Volume 4, Number 10

November/December 1991

FREE TRADE REVISITED

Nearly four years ago the free trade debate was the focal point for media discussion. News stories examined the negotiation process; panels opined on what the future might hold with or without the agreement. During 1988, news reports on CBC and in the Globe and Mail provided twice as many negative as positive evaluations of the agreement.

The attention to free trade peaked during the 1988 federal election campaign during which the Liberal party claimed that the outcome of the election amounted to a referendum on the agreement. Although the Conservatives won with a solid majority-169 out of 295 seats-the popular vote was not overwhelmingly in support of free trade. Only 43 percent of the public voted for the Conservatives and the Free Trade Agreement.

Although free trade continues to be discussed and debated, its prominence in the news has declined in the past few years, and is now mentioned only occasionally. Just recently, on the 22 March 1992 "Sunday Report," Peter Mansbridge acknowledged the decrease in attention to free trade: "Another crucial meeting coming up this week for negotiators on NAFTA-the North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. The negotiations have been going on for almost a year now, but with little being said about them. A number of reasons for that: the negotiations are held in private; the politicians aren't saying much; and the media, preoccupied with constitutional coverage, hasn't been reporting that much."

This issue of On Balance examines the quantity and direction of coverage that the Free Trade Agreement received during 1991. Television's attention to the Canada/U.S. Agreement during this period will also be addressed.

CTV REPORTS ON 1988 FTA MORE FREQUENTLY THAN ON CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS

Each statement made about free trade was categorized according to which free trade deal it discussed. Even although negotiations were being held on North American Free Trade, on CTV discussion about the 1988 Canada/U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) received more attention than the North American discussions. As can be seen in figure A, 58 percent of CTV's total attention to free trade during 1991 examined the existing Canada/U.S. Free Trade deal compared to only 29 percent that examined NAFTA.

Click here to view Figure A: Coverage of Free Trade

On CBC, the Canada/U.S. Agreement received more attention, but only slightly more, than NAFTA. Another interesting difference in the networks' free trade coverage is that 10 percent of CBC's coverage discussed other trade deals, while 14 percent of the coverage examined the consequences of having no deal at all. For CTV, these alternatives comprised less attention at 13 percent of overall coverage.

NETWORKS PROVIDE NEGATIVE ATTENTION TO CANADA/U.S. FREE TRADE

Figure A shows that neutral statements about the Canada/U.S. Trade Agreement reported in 1991 comprised 39 percent of CBC and 58 percent of CTV coverage. Of the remaining, both networks presented almost twice as many negative as positive statements about the Canada/U.S. deal.

Journalists Tend to Comment Negatively

As figure B shows, fifty-five percent of the networks' evaluations of CAFTA originated with journalists. This figure includes statements made by the anchor, by reporters and in interviews with journalists. In evaluating the 1988 Free Trade Agreement, journalists on both networks made more negative than positive comments about the trade agreement.

Click here to view Figure B: Source's Evaluation of 1988 FTA

The sources selected to provide information were more critical than supportive of the deal. For example, on CBC, academics were two to one against the deal. On CTV, statements from the academic community were almost unanimously against the trade agreement. Even unfavourable statements from politicians outnumbered those in support. Similarly, statements from interest groups and the public were almost unanimously critical of the Canada/U.S. trade deal.

ECONOMIC DISPUTES ARE TOP CONCERN FOR CAFTA

As figure C illustrates, the networks' attention to the issues surrounding the Canada/U.S. Trade Agreement ranged in degree and direction. For both networks, attention to economic issues comprised almost half the coverage on the Canada/U.S. Trade Agreement.

Click here to view Figure C: Coverage of 1988 FTA

Pork and Softwood Lumber Disputes Figure Prominently in Negative Attention

Over one-third of CBC and over one-fifth of CTV coverage on the economics of the CAFTA was neutral. Of the remainder, both networks presented twice as many negative as positive statements.

The main economic problems with the current agreement as reported by the networks were disputes over pork, softwood lumber and beer. The Americans charged that the Canadians were unfairly subsidizing these industries, while the Canadians thought the tariffs imposed by the U.S. were unfair. On the 29 March 1991 "CTV News," Peter Murphy reported on the pork dispute: "The Americans are challenging the authority of the panel set up to solve free trade problems. The panel had unanimously decided to stop an American duty on Canadian pork. But the U.S. trade office says, 'the pork is unfairly subsidized.' Three judges will now examine the ruling."

Although the pork dispute was eventually resolved in Canada's favour, criticisms of the deal emerged from the manner in which the Americans continued to appeal their lost cases. For example, on 13 June 1991, just before the ruling of the special committee was announced, Terry Milewski provided this analysis: "These [U.S.] farmers do not want to give up that barrier to Canadian imports-even though an arbitration panel set up under the Free Trade Agreement has struck it down. They are refusing to accept that ruling and have persuaded the Bush administration to challenge it. That's just the sort of special-interest politics which free trade was supposed to overcome."

