From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: When do we stop being outsiders? (WAS Re: The Journal on ...)
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:46:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.175417.16347@watserv1.waterloo.edu>
	schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:

>>There may be idiot renecks who actually spout such rubbish but I wish to 
>>assure quebec peoples that they are a very small minority. And a dieing 
>>breed. I for one do not tolerate such malice, and seek to put an end to 
>>it when I chance across it. 

>Well, they may be a minority, but it's them we hear the most in Quebec.

It is reasonable that different media put a different slant on issues to
suit their own agenda. Pro-nationalist media will try to put the
best face on nationalist events, and make TROC look as hostile as can be.

On the other hand, pro-federalist media would try to paint nationalists
in the worst possible light, and bring across the feeling that the
majority in Canada absolutely adores Quebec.

As in most issues, the truth is somewhere between the two extremes.
But propagandists on all sides are using whatever tools are available to
paint their opponents in the worst possible light. And negativism has
always made better press than positives...

Would a newspaper whose editorial stance advocates independence really
care about reporting activities in TROC which are positive about
Quebec? Would a federalist newspaper have anything good to say about the
aspirations (if not the tactics) of the soverignists?

Just like it is necessary to check out every brand of car before buying
one, it is best to check out different media before coming to any
conclusion based on media-presented "facts".

If CFCF and CFTM report the same event in a way that makes you
think they were at different events, that's normal. It may be necessary
to watch *both* of them, understanding that neither got the story 100%
right.

If I learned one thing in my post-graduate work in Journalism, it's that
media can use many subtle ways to make their own points. That objective
thing called "truth" is a goal which does not come easily, certainly not
from dependence on mass media (of any kind).

>Only YOU know that's a minority. French Quebeckers don't. Media
>show them the contrary.

Who is to blame?

Biased media?

Or a public (on both sides) too lazy to check out the other side of
the story?

>Maybe "la majorite silencieuse" (silent majority?) should do something
>before it's too late...

Like what? Our politicians sure don't talk for us. I'm open to
suggestions...

As a start, perhaps Quebec media ought to carry columns by rabid
federalists, and TROC media out to carry columns by avid nationalists.
It may not solve all problems, but it will at least let each side know
about the other side's frustrations and futile attempts to comprehend
what's going on.

Indeed, though the readership here is neither silent nor a majority,
perhaps this net has served to educate participants on both sides about
some of the feelings of the other side of the wall. You may see the
postings as including lots of Quebec bashing, others may see it as
TROC-bashing, I see it as a bit of both. It's an emotional issue, fed
more by passion than anything else. To one side, an entire culture and
way-of-life is at stake, to the other side, the breakup of (what was
thought of as) a well-working country is at stake.

How can one *not* expect tempers to flare? I would be much more upset if
either side got its way without any dissent or response from the other.
But I believe the overall effect here has been a positive one. I know I
have learned from it.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
              If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
Xref: sparky can.general:2083 can.jobs:140 ont.general:672 ont.jobs:115