Answering how and to what degree the commenting at cbc.ca contributes to shared national identity and consciousness is a difficult task. Each story attracted some comments expressing opinions about Canadian ideals, responsibilities, and identity. While these comments varied widely, there was a consistent trend of binary opposition along similar lines. The exact topics users disagreed upon varied by story. Nonetheless an examination of these 1491 comments shows two distinct camps, with differing views of Canadianess. The differences between these two sides can be described as a series of binaries. Each binary can be characterized roughly as an inclusive view versus an exclusive view:
Inclusive versus Exclusive
Us versus Them
LocalversusGlobal
Con versus Pro
‧
The inclusive versus exclusive binary was one of the most common. The exclusive viewpoint put limits on what qualified as Canadian while inclusive comments did the reverse, advocating for a broader definition of Canadian. Similarly, the us versus them dichotomy popped up frequently. The us side advocated placing perceived Canadian interests above those of non-Canadians while the them side espoused a more international perspective.
Global versus local perspectives came up frequently in business-oriented stories. Those advocating local perspectives were disparaging of non-Canadian actors in Canadian markets, while commenters with a more global outlook were more welcoming of foreign influences.
Finally, the pro versus con dichotomy is perhaps the most difficult to characterize, in that it varied so widely from story to story. Broadly speaking, the con side disagreed with or negatively assessed the news in question, while the pro side was more agreeable or positive.
For instance, in terms of the Haitian adoptee story a con commenter would be against the adoptions while a pro commenter would support them. Likewise, in the Olympic Flag story a con commenter would be against the Olympics or Clara Hughes‟ selection, while a pro commenter would be supportive.
To get a better idea of how these oppositional viewpoints became manifest within the comment threads, we need to look more closely at the actual comments:
Haiti Reconstruction:The national discourse that took place within this story‟s comment section largely revolved around Canada‟s responsibility to help with Haitian reconstruction or the lack thereof. The user derrickdavies made the seventh comment on the story clearly articulating a con position: “Canada is not in a position to lead this effort. We need to cut taxation at home and help our own people first.” Ten minutes later Woodsman19 made a case for the pro side:
Good, we should be taking charge, We are more trusted than any other nation there (except maybe France) and we have no desire for anything but the wellbeing of the people. It is refreshing to see us actually doing something positive without the media trying to turn it into a political story, although im sure it will in a matter of time.11
So, within a few minutes of commenting beginning we can see two very different interpretations of what users believe “we” as Canadians should do. The posting of these sorts
11 Due to the rather loose interpretation of grammatical rules and spelling standards employed by cbc.ca users, the convention of clarifying errors in the original source material by noting [sic] would render many of these comments difficult to read. Therefore, comments have been directly cut and pasted from cbc.ca and mistakes have been left as is in all quoted comments.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
of opposing viewpoints goes on for most of the comment thread. However, users with differing opinions rarely engage one another. The majority of dialogic comments within this thread revolve around political issues. Many of the comments that did engage in pro-con nationally oriented disagreements also ended up transforming into partisan political debates.
For example, in response to ScottAsh‟s comment that “Canadians should be proud of our humanitarian effort in Haiti” Lancer13 wrote that: “We really should be Scott, but the sophistry of the left does not allow for rational thought.” Similarly in response to Ground Zero’s comment that: “Harper‟s construction buddies are getting restless. Their pockets are empty and their million dollar homes need repainting” BigEinMa wrote: “Why don‟t you just out and say it?? You don‟t seem to think that Canada, or at least the Conservatives, have any business helping a nation of poor black people. Such an ignorant fool you are.”
Throughout the 285 comments on this story, the pro-con opinions are repeatedly made, but there is a distinct preponderance of con-type comments and little engagement between those with differing opinions. The con group consistently relies on economic imperatives for not engaging in Haitian rebuilding, while the pro group either makes practical suggestions for how Canada could help in rebuilding efforts, or simply voices straightforward support for a Canadian role in rebuilding.