Other economic criticisms associated with the Canada/U.S. deal ranged from the government's overall fiscal policy and problems with Canadian competitiveness. Competitiveness was explored in a 14 May 1991 CTV news story by Peter Murphy: "At Graham Fibreglass, staying competitive is the key to survival, but the maker of home insulation is facing a challenge by several large U.S. insulation manufacturers. Faced with large factories sitting half-idle, the Americans have invaded Canada, selling their products here and under-cutting Canadian producers. The Americans enjoy a tremendous competitive advantage."

Similarly, on 1 September, CBC's John Curtin reported: "Other farmers in Ontario's fruit belt face the same agonizing decision. Up to one in three may have to part with land or go bankrupt. Farmers here say they can't compete with U.S. fruit growers who sell to Canada. That's because labour's more expensive here, interest rates are higher, and restrictions on pesticides are more severe. To make matters worse, tariffs on fruit imports are gradually being reduced because of the free trade deal."

CAFTA Better for U.S. than for Canada

Stories reporting the Canadian perspective were much more frequent, and much more frequently negative. In fact, three out of every four evaluations of the trade agreement which presented the Canadian point-of-view was negative. In contrast, evaluations of the American side of the agreement were slightly more favourable than unfavourable.

For example, CTV ran a story that linked free trade to the "brain drain." Lloyd Robertson introduced the sixth story on 14 August 1991 in the following manner: "More and more Canadians are being lured to the United States these days, and not just to go shopping. Many immigration lawyers report a dramatic increase in the numbers of professional people and investors moving to the U.S. to work. And as CTV's Dave Rinn reports, the 'brain drain' is directly linked to the Free Trade Agreement."

Free Trade Linked to All Canadian Woes

Interestingly, on CBC, in stories ostensibly about the Canada/U.S. Agreement, the agreement was not always the story's main focus. Instead, CBC sometimes linked the 1988 Free Trade Agreement with stories which explored other issues, such as the slowdown in the economy. For example, on 26 March 1991, Bill Cameron introduced the "Journal" by saying that the Canadian economy was in trouble. Cameron announced that the show would provide, "some arguments about how much trouble we're in and how we can get out of it from some of the country's top economic analysts." Panellists then discussed the problems in terms of layoffs, diminishing profits and free trade.

One of these top economic analysts was Bob White, President of the Canadian Autoworkers Association. The union president was clear to link the economic problems with free trade: "The point I want to make here is, surely you can't ignore the Free Trade Agreement and then coming after that the high interest rate, high dollar, et cetera, which wiped out a normal competitive advantage and you can't do that to people in this country and to business in this country and then wake up in the morning and say, 'By God, you're not competitive enough.' That's completely unfair."

On 4 June 1991, the "National" told viewers about the possibility that 2,000 workers would soon be laid off. The first two-thirds of the story gave background into the company and blamed the recession for the layoffs. The story told of the fears of workers who were unsure of their futures. It also explained the plans that the company had to wind down its plants. The final third of the story gave the Ontario government's argument that the layoffs are due to the Free Trade Agreement. In this segment, Premier Bob Rae was quoted: "It's a consequence of free trade and the rationalization that's taken place, and it's very tough; but we're gonna do everything we can to persuade the company to keep the investment here."

JOB LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH 1988 FTA

Another area where the criticisms of free trade far outweighed any praise of it was in discussions about jobs. Both networks devoted 10 percent of their attention to this area. When they talked about the relationship between jobs and the Canada/U.S. Trade Agreement, 15 percent of CBC and 11 percent of CTV statements were neutral. Of the remainder, five out of six statements from CBC, and seven out of nine statements from CTV were negative.

In some cases, the 1988 Trade Agreement was specifically blamed for

"The auto parts industry in Southern Ontario has been shrinking: 42 plants, like this one in Windsor, closed; more than 4,000 jobs lost, all in the last two years."

the loss of jobs in Canada since the agreement was signed-mostly manufacturing jobs in Ontario. For example, on 24 April 1991, CBC's Paul Hunter reported: "Thousands of Canadians have lost manufacturing jobs in the past two years. Workers here blame the Free Trade Deal." Similarly, on 12 March 1991, Larry Stout reported on CTV: "The auto parts industry in Southern Ontario has been shrinking: 42 plants, like this one in Windsor, closed; more than 4,000 jobs lost, all in the last two years."

Social Issues Balanced

While CBC provided slightly less attention to the social perspective of the Canada/U.S. trade agreement than did CTV, both networks provided similar coverage. Thirty-six percent of CBC and 41 percent of CTV attention to social issues was neutral. Of the remainder, both networks provided slightly more unfavourable than favourable evaluations.

