Blog Post #3

Vimy Ridge is one of those moments in Canadian history that stands for more than the battle itself. Over time, it has become part of the story Canada tells about itself as a nation. That is what stood out to me in both the CBC documentary Why the Battle of Vimy Ridge Matters and the Government of Canada’s Vimy Memorial website. Both are trying to help Canadians remember Vimy, but they do it in different ways. Looking at them through Harold Innis’s ideas of time-bias and space-bias makes those differences easier to understand. To me, both combine the two, but the CBC documentary leans more toward time bias, while the government website leans more toward space bias.

Innis argues that media shape how knowledge moves through society. Some forms of media are better at preserving knowledge over time, while others are better at preserving it across space. In general, heavy, durable media are better at preserving knowledge over long periods, while lighter, easier-to-spread media are better at reaching people across distances. Blondheim’s explanation of Innis is useful here because it connects time-biased communication to memory, continuity, and tradition, while space-biased communication is more connected to reach, organization, and control. He also points out that Innis cared about balance, not simply one bias over the other.

The CBC documentary feels more time-biased to me, even though it also has a space-biased side. Since it is a video meant for a wide audience, it clearly spreads ideas broadly, which is part of space bias. Still, what stands out most is the way it reflects on how Vimy’s meaning has changed over time. It does not present the battle as just a simple national triumph. It also focuses on grief, loss, and the tensions tied to conscription. That makes the documentary feel more reflective and less official. Instead of treating Vimy as a settled symbol, it shows that Canadians are still debating what it means, and that feels closely connected to Innis’s concern with keeping the past meaningful in the present.

The Government of Canada website feels more space-biased. It is clear, organized, accessible, and designed to communicate an official national message to a broad audience. It gives visitors the history of the memorial, explains its symbolism, and presents Vimy as a lasting tribute to sacrifice and remembrance. There is still a time-biased element because it helps preserve memory and connect people to the past. Even so, the overall tone feels more informational and more controlled than the documentary. It presents a clear national meaning rather than encouraging much reflection on how that meaning has changed. That is why I see it as leaning more toward space bias.

I think both articles help Canadians remember the past, but they do so in different ways. The website keeps Vimy in official national memory and makes that memory easy to access. The documentary, though, goes further by showing that Vimy has not always meant the same thing in Canadian history. Instead of presenting memory as fixed, it shows how interpretations of Vimy have shifted over time. That feels closer to Innis’s concern with preserving a meaningful relationship to the past rather than focusing only on the present. In that sense, both articles are useful, but the documentary leaves more room for reflection. For me, it is the stronger of the two because it not only remembers Vimy, but also asks what that memory means for Canadians today.