April 2001

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

Air Quality Improving —but You'd Never Know It from the Globe and Post

by Lydia Miljan

Evidence shows that, except for ozone, air quality in Canada has improved dramatically over the past few decades (see table 1). With the notable exception of ground-level ozone, this country has enjoyed a reduction in almost all types of air pollutants. However, the public's perception is that air pollution is getting worse. Surveys from Toronto, for example, rate air pollution as a top public concern. One reason for the perception that air pollution is increasing is that Canada's national daily newspapers' accounts of air quality in Canada lead one to conclude the opposite—that air quality is deteriorating. This article examines how the National Post and Globe and Mail present air quality issues. In particular, it examines which regions of the country are given more prominence, and how that coverage may influence public policy in the area of air pollution.

The Globe and Mail had 45 percent more air quality coverage than did the National Post. While the Globe and Mail presented 127 stories on air quality in 1999/2000, the National Post had only 87 stories on the same topic.  Moreover, the Globe and Mail had more statements about air quality than the National Post. The Globe had 802 statements directly related to outdoor air quality compared with the Post's 432 such statements.¹

Table 1: Air Quality in Canada, 1997

Not only did newspapers give air quality extensive attention, but that attention increased from 1999 to 2000. Overall, both newspapers emphasized reports that indicated air quality was declining. Ninety-two percent of the Globe and Mail's coverage in 1999 examined poor air quality. In 2000, its negative attention to this issue declined only slightly to 89 percent. The National Post increased its proportion of bad-air- quality coverage in 2000. In 1999, 81 percent of its attention focused on poor air quality while in 2000 the proportion increased to 84 percent of overall attention. The increase is even more pronounced than the numbers suggest because the Post's amount of overall attention in 2000 increased from 1999 in absolute terms.

An examination of longitudinal air quality data produces surprising findings. Measurements on almost all air quality indicators show that air quality has been improving over time. While the data have not been released for 1999/2000, the newspapers themselves noted that the air quality in major metropolitan areas was better in 2000 than in 1999. Part of the improvement is due to lower temperatures in 2000 over 1999. For example, in an August 11, 2000 National Post story, Chris Tenove noted, "All of the provinces have been beset by cool, wet weather because a jet stream—a river of fast-moving air at high altitude—is acting as a barrier against the host air that drifts up from the United States... About 50 percent of Canada's air pollution is produced in the United States... When the winds are not blowing from the south, Canada gets less of the toxic gases that produce smog." Despite the weather and the overall improvement in air quality, Canadian national newspapers emphasized the bad news over the good news.

While both newspapers increased their overall attention to bad air quality, the Globe and Mail did so more forcefully than the National Post. In the Globe and Mail the bad news stories were more likely to appear in the front section than the good news stories. In the Globe, 82 percent of the stories reporting bad news about air quality made the front section of the paper whereas only 60 percent of the good news about air quality appeared in the front section. In the National Post, good news stories on air quality were given proportionately better coverage. Sixty-four percent of the good news stories in the Post made the front section, compared with 44 percent of the bad news stories. Of course, the impression remained that bad air quality is the norm because overall there were simply more bad news than good news stories.

Emphasis of coverage differs between newspapers

The approach to the air quality story differed between the two national dailies. The National Post focused on solutions for pollution and the consequences of air quality deterioration. Thirty eight percent of the Post's coverage examined solutions, while 31 percent looked at the short- and long-term impacts of air quality. The causes of bad air quality accounted for 19 percent of the attention, while mentioning which type of pollutant was measured accounted for 12 percent of the attention.

In contrast, the Globe and Mail focused on the causes of poor air quality (34%). It also examined solutions for air quality (24%) and the consequences of poor air quality (23%). Furthermore, it examined the different measurements of air quality (19 percent of its coverage) more than did the Post.

Poor air quality linked to death and severe health problems

In 31 percent of the Post's and 23 percent of the Globe's coverage, poor air quality was linked to severe health consequences including death. In fact, 41 percent of the National Post's coverage on the health consequences indicated that air pollution was linked to premature deaths. A further 10 percent said that it caused poor general health, while 13 percent noted respiratory illness stemming from poor air quality. Twenty-one percent of the Globe and Mail's coverage on the health consequences of poor air quality argued that air pollution caused deaths in humans.  A further 28 percent noted that air pollution caused increased poor health including hospitalization, while 17 percent emphasized increased respiratory problems.

