Review: The Politics of Canadian Broadcasting 1920–1951
| DOI | 10.1177/002070207202700223 |
| Published date | 01 June 1972 |
| Author | Asa Briggs |
| Date | 01 June 1972 |
| Subject Matter | Review |
328
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
a
friend.
Mr.
Speaight
has
done
ample
justice
to
the
soldier
and
the
man;
he
has made
a
sad
hash
of
the
diplomat
and
the
governor
general.
Much
of
this
is
hard
to
excuse.
In
places
the
book
is
hurriedly
and
badly
written,
so
that
one
reads
paragraphs
several
times
to
guess
at
their
meaning.
And the
errors
-
which
can
only
be
the
result
of
in-
adequate
proofing
and
almost
no
responsible
editing
at
all
-
abound.
Not
only
does
Mr
Speaight
think that John
Diefenbaker
fell
from
office
in
1962,
but
he
describes
the
man
as
"John
F.
Diefenbaker."
He
has
also
conferred
a viscounty
on
Sir
Robert
Borden,
and
at
various
places
gets
the
names of such well-known
persons
as
Brooke
Claxton,
C.G.
Power,
J.F.C.
Fuller
(the
military
historian),
A.G.L.
McNaughton,
and
Arnold
Heeney
wrong.
A
man
who
can
refer
to
the
Knights
of
St
Columbus
simply
has
no
ear for
the
nuances
of
Canadian
life.
For
faults
such
as
these
the
blame must
rest
chiefly
on
Messrs
Collins,
who
share
with
some
other
"branch-plant" publishers in
Canada
the
notion
that
high pro-
fessional
standards
are
unnecessary
in
a
market
as
small
as
that
in
Canada.
The
contrast
with
the
University
of
Toronto
Press
is
striking.
The
little
volume
of Vanier's
speeches
which
they
have
produced
is
well
designed
and
meticulously
copy-edited,
though
printed
in
a
type
which
is
likely
to
be
hard
on
the
aging
eyes
of
those most
likely
to
read
it.
J.R.
Mallory/McGill University
THE
POLITICS
OF
CANADIAN BROADCASTING
1920-1951
Frank W.
Peers
Toronto:
University of
Toronto
Press,
1969,
viii, 466pp,
$13.50
Professor
Peers
has
produced
a
valuable
and
readable
survey
of
the
development
of
broadcasting
policies
in
Canada
from
the beginnings
of
sound
radio
to
the
early
years
of
television.
He
establishes
the
distinc-
tiveness
of
the
Canadian
pattern
(different from
the
patterns
of
the
United
States
and
Britain) and
identifies
and
assesses
the
relative
significance
of
the
factors
making
for
distinctiveness,
paying
particularly
close
attention
to what
a
later
White
Paper
was
to
call
"the
continuing
resolve
for
Canadian
identity
and
Canadian
unity."
He
also shows
why
To continue reading
Request your trial