Haiti Adoptees: The story covering the arrival of Haitian adoptees prompted discussions about Canadian responsibilities that were similar to those posted in response to the Haiti Relief story. Instead of posting opinions about whether or not Canadian money should go towards helping reconstruct Haiti, in the context of this story, users often disagreed about whether Canadians should adopt foreign children when there are perceived needs at home in Canada.
Specimen Yarp argued that:
We should not be importing them when we have thousands of Canadian children waiting to be adopted. If you think another countries children are more important than Canadian children, then you shouldn‟t be in this country.
This and similar sentiments were repeated over and over by those who opposed the adoptions.
The pro-adoption commenters argued that the sheer level of need the Haitian orphans were in made it a moral imperative to help them. In addition, they often argued that Haitian adoptees
‧
This is not an issue of Canadian children vs Haitian. This is an issue of our humanity.
Have you become so blinded that you can‟t realize that Haitian families make up our Canadian fabric, and many of these Canadians may be looking to adopt children from their homeland. Look inward first before you seek to judge. Do your part, and encourage people you know to do the same.
We can see that within both of these stories about Haiti users take similar positions about Canadian obligations. Some users argue that Canada has a moral imperative to help Haitians, while others argue that Canadian efforts should be reserved for helping what they define as Canadians.
One of the troubling trends to emerge within both of these stories was an undercurrent of racism. The user shineyoneargued that “White families shouldnt have no responsability to raise kids from other cultures!” Despite Canada‟s professed multiculturalism and the CBC‟s historic role as a key supporter of the multicultural policy there was surprisingly little argument against these sentiments.
Tamil Tigers/Mumbai: Due to the similar content in both of these stories, the national discourse in their comment threads showed significant overlap. The main theme of inclusivity versus exclusivity mirrors some of the pro versus con arguments in the Haitian stories. The exclusive side had by far the strongest representation within each story‟s comment thread. Those expressing exclusive interpretations of Canadian argued that – despite their Canadian citizenship - the accused in each story were not in fact “Canadian”
because of their immigrant provenance. The user ParryBankhurst made the first comment on the Tamil story stating: “Still have difficulty with the reference to „Canadians.‟” Doucie35 echoed these sentiments: “Canadians?????????? yah right give me a break !!!”
The Mumbai story attracted many similar comments. FearlessCrusade argued that the CBC should not use the term “Canadian” to refer to the accused:
I am convinced CBC is just trying to illicit furious comments from its commenters!
So many people have expressed outrage that CBC keeps calling this guy a
“Canadian”, and he is a legitimate holder of citizenship of the country of Pakistan!
YES…He obtained a Canadian citizenship! This does NOT make him “Canadian”.
So many people have commented likewise.
‧
These exclusive arguments attracted widespread agreement via the feedback tool.
Those few who dissented and argued for a more inclusive definition of “Canadian”
encompassing all who hold citizenship faced disagreement via both the feedback tool and other users‟ responses.
Opposing exclusive-Canadian comments the user cainlawrence argued that responses to these types of stories were in some ways inconsistent. Cainlawrence stated that:
explain to me why there aren't comments like this on the many recent articles about the firebombings in Montreal. They are reported to be committed by the Italian mafia. … Why do we only see comments saying:
"Hey, Canadians of convenience!"
"Hey, those aren't Canadian names!"
"It's all Trudeau's and the Liberals fault."on these articles? Why can't you people be consistent? Or are you only "conveniently" like this when you're dealing with a certain ethnic group of people? Why are these criminals given comments like this, but Italians are spared? Why isn't "Rizzuzto" or whatever made fun of for not having a "Canadian"
name?
While this comment does point out an interesting inconsistency in the way the term
“Canadian” is often applied in CBC comment threads, users nonetheless overwhelmingly disagreed with it, leaving it with 75 „disagrees‟ and 34 „agrees.‟
Target/Quebecor:These two stories shared similar themes of American expansion into Canada and thus generated similar commenting trends. The majority of nationally oriented comments expressed concern with outside control of Canadian companies and markets.