The impetus for much of the coverage on health problems associated with air pollution was a study out of Toronto indicating that 1,000 people die prematurely each year because of air pollution. For example, the Globe and Mail's headline and lead statement on May 18, 2000, painted a dark picture: "Air pollution kills 1,000 a year in Toronto, study says.  Researchers find deaths, illnesses occur even below air-quality targets; urge more funding for TTC [Toronto Transit Corporation] and GO transit to help solve problem." This study was widely reported in both national dailies, but only the National Post critiqued the study. In fact, 30 percent of the Post's coverage on the health consequences disputed the methodology and conclusions of the study. That coverage resulted primarily from an editorial written by Kay H. Jones, a retired US public health advisor who served as the senior advisor on air quality to the Council of Environmental Quality under the Ford and Carter administrations. His August 2, 2000, story challenged the calculations with actual historical health data. He also argued, "The... study assumes, inconceivably, that the only safe level of pollution is none whatsoever. In other words, a level does not exist at which a frail person is safe from air pollution. This conclusion is all the more ludicrous because the pollution level is never zero. It amounts to saying that a drop of water can drown you, or that a molecule of carbon monoxide can kill an elderly person" (p. C15). Only 5 percent of the Globe and Mail's discussion refuted the claims made in the original study.

Causes of poor air quality

Newspapers presented a number of different potential causes for poor air quality, but no one cause dominated the coverage. As was mentioned above, the Globe and Mail gave more attention to its causes than did the National Post. The causes of poor air quality ranged from oil well flaring in Alberta, to coal-fired power plants in Ontario. In addition, there was general blame placed on industry, a lack of regulations, automobiles, and US air pollution. Most of the discussion emphasized that humans were the primary source of bad air quality.

There were, however, a few stories, reported in both newspapers, that received considerable attention regarding the possible link between Canadian forest fires and pollution in the US. There were some notable differences between the two papers' approaches to this story. The National Post mostly repeated the findings of a study published in the journal Science which noted that, "research shows plumes containing carbon monoxide from forest fires travelled to the southern United States behind cold fronts, which traditionally clear out the atmosphere. They settled in between southern Illinois and northern Florida, laying the foundation for more air pollution" (National Post, April 14, 2000, p. A.11).

While the Globe and Mail also reported the findings from Science, it gave considerable attention to the spin of so-called environmentalists, saying that human causes had a far greater impact on US air quality than did forest fires. In the April 20, 2000, Globe and Mail, Cim Nun of Greenpeace was quoted saying, "It's inappropriate to view the emissions of forest fires in the same way as those of motor vehicles and the proliferation of industry" (p. A11). Even when describing the air pollution data, reporter Michael Downey was less than dispassionate, "A breakdown of 1995 carbon monoxide figures show 39.5 percent came from forest fires, a whopping 39 percent came from transportation exhaust, 12.7 percent came from industry and 6 percent came from homeowners burning wood for fuel" (Globe and Mail, April 20, 2000, p. A11). What was incredible about the description was that the 39.5 percent of carbon monoxide from forest fires was treated as a simple statement of fact, whereas the slightly lower 39 percent from transportation exhaust was deemed "whopping."

Solutions emphasize increase in regulation

Considering the variety of human causes of pollution, it is not surprising that the newspapers focused on increasing regulations as the primary solution to reducing air pollution. Forty-three percent of the Post's and half of the Globe's coverage indicated that the best way to combat poor air quality was to increase regulation. In contrast, only 13 percent of the Post's coverage indicated that regulations don't work. The Globe and Mail never presented this view in its coverage.

Of the remaining solutions, increasing government spending received 9 percent of the Post's and 7 percent of the Globe's coverage, while 10 percent of the Post's and 5 percent of the Globe's coverage said that governments needed to prosecute polluters more.

Pollutants measured

The pollutants mentioned in the stories were primarily sulphur and ozone.  Combined, they comprised half of the National Post's and over half of the Globe's coverage of specific pollutants measured. While longitudinal data does show that ground-level ozone has increased 47 percent between 1974 and 1997, sulphur contents for the same period have gone down 61 percent.

Toronto pollution leads discussion

The concern over air pollution may come as a surprise to many Canadians who may not worry about the issue on a day-to-day basis. The coverage of this issue in the national newspapers was more reflective of Toronto's concerns about air pollution than those of the rest of the country. In fact, 40 percent of the Post's and 37 percent of the Globe and Mail's attention to air pollution centred on pollution levels in Toronto. An additional 6 percent of the Post's coverage and 17 percent of the Globe's coverage focused on Ontario when it talked about air pollution. Only 28 percent of the Post's and 14 percent of the Globe's coverage referred to air pollution as a national issue.

Ironically, however, the political discussion on air pollution was national in focus. So while the problems were seen to be regional, the solutions (including increasing government spending and increasing regulations), would have national consequences. Reports focusing on Toronto and its environs unduly direct public attention and resources to a problem that is primarily a concern in that region. The ramifications of increased regulations and increased government spending affect all Canadians, regardless of the fact that for most of them, their environment is getting markedly cleaner.

Note

1 Some of the attention to this issue examined indoor air quality levels, both in buildings and aircraft. This attention totalled 7 percent of the National Post's and 9 percent of the Globe and Mail's attention to air quality. This article focuses on stories that discuss outdoor air quality only.

Lydia Miljan (lydiam@fraserinstitute.ca) is the Director of the Alberta Initiative, as well as the National Media Archive, of The Fraser Institute.
She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Calgary.

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

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.