Negotiations Seen Negatively

The negotiations and the negotiation process formed a fundamental element in the negative attention garnered by the Canada/U.S. Free Trade Agreement

For CBC, 20 percent of the 1991 coverage examined the ramifications of CAFTA on individual corporations.

during 1988. At that time, the controversies surrounding the negotiators received considerable scrutiny by the media, and much of that coverage was negative. CBC's reporting of the politics of Canada/U.S. free trade has not changed in the four years since its passage. In 1991, four out of five of CBC's statements about the negotiations were unfavourable. In the same year, however, CTV presented only slightly more negative than favourable comments about the negotiations.

Individual Companies Highlighted on CBC

The networks did not always report the agreement in the same way. For CBC, 20 percent of the 1991 coverage examined the ramifications of CAFTA on

The 1988 Trade Agreement was specifically blamed for the loss of jobs in Canada . . .

individual corporations. In contrast, CTV examined individual corporations in only 1 percent of its coverage on CAFTA. This difference in coverage underlines the influence of CBC's program "Venture," which has as its format an examination of business news from the corporation's perspective.

CBC BALANCES EVALUATIONS ON NAFTA

Attention to the North American Free Trade Deal comprised 36 percent of CBC and 29 percent of CTV's attention to free trade during 1991. Almost one-third of CBC and one-fifth of CTV's attention to the North American deal was neutral. Of the remainder, CBC provided almost balanced assessments.

CTV's Coverage Unfavourable

On CTV, almost three out of every five evaluations of NAFTA were unfavourable. This, coupled with the finding that CTV emphasized negative evaluations of CAFTA, indicates that CTV's coverage was uniformly critical of free trade.

CTV's Sources Critical

While CBC provided some sources, such as interest groups, who offered more unfavourable than favourable remarks about the deal, almost all of CTV's sources were against the agreement. When CTV's reporters commented on the agreement, fifty-eight percent of their assessments were unfavourable. As figure D indicates, interest groups were almost unanimously against the trade deal.

Click here to view Figure D: Sources' Evaluations of NAFTA

The balanced perspective of CBC's sources reflected the overall balance in that network's treatment of NAFTA.

NAFTA ECONOMIC ISSUES GIVEN FAVOURABLE ATTENTION

Whereas the networks presented more criticisms than positive assessments of the economic effects of CAFTA, the networks provided slightly more positive than negative evaluations of the economics of NAFTA (figure E).

Click here to view Figure E: Coverage of NAFTA

Many of the favourable assessments of NAFTA originated with government representatives from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Not only was the Canadian government selling Canadians on the benefits of NAFTA, but the Mexican government also made efforts to assure Canadians about how the deal would be favourable for them.

One component of the pro-free trade position was the argument that NAFTA would become such a large trade bloc that it would be able to compete effectively with other trading blocs such as the European Community. On the 24 May 1991 "CTV News," George Bush said: "This single market, 360 million consumers who now produce six trillion dollars in annual output, would tower, even over the European market." Keith Boag made a similar remark on the 5 February "National": Together with Mexico, Canada and the United States would form an open trading block roughly the size of the European Economic Community, more than 350 million people. And that, the U.S. hopes, would be only the beginning."

ON CBC, NAFTA GOOD FOR MEXICO

One theme that emerged from CBC's coverage of NAFTA was the view that Mexico would benefit from the agreement. On CBC, evaluations of Mexico and the trade agreement were almost twice as likely to evoke favourable as unfavourable comments. This coverage examined how much Mexico would gain from such a deal, and how much support there was in Mexico for the plan. For example, on 29 October 1991, CBC's Keith Boag related how the Mexicans were promoting the deal: "From start to finish it was lavish. The Mexicans bent over backwards to surround the dry and serious discussion of trade rules with the fun and flavour of a carnival. In the streets the Canadians and Americans were mobbed like pop stars. Free trade is an enormous issue here, promoted with enthusiasm by a government that portrays it as vital." Later in the story, Boag provided the results of a poll that showed that 60 percent of Mexicans were in favour of a trade deal.

Similarly, on the 12 June 1991 "Journal" Nancy Wilson reported: "Free trade carries enormous implications for Lopita Jones and her fellow Mexicans, 80% of whom said in a recent poll they'd welcome free trade without conditions."

CTV's attention to Mexico was opposite that of CBC's. Four out of every five references to Mexico and free trade were unfavourable. It should be emphasized that CTV gave free trade and Mexico much less attention than did CBC. The negative attention to Mexico reported by CTV focused on low wages and the social problems of that country.