These comments were often anti-American and/or anti-Chinese in nature, as when the wolf wrote: “yankee go home and take your cheap-china junk with you – we are tired of your endless BS” or when btalkssome what paranoidly wrote: “Target I‟ve been told is actually owned by the CIA, just as Google is! Do we really want them in Canada?” In terms of the Quebecor takeover, MBBresdon and Simonkungneatly summarized the local concerns respectively writing: “This just in. US to swallow Canada.” And “Is there anything Canadian left, or is Canada now simply a puppet state?”
The more global voices countered local concerns in the Target thread such as when Hyphenated-Canadian pointed out that: “This amazing thing called G-L-O-B-A-L-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N has happened over the last twenty years. That is why your computer (with parts mostly
‧
made in China) did not cost you $10,000. You may want to get with it.” However, there was little to no dissenting opinion within the Quebecor thread where users almost universally voiced concerns with American expansion and the loss of Canadian assets.
UFC Health: The antagonistic attitude towards America that dominated both the Target and Quebecor stories was echoed in the UFC Health story. Lesnar was consistently ridiculed for his criticism of Manitoba‟s – and by extension Canada‟s – health care system.Revsolwrote “Who cares what this goon thinks? I hope he went back across the border as soon as he could.” Dozens of commenters made similar jokes about how Lesnar had been
“hit in the head to many times.” When users took the opposing position, suggesting Lesnar‟s criticism may have been well founded, they were widely disagreed with. For instance, Lisa JemitsI wrote:
I am a Canadian who lived in the US from 1996-2006. I am tending to agree with Brock on this one, I have been hospitalized in both countries. … I grew up in Canada believing free health care was the best thing ever. There is nothing free about our health care, check your tax deductions every paycheck and then see if this health care is “free”.
This comment was disagreed with by 41 users and agreed with by only 19. Many readers used the thread as an opportunity to pit the Canadian health care model against the American one, claiming - as user NoContest did – that “Canadian Healthcare is still light years ahead of the states. It doesn‟t matter what meathead says.” Meanwhile, others used it as an opportunity to engage in more anti-Americanism like user 88888900:
“Im sure we all have seen how self absorbed americans can be, I myself have seen the way they treat people if it is the others country. This appears to be just another American that feels that his rules should rule the earth and that everything in America is better. … It appears to me that this American who seems to be like many we hear of will come to another country to use and abuse their resources and them complain they were not treated like visiting royalty … hope he is not allowed back.”
This comment attracted 39 „agrees‟ and only 6 „disagrees.‟
Polar Bears:The story about new export restrictions on polar bear parts attracted comments that differed from many of the others in that - instead of focusing on an Us versus Them narrative – they dealt extensively with issues of Canadian regionalism. The user Austrian who became involved in a lengthy disagreement with a number of Northern-based readers argued that “Canada and Canadian Nature belong to all Canadian people, but not only
‧
to the bunch of Inuit hunters and their suppoters. They can deal without skins of Polar bear.
We live now not in the middle of the cavemen period.”
On the other hand, Inukman took issue with perceived Southern meddling in Northern affairs writing that:
Someone who lives in a city and pays more attention to the Americans for most of their lives think they truly know more about the wildlife in our back yard and how we should live and make a living. We still catch our food for dinner and if we can make a little bit of money we will. There is nothing wrong with that, we are managing the wildlife here in Nunavut which credible conservation agencies have acknowledged. The real threat is the country down the road from you [USA], polluting like there is no tomorrow.
This comment is interesting in that – unlike in conversations appended to the other stories - the term “we” refers to a regional community within Canada as opposed to Canadians more generally. We can also see that Inukman suggests urbanized Southern Canadians are somehow more American oriented than ruralites and Northerners. This Canadian vs.
American dichotomy frequently cropped up in the comments collected. Indeed, Canadian identity is often negatively constructed. The defining element of being Canadian is often characterized as not being American.
Asbestos:The story about potential anti-asbestos demonstrations during Charest‟s visit to India garnered comments notable for their level of agreement. In terms of discussions relevant to national consciousness and identity the majority of users agreed with Neil Gregory‟s assessment that: “We Canadians should be ashamed of ourselves for exporting death to developing countries.” This level of universality is reflected in the agreement/disagreement means which were about 17:3 for this particular story.
