’s valid. It’s perfectly normal of course to have a renewed or resurgent interest in
Canada when a conservative government has come in after so many years of a liberal government - in this country, it would be like the Republicans following the Democrats roughly - and great interest to see what
Canada would do about it.
Now the editorial writer who complains that he doesn’t find enough about a subject that he wants to write about in the general press, is not a good editorial writer. The good editorial writer has to go to special places for information, to pull out things that are not in the general press, that people are not interested in unless he’s writing an editorial about it. And editorial writers will do this on any subject they’re covering.
Lyons:
Well, Mr. Farquharson, we know that there’s a great flow of news into
Canada. They know as much about our world series and
Washington, I’m sure, very often as we do. Well now, it’s also said that a reason for a lack of interest, whether by editors or readers, in
Canadian news, is the great similarity between the two peoples.
But I wonder as to the accessibility of news in
Canada. We know the American president has a press conference every so often and there’s a great channel of news. I take it you don’t in
Canada have this kind of institution so much.
Farquharson:
We don’t have the press conference to the same extent. But when Parliament’s sitting, we have a question period every day. When the Prime Minister and all the members of the cabinet face questions, and this comes every day during the Parliament’s session. And when Parliament isn’t sitting there are some press conferences. I would think that it’s probably a good deal easier for a Canadian correspondent to get in to see the Prime Minister than it is for an American correspondent to see the President.
Lyons:
Is that so? Well now, you feel that we have a scarcity of continuing news about
Canada, how do American editors feel about this?
Farquharson:
I have had a number of letters, all bearing the general supposition that they want more news. From the foreign editor of the
Phoenix Republican Gazette, Phoenix, Arizona, he says, “The coverage is very bad. In fact, it is practically non-existent. Here in Arizona we have had a few stories at election times. They were very sketchy and inadequate.
Honestly I think the wire services cover political development in
Canada, cover political development in
Canada in Sudan than they cover political developments in
Canada.” Now that is strong language and I don’t agree with him.
Montgomery:
I think that’s perfectly natural. I think that any newspaper in this country that didn’t print last summer or a lot more about the
Middle East and
Lebanon for instance than they did about
Canada would not have been doing its job in behalf of the American public.
The proximity of one country to another or the goodness or badness of the relations between two countries are not the governing factor in this.
Farquharson:
But Mr. Montgomery, there is one point that bothers Canadians: the feeling – it’s – well, I had it once described to me this way, that it hurts when the elephant stands on your toes, but it hurts more when the Canadian looks up at the beaming face of the elephant and realize that the elephant doesn’t know it is standing on anything’s toes.
Kimball:
Mr. Farquharson, you’re all a little bit over my head here. Let’s go down to cases. Now, what story out of
Canada ought we to have heard that we haven’t seen in the papers recently.
Farquharson:
Well, in September the Commonwealth Economic Conference was held in Montreal. There were two American correspondents there. One from the Wall Street Journal and one from Business Week. There was a total file of 650 thousand words. It was quite a rich conference from a standpoint of news.
But the copy was written, the copy that went to AP was written by Canadians. It didn’t develop the American interest in the story. It pointed out for instance how much a certain development meant in
Canadian trade, it didn’t point out as was the case that it meant about three times as much to the United States as it did to
Canada.
That was lacking entirely from the story, with the result that the coverage of the conference in American papers, the news coverage was very bad. There was a good deal of editorial interest, and a good many, well-informed editorials. But...
Lyons:
Mr. Farquharson, what are some of the papers that, from your point of view, do a good job in covering
Canada?
Farquharson:
In available, in total percentage of available space I put the
Christian Science Monitor first. In total space coverage, the New York Times. The New York Times has three, a staff of three in Ottawa, all Americans. The Chicago Tribune carries a great deal of copy.
Getting along the border, you have quite definite interest in what is more regional news as you would understand it in the AP. That follows right across the northern border of the United States and down the
Pacific Coast. But you get St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Washington Post, the Minneapolis Tribune...
Lyons:
Well Mr. Montgomery, would you feel that these papers that Mr. Farquharson has cited are too exceptional to be a guide to a press service as to what could be furnished newspapers in general?
Montgomery:
Well I think it’s notable that the very papers that have been mentioned are not papers who write us in the vein of the editor Mr. Farquharson quoted. They know how much interest the public has and they know that from our wires they can get all the news they feel they need. All they have to do is ask for more. We give them more than they print, and I think it’s probably true in the case of those papers they may print more than most of their reading public is interested in.
Kimball:
Mr. Montgomery, how do you know what your reading public wants to read about
Canada?
Montgomery:
Well editors have to feel this. Each knows his own community. And he has a number of ways of communicating with the community. It’s a matter of editorial judgment in the last analysis.
Lyons:
And yet, Mr. Montgomery, just a few years ago, the Milwaukee Journal sent a good reporter into
Canada to write about their post-war development. He got a Pulitzer prize...
Lyons:
...which suggests a market and a yield of...
Montgomery:
Well we’ve done some such things. We haven’t had the good fortune to get a Pulitzer prize on
Canada. But we do the same kind of reporting from time to time.
Lyons:
Well, Mr. Farquharson suggests that some of the sources of friction are economic matters. The clippings that we have been gathering from American newspapers, recently, very commonly come from the financial page.
The
Christian Science Monitor on
November 11th had a very interesting story about the rising unemployment in
Canada, much higher than ours, and also they said the worst labor management since the strike, since the last war. Well this was in the financial page.
There was recently a big trade conference in
Chicago, to which the Canadian Trade Minister came. Now both the Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune, major stories, but always on the financial page. And this trade minister was talking about the sources of friction in, between the two countries, and the need for giving more attention to
Canadian subsidiaries by their American control, and the need of opening up investments in
Canada in this country to, more to Canadians.
Well this raises a question, Mr. Montgomery, whether except for the financial page reporters and news editors are as well-equipped to deal with economic news as some other things.
Montgomery:
Well yes, there’s a great deal of specialization today in that field. And I think that the fact that important or significant copy appears on the financial pages or the business pages, which is a more general term now, that is not against the story. Editors are trying to build up their financial and business sections. And I think that that’s perfectly proper.
Kimball:
Gentlemen, I’d like to break in here now and ask you both what all this adds up to. Now just what is the responsibility of the press as far as
Canadian-American relationships are concerned and does it have the prime responsibility?
Montgomery:
Well the press has the function of informing the public and newspapers, many editors will want to lead the public to ends that they think are good. And this is fine and this is the function. As to
Canada in particular,
Canada must find its place and fall into categories. The extent of the amount of news printed about
Canada must be in relationship finally to the basic interest of the public in
Canada, and that is low.
Lyons:
Mr. Farquharson, what do you say?
Farquharson:
I wish that I could agree with Mr. Montgomery in that. I feel that the flow of news from
Canada doesn’t quite get what it is entitled to because it is not done by the nationals of, the same nationals as are reading the stories.
Lyons:
You’d like to see it get an American accent.
Farquharson:
To me that is vital.
Lyons:
Well thank you very much, gentlemen. If there’s one thing we have been able to agree on in this last half hour, I think it is that there are evidences of rising resentment in
Canada toward the United States. And the American public is largely unaware of this. We can’t be too happy about this as interested Americans. We certainly can evince a livelier interest in
Canada and demand more news about
Canada. I personally hope that the American press will take a leading role in providing the basis for understanding between the two countries. And now, until next week on the Press and the People, this is Louis Lyons.