NAFTA Worse For Canada

While CBC provided the positive attributes of NAFTA in terms of Mexican benefits, both networks reported that the costs of the deal were going to be borne by Canadians. Evaluations of free trade and Canada were twice as likely on CBC and almost twice as likely on CTV to be unfavourable as favourable (figure F). As much as political leaders talked about the benefits of North American Free Trade, the agreement's opponents related the fears and worries which the agreement would bring to Canadians. Both networks mentioned the words "fear" and "worry" a total of 45 times in the context of free trade during the year.

Click here to view Figure F: Free Trade Coverage on Trading Partners

For example, on the 25 October 1991 "National," the Canadian Auto Workers vice-president Bud Hargrove said: "Our worry is if you bring Mexico into that, all of the content could be in Mexico, and there's no requirement any longer for anything to be made in Canada."

Coverage of the effect of free trade on the U.S. differed slightly between networks. CBC indicated slightly more often than not that the deal would be favourable for Americans, while CTV provided slightly more unfavourable statements. For example, on the 6 February 1991 "CTV News," Lloyd Robertson reported: "But some American politicians are worried that knocking down barriers with Mexico could be bad for labour-intensive businesses-the same concern Canadian officials raised a few years ago."

CANADIAN AND U.S. WORKERS FEAR JOB LOSSES TO CHEAP MEXICAN LABOUR

In reports on the potential North American trade agreement, not only were Canadians and Americans threatened with possible job losses, but the working conditions, pay and environmental standards in Mexico were also criticized. For example, on the 6 February 1991 "CTV News," U.S. Senator Don Riegle stated: "Mexico is not Canada. Adequate labour and environmental standards are not enforced in Mexico. I think it's a major problem."

Two thirds of CBC and three-quarters of CTV's evaluations on employment were negative. The worries raised were that Canadian and American

"I can conjure up some pretty bad scenarios when you're talkin' about wages that are 50 or 60 cents per hour."

workers would lose jobs to Mexicans. For instance, on CTV's 24 May 1991 broadcast Robert Hurst reported: "Many blue collared workers, especially in the U.S., are worried...Opponents say free trade is impossible with a country like Mexico, where wages are so low, where environmental laws are so weak and where the judicial system is so corrupt." Similarly, Barbara Frum raised the concern for workers in a 12 June 1991 "Journal" question to Steven Roberts, a journalist for U.S. News and World Report: "Now that all sounds like the risks are losing jobs here, creating jobs there. How do we gain? How do we offset what I assume, Mr. Roberts, are going to be job losses on both sides of the Canadian-U.S. border?"

Not only were sources asked whether there would be job losses, politicians on both sides of the border had to deal with critics who charged that the deal would result in job losses. For example, on 1 May 1991, Peter Mansbridge introduced a story on free trade with the following: "George Bush embarked on a trade mission today without ever leaving Washington. He's trying to answer the critics of his plan to work out a Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, critics who say it'll mean the loss of thousands of American jobs to cheaper Mexican labour." Similarly, on the 8 April 1991 CTV News, Jim O'Connell reported: "But not everyone buys the argument, including both opposition parties. The fear is that free trade with Mexico will kill Canadian jobs, given the attraction of cheap labour there."

The actual salaries of Mexicans varied according to the source. On 6 the February 1991 CTV News, Robert Hurst reported: "Bringing Mexico into North American Free Trade presents great problems, because salaries are so low-in a few factories as low as $.85 an hour-and because working conditions are so different." Although later in the story Hurst admitted that the $.85 rate might be more fiction than fact, he did not dispute U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen's estimate that the disparity in U.S. and Mexican labour rates was as much as seven to one. Similarly, on 5 May 1991, CBC aired a comment by John Lafalce, a New York Congressman: "I can conjure up some pretty bad scenarios when you're talkin' about wages that are 50 or 60 cents per hour."

A recent Business Week article also focused on the low wages paid to Mexican workers. Their estimates of Mexican labour costs ranged from $1.25 an hour to $2.50 an hour. That is three times the $.85 reported by CTV and five times the $.50 indicated by the U.S. congressman. [Baker, Stephen (1992) "Detroit South: Mexico's Auto boom: Who wins, who loses?" Business Week, March 16, p.98-103.]

METHODOLOGY

Results on free trade are based on census samples of 49 "National," 20 "Journal," 19 "Venture," and 4 "Sunday Report" stories as well as 52 "CTV National News" stories from January 1 to December 31, 1991. All stories appearing during that time were coded, representing a total population rather than a random sample of stories.

Three researchers were employed in coding the news stories. The researchers were selected on the basis of their differing political views. To assess the clarity of the research instrument and measure consistency, tests of inter-coder reliability were conducted throughout the procedure. A high level of intercoder reliability (0.87) was obtained.

Further information or details on the coding design and methods may be obtained by contacting the National Media Archive.

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.