MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2022524258 · doi:10.1353/utq.2010.0027

The Bias of Communication (review)

2010· article· en· W2022524258 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Richard Cavell

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Toronto Quarterly · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueRhetoric and Communication Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWatsonPleaPoliticsArgument (complex analysis)SociologyEpistemologyHistoryMedia studiesLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Bias of Communication Richard Cavell (bio) Harold A. Innis . The Bias of Communication. Second edition, with a new introduction by Alexander John Watson. University of Toronto Press. xliv, 226. $29.95 Innis's lasting significance lies in the broad claims that he makes in this book: that media have a material effect on our social, political, economic, and cultural institutions; that those effects are manifested as biases of space or time; and that it is possible to acquire an understanding of history based on a study of these effects of mediation. Innis famously issues a 'plea for time' in The Bias of Communication. Written in the aftermath of the Second World War, and in the mortal shadow of cancer, this last major book of the Toronto inter-disciplinarian seeks to alert its readers to the increasing dominance of the spatial bias and to make an argument for a degree of balance that would be acquired through an appreciation of the temporal bias, which Innis associated with the oral tradition. It is deeply ironic, then, that Innis's meaning in this work is achieved spatially, through parataxis and juxtaposition, as McLuhan noted in the introduction to the first edition of this work, and not temporally, through the intricacies of argumentation. Watson states that Innis developed a political theory of mediation that McLuhan de-politicized, though Watson states as well that Changing Concepts of Time, the last book published by Innis, 'is a book to read for those who are interested in the political analysis that falls out of his communications research.' Watson further states that Innis believed in 'apolitical scholarship.' What is certain is that there is very little political analysis in Innis, though there are many political statements from which a politics emerges that is deeply conservative, Eurocentric in focus, Hellenistic in its values, its philosophical affinities Hegelian and Spenglerian, its theoretical matrix anti-Marxist: 'Much of this will smack of Marxian interpretation but I have tried to use the Marxian interpretation to interpret Marx' ('A Critical Review'). Much of what Watson has to say about Innis he already said in his biography, published in 2006, and given that Watson says of Innis that he often 'came close to the scholarly sin of academic plagiarism' in writing his later books, it is only fair to note that sentences in this introduction are highly reminiscent of sentences in the previous work. [End Page 418] Anti-McLuhanism passes for analysis here; not only did McLuhan de-politicize Innis (the assumption being that otherwise their media theories are the same, which is absolutely not the case, as McLuhan makes resoundingly clear in his 1951 essay 'The Later Innis'), but McLuhan imputed a utopian quality to mediation as opposed to Innis's ambivalence. In support of this last statement, Watson quotes half a sentence from an article written on McLuhan decades ago. After fifty years of scholarship on Innis and on McLuhan, we expect better than this from an introduction to a text that is not only a classic of media theory but a cultural document of profound significance for the Canadian nation. In this regard it should also be noted that the University of Toronto Press cared so little about the republication of this book that they failed to correct the errors of the first edition. Fortunately, this re-edition of Bias has retained the introduction of Paul Heyer and David Crowley, which, although now dated, will help orient the new reader to Innis's vast stew of insights, directing them toward the grand patterns and preventing them from being caught in the minor points. Heyer and Crowley correctly invoke the name of Foucault in their introduction; what Innis proposed was a theory of mediation as epistemic, attaching to that theory a notion of 'power' that derived from his vast analysis of a staggering historical trajectory. It is to McLuhan's introduction to the first edition, however, that one must inevitably return for the sense of an intellectual response to Bias on a par with the intellect that wrote it: 'It was my good fortune to begin with the first essay in this book: "Minerva's Owl." How exciting it...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,042
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,142

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0420,013

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,224
Écart entre enseignants0,194 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Toronto QuarterlyMême sujetRhetoric and Communication StudiesTravaux en français237 207