ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Contenu archivé Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande. THE PRESS AND THE NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD: PUBLIC OPINION AND CORRECTIONAL POLICY MAKING r PN 4748 .C2 S7 1975 eiv 27/7-,e ,0 2 /9 /rTHE PRESS AND THE NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD: PUBLIC OPINION AND CORRECTIONAL POLICY MAKING "A report done for the National Parole Board, in partial fulfillment of field placement requirements, Centre of Criminology, University of Ottawa." T.A. Wles March -1975 SOLICITOR . APR_ 5 1990 • Gu R - i yTEUfl G N RAt. e*,-.AM4 i -t (01\ITAI-110) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks go to the Chairman, Mr. W. R. Outerbridge, for his comments regarding possible investigative frame- works, to Mr. G. Parry, Special Assistant to the Chairman( for his comments and facilitation of intra-service contacts (as well as encouragement), and to Professor R. Barrington for his comments and interest. Thanks also goes to Ola Hodgins for cheerfully undertaking the massive amounts of typing required while trying to read my terrible handwriting. • TABLE OF CONTENTS* PAGE Introduction 1 PART I, A LITERATURE STUDY Mass Communication (and the "Mass") 6 II The Press, Politics, Policy Making, and Corrections 14 III Public Opinion: Criminal Justice and Corrections 26 IV Public Relations 34 V A Brief Summary and Some Further Suggestions 41 VI Recommendation 45 Appendix 52 PART II, A FIELD STUDY Section A. Summary Analysis and Interpretation, Paper Clips 57 I Province by Province 62 II The Issues 68 III The Writers 70 IV Some Very Brief 'Case Studies' 72 Appendices A-D 74 Section B. Field Report, How the Press Operates 156 I The Press 158 II The Wire Services 165 III Television News 168 IV Impressions 170 Section C. Interviews, National Parole Board Members 175 Section D. The Current Structual Functioning of Ministry and Constituents' Communications 179 Appendix 182 PART III, SUMMARY AND COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS Section A. Four Questions Answered, The Summary 187 Section B. Recommendations; A Suggested Model 197 Final Recommendations 206 *As an Executive Summary is not included, the following pages, which should encapsulate the thrust of this report, are suggested for reading: 41-45, 58-73, 157-174, and 187-206. A comprehensive reading is, however, recommended. • • INTRODUCTION • I believe that all of you, in your various (correctional) services, must do more to build up a good relationship with the news media. I know that this is not simple, that what the reporter sees must pass through the blue-pencil level, but I also believe that poor relationships are usually the result of poor effort. In your fields of probation and parole it is paramount that you enjoy good "press relations". Otherwise, your successes will continue to be secrets and your failures to be publicized. The mass news media will not be constructively interested in you unless you show real interest and real co-operation with them. They are your communication channels with the citizenry. Don't fight them, join them! - George Putnam, T.V. News Reporter (49) THE PRESS AND THE NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD: PUBLIC OPINION AND CORRECTIONAL POLICY MAKING Despite the obviously strategic importance of the press in mediating two-way communications between government agencies • and the citizen, very little is actually known about its role in public affairs. To what degree is public sentiment formulated by press exposure; to what degree do public officials separate media response and true public sentiment; to what degree are such officials swayed or constrained by what they read in the press; to what degree are press opinions congruent with public opinion. I am left with an uneasy suspicion regarding the sophistication of policy planning sentiments when I note the Ouimet Committee stating that "no study of the extent of public interest in the corrections field has been undertaken in Canada (17, P.32)", and more recently Boydell and Grindstaff e - 2 - (University of Western Ontario) pointing out that "one rarely sees a concrete demonstration that public opinion has actually been tapped (13, P.165)". Complan Phase I (1971), a pilot project of information and (public) opinion related to the Canadian penal system, and parole, prepared for the Ministry of the Solicitor General would appear to be an effort to fill that gap (22). However, the essential questions are still not answered. Complan Phase II, which was to deal more specifically with methods and channels of communications, readership profiles, media credibility and attitudes to do with pace of progressive rehabilitative programs implementation, was not carried out as planned. The fundamental purpose of this paper is to take a wide ranging look at the phenomenon known as the Press, as it relates to corrections, and in particular, to the National Parole Board. The fundamental aim is to provide the National Parole Board with information of general and specific interest and utility. Therefore, the presentation of tangential data, if thought to serve those terms of reference, will not be constrained. The paper is divided into three parts. Part I will provide an information base from the appropriate literature on mass communications, the media, public opinion, and corrections. 3 - 3 - Part II will provide collated data on the major newspapers in the country vis a vis distribution, amount of coverage given Parole Board or Service matters, and the usual directions (positive or negative, supportive or critical) such coverage takes. The time frame will be from January 1971 to December 1973. That material will be appended as Appendix A with a numerical analysis of it in Appendix B. A descriptive summary analyses and interpretation will comprise Section A of this part; this summary will include also circulation and market data gleaned from information noted as Appendices C and D. Section B will be a brief description of how the press works operationally, how "news" is processed through to • appearing in the press, the perceptions of the press vis a vis corrections, and other germane issues, based on interviews with select media personnel. Section C will comprise the observations of selected Parole Board Members vis a vis the media, including their perceptions of what effect it has had on the National Parole Board. Section D will be a brief description of how the present communications system works vis a vis the National Parole Board and the media. Part III shall comprise of a brief summary of notable findings of Parts I and II, and there will be an attempt to draw some reasonable inferences and suggest some recommendations 1 for possible future policy based on same. e 4 - 4 - As a result of the nature of the breakdown as suggested above, Parts I and II may be taken in isolation. The summary, comments and suggestions on press relations noted at the end of Part I may be taken as an encapsulation of the major thrusts and findings of that Part, for quick reference. Comprehensive drawing together and specific recommendations will wait, however, to Part III as already noted. • • M.I. 5 II■11 PART 1 • • PART I • I MASS COMMUNICATION (AND THE "MASS") After extensive study in the area of mass communications, in 1948 Berelson glumly stated that the most we could say about its effects was that "some kind of communication on some kinds of issues, brought to the attention of some kinds of people under some kinds of conditions, have some kinds of effects (41, P.4)". The literature still seems to indicate such vacuity, though Klapper sums up rather neatly some important findings (P.4), from his point of view: (There are some very conflicting views here, often focusing in the violence issue 65-66): 1. Mass communication ordinarily does not serve as a necessary and sufficient cause of audience behaviour, but rather functions among and through a nexus of mediating factors and influences. 2. The mediating factors are such that they typically render mass communication a contributory agent, but not the sole cause, in a process of reinforcing the existing conditions. This is held particularly with regard to the alleged impact of violence on the audience group or individual. 3. On such occasions as mass communication does function in the service of change, one of two conditions is likely to exist. Either: a) the mediating factors - 7 - • are inoperative and the effect of the media is direct; or b) the mediating factors, which normally favour reinforcement, will themselves be impelling towards change. 4. The efficacy of mass communications, either as a contributory agent or as an agent of direct effect, is affected by various aspects of the particular media, the communication itself, or the communication situation.