Search

This article compares why McLuhan's work in communications has been the source of much acclaim whereas that of lnnis has attracted attention only recently. It argues that the disparate responses to the contributions of these two theorists are rooted not only in the extent to which their writings were available, but also in their differing communication practices. The latter account for why Innis' studies of media were initially ignored and why McLuhan was able to develop a considerable following, in part by drawing on Innis as a precursor; this resulted in a distorted view of lnnis' ideas that has persisted to this day. As a corrective, the article challenges McLuhan's claims that Innis viewed media as a form of staple and that he sought to understand how various knowledge specialities could be unified. Finally, it makes the case that the Innis/McLuhan tandem should be decoupled, to make better sense of a "de-McLuhanised" Innis on the one hand, and the McLuhanist-centred Toronto School on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On May 12, 1943, Harold Innis delivered a speech entitled "The Crisis in Public Opinion" at the annual luncheon of the Canadian National Newspapers and Periodicals Association, held in Toronto. The address has survived in transcript form in the Innis Papers collection at the University of Toronto Archives. Our paper can best be seen as a companion piece to the edited transcription of Innis' original speech, which follows in this issue of the Canadian Journal of Communication. Emphasizing the performative nature of the speech, we contextualize "The Crisis of Public Opinion" by examining the correspondence leading up to and following the speech. We argue that Innis' views on the "crisis of public opinion" in the print media indicate that he understood this particular issue as part of a broader public crisis related to the decline of political and juridical institutions and to shifts in power and influence. His commentary on media in Canada was bound up with his effort to promote collective engagement as a corrective to the biases in power that he had detected. The 1943 speech is thus significant not simply as a "missing link" between Innis' writings on Canada and his later work on communication theory; it is a clear and compelling distillation of the engagement, enactment, and performance that were the abiding features of his work as an intellectual. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]