.
| Hearsay: |
Well, despite surveys south of the border and over the pond that seem to show declining interest in intellectual activity, Canada once again bucks the trend in a study that shows that more of us would rather read a book than see a movie. A nation of polite nerds. Hear us roar!
Canadians are more likely to read a book than attend a movie, and they’re visiting art galleries and historic sites more. At least that’s what appears to have been the case two years ago, according to an analysis released yesterday of a “social survey” of 10,000 Canadians completed by Statistics Canada in 2005.
The analysis by Hill Strategies Research Inc. of Hamilton found that, in 2005, 17.4 million Canadians 15 years of age and older — or 66.6 per cent of that total population group — read at least one book in the course of 12 months. In fact, about four in 10 Canadians read at least one book a month in 2005. By contrast, in that same period, 15.9 million Canadians (61 per cent) went out to see at least one movie in a theatre or at the drive-in.
The level of book reading has remained stable relative to previous surveys of Canadian cultural activities done in 1992 and 1998, but there has been a decline in newspaper readership. In 1992, 93.2 per cent of Canadians said they read at least one newspaper that year; six years later, that figure was 88.7 per cent, and in 2005, 86.7 per cent. However, while the rate of newspaper reading declined, the number of readers has increased, thanks to a 22.6-per-cent hike in the overall number of Canadians aged 15 and up.
As a result, newspaper readers increased to 22.6 million in 2005 from 19.9 million in 1992.
In reality, I have a hard time believing these stats. My generalized anecdotal evidence is so much more powerful to me than a bunch of numbers. I still say we’re headed to hell in a handbasket slung over Stephen Harper’s forearm.
January 2006
December
2005
November
2005
October
2005
September
2005
August
2005
July
2005
June
2005
May
2005
April
2005
March
2005
February
2005
January
2005
December
2004
November
2004
October
2004
September
2004
August
2004
July
2004
June
2004
May
2004
April
2004
March
2004
February
2004
January
2004
December
2003
November
2003
October
2003
September
2003
August
2003
Bookninja © Copyright
The opinions expressed on this site are those of individual participants
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the site owners,
organizers, or other participants.
[powered by WordPress.]
March 30th, 2007 at 8:29 am
release yourself from dogma. Why do you beleive stats when they tell you things are getting worse, but not when they tell you things aren’t? I can vouch for Hill Strategies, I know Kelly personally and he’s one of the smartest guys in the arts. You just don’t know who he is because he’s a statistician, not a poet. He’s the only guy in the country who’s actually looking at data, not opinion, on the state of the arts.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Whenever I see survey results (even “feel good” survey results) summarized in the newspaper, I think about the proverbial kinds of falsehoods: “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” I recall the work I did for newspapers and for an opinion polling company in Toronto. Then I become severely skeptical.
April 1st, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Then go look at Hill’s work for yourself, rather than read the Globe’s redux. The report in question is right here:
http://www.hillstrategies.com/resources_details.php?resUID=1000223&lang=0
I don’t know him personally, but I’ll second michel’s high opinion of his research.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 am
I’m sure the numbers are correct but they’re based on people’s reporting. The “halo effect” — people want to protray themselves in a better light, even in an anonymous survey — may be in effect in people indicating they read a book when maybe they didn’t. But the survey also didn’t ask people to indicate whether they had watched a movie on video or DVD. So, to say more people are reading books than watching movies is a bit disingenuous if you haven’t counted home viewership.
April 2nd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Even as stats go, this one (the book vs. movie, that is) is particularly meaningless. It doesn’t take into account, e.g., movies watched on TV or DVD in the privacy of one’s own home (an activity more analogous to reading than the social act of going to the cineplex). Nor is there a definition of what constitutes a “book.” I’ve heard people referring to their mostly-graphic Maxim magazine, e.g., as a book. And people are more apt to lie/exaggerate about reading books–’cause that’s what intelligent, cultured people do, ain’t it? Read books, that is, not lie…–than about watching movies. And how useful is “at least one”? This gives absolutely no idea of how many books people or reading, nor how many movies they’re watching. Basically, it’s a feel-good stat, a comfy number game. Given the cost of movie tickets these days, I don’t find it surprising at all.