October 2000 Fraser Forum: National Newspapers Examine Poverty in Canada
The newspaper wars in Canada have escalated in recent months with the Globe and Mail and the National Post each gloating and criticizing the other’s financial situations and reporting styles. Apart from ownership, the big question is whether there are any substantive content differences between the two national dailies. To examine this issue we take a look at how the two newspapers covered poverty from January 1, 1999 to May 31, 2000.
We found that there were substantive differences between the two dailies in their approach to child poverty. In terms of sheer attention, the Globe and Mail gave twice as much attention to child poverty as did the National Post. Not only did the Globe provide 83 stories compared with 63 in the National Post, but the Globe had twice as many statements—433 compared to the Post’s 211.
In addition, the Globe’s focus on the issue was quite substantially different from the Post’s. On the general issue of whether child poverty exists, and whether it is increasing or decreasing in the country, the Post devoted 49 percent of its attention to this issue, compared with 64 percent of the Globe’s attention to child poverty. Solutions constituted a larger part of the Post’s agenda than the Globe’s, at 28 percent compared with 19 percent, respectively. Causes of child poverty were less likely to be discussed in the Post, capturing only 6 percent of its attention, compared with 12 percent of the Globe’s. Debating how best to measure poverty comprised 17 percent of the Post’s total coverage on this issue, compared with only 5 percent of the Globe’s (figure A).
Globe more likely to say poverty on the increase
The news hook for the Globe and Mail was most likely to be that poverty was increasing. Seventy percent of the Globe and Mail’s discussion on the nature of poverty in Canada indicated that poverty rates were on the increase. Only 8 percent of the Globe’s attention to the changes in poverty indicated that rates were declining. A further 21 percent indicated that poverty was a Canadian issue that needed to be addressed. The discussion on the increase in poverty focused on social groups’ claims that the 1989 resolution to end poverty in Canada by the year 2000 was an abject failure. These included claims from Campaign 2000, Ed Broadbent, Mel Hurtig, and Maude Barlow, as well as other local social agencies around the country.
In contrast, the National Post presented the view that poverty was on the increase just 39 percent of the time; 32 percent simply mentioned poverty. A further 22 percent of the Post’s coverage argued that poverty was on the decline in the country. About 4 percent made the claim that poverty in Canada was worse than in other countries, while the same amount indicated that Canada was fairing better than other places in the world.
Measurement of poverty debated in the Post
Part of the difference between the two newspapers’ attention to the issue lay in how readily they accepted the definitions and measurements of poverty in Canada. In the Post, there was a greater tendency to debate and discuss the different measurements of poverty, or indeed to acknowledge the debate in the area. The Post gave 17 percent of its total coverage on poverty to discussing this question, while the Globe only mentioned it in 5 percent of its stories on poverty.
Of the discussion on the measurements of poverty, the most the Globe would say was that the figures were based on Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut-offs (LICO). This comprised 65 percent of its attention to the issue. Seventeen percent of the Globe’s attention to poverty measurements acknowledged that the government was attempting to move to a market-based measurement. The method of examining basic needs was mentioned in 4 percent of the attention to measurement.
In contrast, the National Post launched a pointed attack on the inadequacy of LICO to measure poverty. Forty-three percent of its attention to measurement pointed out the flaws in statistical thinking when adopting a relative measure such as the LICO. The Post also gave the same attention to the government’s market-based method and the basic needs method (11 percent each).
Both papers flag budget cuts as cause of poverty increase
There were some areas of agreement between the two newspapers. The first was in what was identified as the cause of child poverty in Canada. Both papers reported that the cuts made to social programs were the primary reason for the inability to cut poverty. In the National Post, government cuts comprised 62 percent of the discussion on causes, while in the Globe, cuts represented 55 percent of the discussion. It should be noted that even in this seeming agreement, the Post provided half as much relative attention to the causes of poverty as did the Globe and Mail.
Both papers also acknowledged that one leading cause of poverty in Canada is the trend toward single-parent families. Columnists Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and William Watson in the National Post both pointed to the increase in poverty among families that have unwed mothers or have gone through divorce. This cause comprised 15 percent of the Post’s and 33 percent of the Globe’s coverage on causes.
The Post did differ from the Globe by reporting the National Citizens’ Coalition’s contention that poverty could be caused by high taxes. On January 20, 2000, the National Post quoted Donald Huggett from the group saying, "No one seems to stop and think that it [child poverty] may be caused by too high a burden of taxation, or that child care is necessary because both parents have to work in order to pay their taxes." This perspective comprised 15 percent of the Post’s attention to the causes of poverty, but was not mentioned in the Globe.
Newspapers tout increased spending as solution
By far the method of choice to alleviate the poverty problem in Canada was increasing program spending. This comprised 71 percent of the Post’s and 92 percent of the Globe’s attention to solutions. The calls for increased spending came from the same social groups who claim that poverty is on the increase. Other sources for this point of view came from the federal government which also claimed that tax cuts and social spending are mutually exclusive.
Only 22 percent of the Post’s and 5 percent of the Globe’s attention to solutions identified cutting taxes as a solution. Only 3 percent of the Post’s and 2 percent of the Globe’s attention to solutions identified increasing the child tax credit as a way to get more money in the hands of the poor. A number of sources argued, in fact, that it was more important to deliver programs than to put the money directly in the hands of the poor. For example, a report by the C.D. Howe Institute argued that provincial governments should stop hiking cash benefits to working-poor families and concentrate on delivering programs. The report quoted in the Globe and Mail on May 21, 1999 noted, "For example, Ontario allocated 80 percent of national-child-benefit-related welfare savings to [its cash benefits to low-income families with children], and only 20 percent to locally delivered service programs for families with children. This order of priority should be reversed."
Is the Globe and Mail Toronto’s national newspaper?
Stories were also identified as to their geographic focus. Somewhat surprisingly, the two papers differed significantly. Both papers claim to be "national," but while the Post focused 83 percent of its coverage on the nation as a whole, only 46 percent of the Globe and Mail’s coverage had a national focus.
Another 46 percent of the attention focused on Toronto. (The remaining 8 percent mentioned other regions of Canada.) The focus on Toronto came, in a large part, from Toronto Councillor Olivia Chow’s first report as Toronto’s children and youth advocate. Using data from 1996 Statistics Canada LICO figures, Chow indicated that Toronto had the worst child poverty problem in the entire country. This view was given little coverage in the National Post. For the Post, Toronto was the focus in only 1 percent of the coverage.
This examination of the coverage of child poverty in the Globe and Mail
and National Post illustrates some significant differences. Not only does
the child poverty topic garner more attention in the Globe and Mail, but
Globe reporters are more likely than Post reporters to uncritically accept
social activists’ claims that there is a child poverty problem.
In contrast,
the National Post took a more critical view of the various methods used
to measure poverty. This study makes clear that private ownership of newspapers
does provide diversity of news coverage and editorial opinion.
Lydia Miljan (lydiam@fraserinstitute.ca) is the Director of the Alberta Initiative, as well as the the National Media Archive, of The Fraser Institute. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Calgary.
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.