Volume 5, Number 10

November/December 1992

REPORTING THE MINI-BUDGET: Television's Influence on Public Policy

On December 2, 1992 the Minister of Finance delivered his Economic and Fiscal Statement. As Globe and Mail reporter Alan Freeman stated: "The speech presents the government with its first opportunity for a major policy statement since the failure of the October 26 referendum. With an election less than a year away, the government will be anxious to show that it can at least show some leadership in the economy." [Freeman, Alan (1992) "Mazankowski's Fiscal Tightrope" The Globe and Mail, December 2, p. A1.]

While the media dubbed Mr. Mazankowski's economic statement "the mini-budget," many analysts compared it to a full-fledged budget due to the wide variety of issues which were addressed. Television's role was to report the proposals and the reactions in a fair and balanced manner.

Prior to the delivery of the economic statement, those with varying political agendas called for opposing policies. Political Science Professor Leo Panitch insisted that the government should embark on capital spending programs of "new deal proportions" to finance job creation. Economist Sherri Cooper focused on reducing the deficit in order to assure international capital that Canada remains a safe investment. Both networks represented these viewpoints in their pre-budget analysis.

However, post-budget coverage degenerated to focus on a single issue. By highlighting one issue at the expense of the other proposals contained in the economic statement, television news set the political agenda of the event. [According to Shanto I. Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder, when the public is faced with the task of evaluating complex political documents, such as an economic statement, citizens do not take into account all the information which has been presented to them but focus on the information which is most accessible. They further argue that television is the most influential source such that by focusing on specific issues while ignoring others, television news influences the standards by which policies are judged. Iyengar, Shanto and Kinder, Donald R. (1987), News That Matters: Television and American Opinion, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, p. 63.]This issue of On Balance will analyze how CBC and CTV reported the mini-budget, including pre-budget predictions and advice, and post-budget analysis.

CHANGES TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE RECEIVED MOST ATTENTION

Television news consciously attempts to present issues in a manner to which the general public can relate. The day the budget was read in the House of Commons Peter Mansbridge stated in the opening segment of the CBC "Prime Time News": "Like a budget, there are a lot of numbers in this story, but there's also a human side. Some of you will be hurt by these measures. There's no doubt about that. Some of you will be better off. Over the next hour we'll try our best to let you know where you stand."

While pre-budget analysis focused on the complex issues involved in fiscal policy, the post-budget commentary focused almost exclusively on the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Thirty-eight percent of CBC's and 58 percent of CTV's attention to the contents of the mini-budget focused on the proposed reduction in UI benefits, and the ineligibility of people who quit their jobs or are fired for their own misconduct. No doubt television's quest for the human element influenced this coverage.

Slightly over half of CBC's and almost one-third of CTV's attention to UI was neutral, simply describing the proposed changes. Of the assessments, both networks were critical of the changes, with more than 8 in 10 statements expressing a negative opinion or consequence. For example, on 2 December 1992 CBC "Prime Time News" Liberal Finance Critic Herb Gray stated: "What should have been a battle against unemployment and recession has turned into a declaration of war against the unemployed and those suffering the most from these failed conservative government policies."

Similarly, on the same day, "CTV News" quoted Liberal Leader Jean Chretien: "What is very pitiful is that they're going after the unemployed. You know they're not trying to help them. They just cut their benefits and it's completely unacceptable."

While both networks began the day's newscast with broadly-based stories which explained the main policy changes, both CBC and CTV focused on the changes to UI in the second story. CBC interviewed an unidentified man in an UI office who stated: "The whole thing about me going out and finding a job and being stuck with an employer that I don't like and not being able to do anything about it, except going on welfare or something like that, is kind of scary."

CBC Sources Misleading on UI Changes

While both networks were predominantly critical of the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, CBC failed to accurately report the proposed changes. As specified in Section 28 of the Act, people who quit their jobs for "just causes" are not subject to the 7 to 12 week penalty and therefore would continue to be eligible to collect UI benefits under the proposed amendments.

However, CBC quoted Judy Rebick and other representatives of special interest groups misrepresenting government policy. On 2 December 1992 "CBC Prime Time News" she stated: "Many women who are forced to quit jobs because of sexual harassment, because they can't get child care, or because their spouse is transferred, and these are legitimate reasons for quitting a job, and now that means that a women who's being sexually harassed will be trapped in a job because she can't get UI if she quits." No comments were made to refute Ms. Rebick's false assertion in the remainder of the story.

In an interview conducted eleven stories later, near the end of the news-hour, it was revealed that Judy Rebick's statement misrepresented UI policy. Host Pamela Wallin challenged Finance Minister Don Mazankowski: "You're also cutting benefits to those people who may feel that they need to quit a job because of the circumstances; they might be working in unsafe conditions or a women might feel that she's being sexually harassed on the job." Only at this point did CBC viewers learn from Mr. Mazankowski that there are "just causes" for quitting, including sexual harassment, which do not nullify one's eligibility for UI benefits. Ironically, the correct UI policy was not used by journalists to question the people who were making the false claims.

In fact, on the following day's newscast, CBC continued to suggest that victims of harassment would be ineligible to collect UI premiums. In the introduction to the third story of the day, Peter Mansbridge stated: "In case you missed it, here's the most contentious change: some people won't be eligible for UI any more. Specifically, anyone who quits a job without just cause, or anyone who is fired because of misconduct. Critics say that gives employers too much power, but some employees, including victims of harassment, will be trapped. