A Content Analyses of Editorial Coverage of the 1972 Election Campaigns in Canada and the United States

• Author: Ronald H. Wagenberg,Walter C. Soderlund
• Published date: 01 March 1975
• Date: 01 March 1975
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/106591297502800106
• Subject Matter: Articles

85

A

CONTENT

ANALYSES

OF

EDITORIAL

COVERAGE

OF

THE

1972

ELECTION

CAMPAIGNS

IN

CANADA

AND

THE

UNITED

STATES

WALTER

C.

SODERLUND

AND

RONALD

H.

WAGENBERG

University

of

Windsor

IT

Tf

H~N

the

Prime

Minister,

Mr.

Trudeau

failed

to

call

an

election

in

WHEN the

of 1972, the likelihood that

national

elections

would

be

the

spring

of

1972,

the

likelihood

that

national

elections

would

be

held

in

both

Canada

and

the

United

States

at

the

same

time

in-

creased

dramatically.

Since

we

were

interested

in

the

state

of

relations

between

Canada

and

the

United

States

as

well

as

in

comparisons

between

the

two

poli-

tical

systems,

we

determined

that

advantage

should

be

taken

of

this

possibly

unique

opportunity

to

study

the

overlapping

campaigns

in

the

neighboring

democracies.

Accordingly,

during

the

summer

of

1972

we

designed

a

comparative

research

project

employing

content

analysis

of

newspaper

editorials

dealing

with

electoral

issues.

Although

we

actually

began

coding

editorials

in

August

1972,

it

was

not

until

September

1,

when

Mr.

Trudeau

dissolved

Parliament

and

called

a

federal

election

for

October

30,

that

temporal

comparability,

a

key

component

of

our

proposed

research

design,

was

assured.’

Specifically

in

our

research

design

we

envisioned

a

comparison

of

the

two

elections

along

three

major

dimensions:

(1)

the

relative

amount

of

editorial

coverage

devoted

to

substantive

issues,

political

institutions,

and

political

leaders,

as

well

as

the

degree

and

direction

of

partisanship;

(2)

the

relationship

of

two

variables-

(a)

type

of

newspaper

and

(b)

proximity

of

the

editorial

to

the

date

of

the

election

to

the

amount

of

editioral

coverage;

and

finally

(3)

the

amount

and

evaluative

direction

of

editorial

coverage

of

the

neighboring

country’s

election.

The

majority

of

comparative

social

science

research

on

Canada

and

the

United

States

suggests

that

the

two

countries

are

basically

similar

enough

that,

for

most

comparisons,

problems

of

measurement

equivalence

are

not

crucial.2

2

Perhaps

the

most

fully

developed

theory

positing

system

similarity

is

that

advanced

by

Louis

Hartz,

first

in

The

Liberal

Tradition

in

America

3 and

later

in

The

Founding

of

New

Societies.’

Basically

Hartz

argues

that

to

understand

NoT~ :

The

authors

wish

to

express

their

appreciation

to

colleagues

L.

W.

LeDuc

Jr.,

R.

G.

Price,

and

W.

L.

White

for

their

helpful

criticisms

of

an

earlier

draft

of

the

paper.

1

For

a

general

discussion

of

research

strategies

see

Donald

T.

Campbell

and

Julian

C.

Stan-

ley,

Experimental

and

Quasi-Experimental

Designs

for

Research

(Chicago:

Rand

Mc-

Nally,

1963) ;

for

specific

problems

encountered

in

cross-national

research

see

Adam

Prezeworski

and

Henry

Teune,

The

Logic

of

Comparative

Social

Inquiry

(New

York:

Wiley-Interscience,

1970).

2

See

in

particular,

Allan

Kornberg

and

Joel

Smith,

"Some

Consideration

Bearing

Upon

Com-

parative

Research

in

Canada

and

the

United

States,"

Sociology,

3

(September

1969),

341-57.

3

Louis

Hartz,

The

Liberal

Tradition

in

America

(New

York:

Harcourt,

Brace

and

World,

1964).

4

Louis

Hartz

et

al.,

The

Founding

of

New

Societies

(New

York:

Harcourt,

Brace

and

World,

1955).

86

the

political

development

of

&dquo;New

Societies&dquo;

(i.e.,

those

established

through

European

immigration)

it

is

necessary

to

understand

the

social

and

political

milieu

in

Europe

at

the

time

of

the

emigration,

in

particular,

the

ideology

of

the

&dquo;fragment&dquo;

of

the

European

society

which

moved

to

the

new

world.

This

fragment,

divorced

from

its

surroundings,

stagnates

and

according

to

Hartz

serves

as

the

basis of

a

new

nationalistic

ideology.’

Applied

originally

to

the

United

States,

the

theory

posits

the

lack

of

a

feudal

tradition

as

determining

the

liberal

ethos

of

American

society

and

especially

the

failure

of

socialism

to

develop

in

the

United

States.’

The

application

of

the

Hartz

theory

to

Canada

by

Kenneth

D.

McRae

focuses

on

the

duality

of

Canadian

political

culture

in

terms

of

the

nature

of

the

French

and

English

founding

fragments.

McRae,

in

attempting

to

dis-

tinguish

between

the

two

fragments,

characterizes

the

French

fragment

as

&dquo;feudal&dquo;

and

the

English

fragment

as

&dquo;liberal,&dquo;

implying

an

underlying

ideo-

logical

similarity

between

the

&dquo;revolutionaries&dquo;

in

the

United

States

and

the

&dquo;loyalists&dquo;

who

fled

to

Canada

at

the

time

of

the

American

Revolution.’

It

is

on

this

latter

point

that

Gad

Horowitz

disagrees

with

McRae.

Claiming

instead,

that

either

sufhcient

&dquo;tory&dquo;

or

feudal

perspectives

were

carried

to

Canada

by

the

United

Empire

Loyalists,

or

that

the

ideology

of

the

fragment

had

not

&dquo;congealed&dquo;

until

a

later

point

in

time,

Horowitz

claims

that

in

terms

of

the

original

Hartzian

theory,

socialism

in

Canada

is

a

viable

political

movement,

whereas

in

the

United

States

it

is

not.’

There

are

here

two

major

points

which

we

need

to

consider.

The

first

is

that

Canada

is

a

dual

fragment

society,

an

observation

which

no

one

seems

to

question.

The

second

deals

with

the

ideolo-

gical

composition

of

the

&dquo;English

fragment&dquo;

where

there

is

considerable

con-

troversy

over

whether

socialism

has

basic

legitimacy

in

the

societal

value

struc-

ture.

On

the

United

States

side,

Erwin

C.

Hargrove

adds

a

stylistic

variable

to

the

Hartzian

fragment

theory,

positing

that

the

existence

of

both

&dquo;utopian&dquo;

and

&dquo;pragmatic&dquo;

traditions

within the

dominant

liberal

ethos

explains

the

exist-

ence

of

both

radical

left

(though

non-socialist)

and

radical

right

movements

in

the

United

States,

while

agreeing

with

Horowitz’s

assessment

of

the

tory

influence

on

the

development

of

a

socialist

left

in

Canada.’

Viewing

all

these

contributions

advanced

within

the

Hartzian

framework,

we

find :

( I )

the

chief

difference

between

Canada

and

the

United

States

is

that

Canada

has

both

feudal

and

liberal

traditions

coresponding

to

the

major

ethnic

cleavage

in

the

country,

while

the

United

States

is

more

ideologically

homogeneous;

and

(2)

variations

within

the

liberal

fragment

in

both

Canada

5

Ibid.,

pp.

3-23.

6

Hartz,

Liberal

Tradition,

pp.

3-32.

7

Kenneth

D.

McRae,

"The

Structure

of

Canadian

History,"

in

Hartz,

New

Societies,

pp.

219-74.

8

Gad

Horowitz,

"Conservatism,

Liberalism

and

Socialism

in

Canada:

An

Interpretation,"

Canadian

Journal

of

Economics

and

Political

Science,

32

(May

1966), 143-71.

9

Erwin

C.

Hargrove,

"Notes

of

Canadian

and

American

Political

Culture,"

Canadian

Journal

of

Economics

and

Political

Science,

33

(February

1967),

107-11.