Interpret and evaluate communication and media policies
• To gain an understanding of how policies are made
• To learn who makes them and who benefits from them
To accomplish these goals, select one of the following Canadian government policy documents and write a report following the steps listed below.
Information and Communication Policies
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. (2004, May). Interim Report on Copyright Reform. First Report. 37th Parliament, 3rd Session.
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. (2003, April). Opening Canadian Communications to the World. Third Report. 37th Parliament, 2nd Session.
Other Policies
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. (2005, March). Here We Go Again . . . Or The 2004 Fraser River Salmon Fishery. Second Report. 38th Parliament, 1st Session.
Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Health. (2004, April). Opening the Medicine Cabinet: First Report on Health Aspects of Prescription Drugs. 37th Parliament, 3rd Session.
Research and Composition
1. Narrative chronology of the policy process (3 pages)
From contextual information in the document and from appropriate primary (government web sites) and secondary (newspaper and magazine articles) sources, tell the story of how this policy has been developing over the past few years. Locate the document in the process. What led up to it and what has followed? Trace the process back a few years and make it as current as possible. For each event or publication, note who sponsored or created it, what the mandate was , and, briefly, what the outcome was. Make sure you relate the events or documents to each other. Make each event or document a separate item in your chronology. Give as precise a date as possible for each event or document.
2. Stakeholder profiles ( 5 pages)
?• Using appropriate policy documents, article databases and web sites, locate as many stakeholders or interest groups as possible.
• Group them into the categories of government, industry, NGOs, and other (if necessary).
• For each of government, NGO and industry groupings, prepare a report of about two pages on the grouping that outlines the position(s) the grouping espouses on the policy issue. Why do they hold that position (i.e., what will they get if the policy goes their way?)
• Describe generally who is in each grouping. Is there unanimity or a split? Why might this be the case?
• Describe the grouping’s interventions and/or participation in the policy process.
• Use examples drawn from the group members.
• Remember that you need to go beyond the submissions that these organizations made for the specific document of study.
3. International comparison (2 pages)
Relate the document to a similar document from the European Union, U.K., Australia, New Zealand or U.S. Locate and identify this document. Who produced it and why? What is the context for this document? What kind of a document is it? Do not use a bill or act for comparison. These are quite different types of documents. Briefly compare and contrast its concerns with those of the Canadian document.
4. Documentary policy discourse analysis (1 page)
?• Identify the problem the document seeks to address. (Look in the executive summary, introduction and conclusion.) How is the problem framed? What is the solution it proposes?
• Identify the cast of characters in the document. Who is/are causing the problem? Who will provide the solution? In other words, say who the heroes and villains are.
• To the extent you can, relate the story being told in the document to the stakeholder profiles you assembled in Part 2. Which stakeholder grouping does the document most closely resemble? Why might that be?
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