Repatriation:The nationally-oriented discussion which took place within this story‟s comment thread revolved around whether or not Canada should have a military presence in Afghanistan. The user Capt. Canada succinctly summed up the anti-mission view saying:
“Canada has no business being in the middle of a civil war in Afghanistan, supporting a corrupt government. Bring our troops home, alive, now.” Lasher500 disagreed with Capt.
Canadaand other users‟ comments wondering “why did I know that some idiot would come along and turn this tragedy into a political rant?” The nationally oriented discussion which took place within this story‟s comment section revolved around these sorts of disagreements, with the usual bit of anti-American commenting such as SteelcitySteve‟s comment:
‧
Another life tragically taken for Washington. The entire adventure in Afghanistan has been nothing more than a humanitarian and environmental disaster engineered by Washington and its partners. Only good Canadians can end this violent nightmare before it comes back to Canada…
SteelcitySteve succinctly sums up the not uncommon view of Canadians as “good” and Americans as some sort of global evil.
Olympic Flag:While the story announcing Canada‟s Olympic opening ceremony flag bearer could reasonably be expected to garner relatively tame comments of agreement and encouragement, there were a surprising number of dissenters leaving comments such as Dhead2 who claimed that:
Sorry, she had her chance in 1988 and refused the honour of carrying our flag. I don‟t want Canadians of convenience. Imagine if she had refused again. I know the Left wing CBC is gushing all over this, but she had her chance!! There are much better choices, who are true Canadians.
While Dhead2‟s understanding of the facts regarding Hughes‟ choice to not carry the flag at the Turin Olympics in 2006 is somewhat hazy, his/her claim that Hughes is not a true Canadian is interesting in that it fits within the inclusive-exclusive paradigm established within the comment threads of the other stories sampled. That said, the general tone of the comments and their levels of agreement/disagreement indicate that most users did not agree with the negative assessments. In this regard Sandyar wrote: “Instead of bashing our Athletes show support for our Great country and those who dedicated their lives to represent us in their chosen sport.”
Answering RQ3:With these observations in mind, how can we assess whether or not these comments contribute to a shared sense of national consciousness or identity? Well, we can say without doubt that the comment threads at these nationally relevant stories at least provide a venue for users to disagree about Canadian national responsibilities, ideals, and identity. The discussion taking place is notable for two reasons: it strays from the CBC‟s historic role as a generator of a unitary sense of Canadianess, and the disagreements in question demonstrate a surprising degree of departure from what are traditionally considered Canadian ideals of inclusivity, humanitarianism, multiculturalism, and internationalism.
Indeed it is difficult if not impossible to answer RQ3 unequivocally. The central problem being that the CBC is mandated to contribute to both shared national consciousness
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
and identity. While these two are related, they are not equivalent. Even if the CBC accentuates the consciousness of Canada as a nation and readers – for the most part - as Canadians, it does not necessarily contribute to a shared Canadian identity. These comment threads do lead readers to debate Canadian responsibilities, ideals and issues of national import. In this manner, they contribute to Canadian consciousness. As mentioned earlier, Canadians discussing Canada within a Canadian forum contributes to Canadian consciousness even if only by banal nationalist means (Billig, 1995). However, the issue of shared national identity is not as simple. The concept of Canadian identity suggests not only conceiving of one‟s self as Canadian, but also a degree of understanding as to what that actually means.
and identity. While these two are related, they are not equivalent. Even if the CBC accentuates the consciousness of Canada as a nation and readers – for the most part - as Canadians, it does not necessarily contribute to a shared Canadian identity. These comment threads do lead readers to debate Canadian responsibilities, ideals and issues of national import. In this manner, they contribute to Canadian consciousness. As mentioned earlier, Canadians discussing Canada within a Canadian forum contributes to Canadian consciousness even if only by banal nationalist means (Billig, 1995). However, the issue of shared national identity is not as simple. The concept of Canadian identity suggests not only conceiving of one‟s self as Canadian, but also a degree of understanding as to what that actually means.