Provincial Liberals Attacked Most in Local TV Coverage of B.C. Election

Contact:

Lydia Miljan, Director
National media Archive, (403) 230-7451 Email: lydiam@fraserinstitute.ca

Release Date: 14 January 1996

VANCOUVER, BC>>>  During the recent B.C. election campaign, criticisms of the provincial Liberal Party were heard more often than criticisms of any other party. This was the main finding of a study conducted by the National Media Archive of 410 news reports aired on BCTV, CBC and UTV between April 30 and May 28, 1996.

According to the study's principle investigator, Lydia Miljan: "All the television stations focused more negative attention on the Liberals than on any other party. In other words, 12 percent of the negative attention on CBC went to the Liberals, 8 percent went to the NDP and 2 percent went to the Reform Party. On BCTV, the Liberals also received the most negative coverage with 13 percent, the NDP came in second at 12 percent, and the Reform party received three percent. On UTV, the same pattern held with the Liberals receiving 11 percent, the NDP 9 percent, and the Reform Party three percent of total critical attention."

The Archive's Director was also quick to note that despite the overall negative attention the Liberals received, they fared better than the NDP. Said Ms Miljan, "Attention to the NDP was 50 percent more critical than complimentary on CBC and BCTV, while attention to the Liberals was almost 30 percent more critical on those stations. CBC provided more negative than positive assessments of the Reform Party, while BCTV's attention to that party was nearly balanced."

Ms Miljan further explained: "Although the NDP received proportionately more criticisms, the fact remains that, comparing the Liberals to the other parties, it was the Liberals who were criticized most frequently. Since an election campaign is ultimately a comparison between political parties, it is that relationship that holds the most import for the electorate."

Reporters Expressed Opinions Criticizing the Two Main Parties

The most startling finding of the twenty-nine day election campaign was that assessments of the parties were not limited to partisan opinions. Journalists provided analysis, interpretation and opinion of the parties, leaders and issues. Thirty percent of BCTV, 20 percent of CBC, and 20 percent of UTV reporters' statements were evaluations of the campaign. Of those comments, BCTV and UTV reporters provided more criticism of the Liberals than the NDP. Reporters' commentaries on the Liberals were four times more negative than positive on BCTV and five times more negative than positive on UTV. In contrast, CBC reporters were the least critical of the Liberals, giving them twice as many criticisms as accolades.

Although reporters provided negative commentary about the NDP, the imbalance was not so striking. On BCTV, reporters provided twice as many negative as positive assessments of the NDP. On UTV there were three negative comments for every one positive comment. CBC reporters were the most critical of the NDP with over three times as many positive as negative assessments.

Keith Baldrey: Reporter or Pundit?

The four Archive content analysts discovered that the reporter who provided the most commentary of any during the election campaign was BCTV's Keith Baldrey. He made double the number of statements of all other journalists with the exception of UTV anchor Russ Froese. Not only did Baldrey surpass his colleagues in the number of statements, but he was also one of the most outspoken journalists. One-third of his commentary provided an opinion on party policies and campaign strategies. And while BCTV reporters as a group were critical of both the Liberals and the NDP, Baldrey singled out the Liberals. For example, he provided 45 critical assessments of the Liberal campaign compared to just 8 negative assessments of the NDP campaign. Overall, Baldrey was slightly more positive than negative towards the New Democrats, but more than five times more critical than complimentary of the Liberals.

1991 Television Campaign Revisited

The forthcoming issue of On Balance (July 1996) examines the broader question of media balance and accountability by comparing local television news of the 1991 and the 1996 B.C. election campaigns. The Archive concludes that the negative coverage the Socreds received in 1991 might have had less to do with incumbency than a press corps hostile to the Social Credit Party. Miljan argues that the local media have shown themselves to be much more partisan than they have led the public to believe. She points to the coverage of scandals during the two elections and notes that the Social Credit Party in 1991 and the New Democrats in 1996 were judged on different standards: "Far from being judged on Bingo-gate and Hydro, the scandals that were associated with the NDP barely registered in media coverage. Incumbency did not play a factor in journalistic pursuit of scandals. While audiences were primed to judge the record of the Social Credit party on the basis of scandals, they were not primed to judge the NDP on the party's shady fund-raising scheme. If incumbency were the sole reason for negative attention then the NDP should have suffered under the same critical scrutiny as the Social Credit party before them."

Results are based on 124 CBC, 138 BCTV and 148 UTV local news stories from April 30 to May 28, 1996. All stories appearing on the 6:00 pm news hour on the election were coded, representing a total population rather than a random sample of stories.

Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy organization based in Vancouver.

For further information contact:

Suzanne Walters, Director of Communications,
The Fraser Institute, (604) 714-4582,
Email suzannew@fraserinstitute.ca

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.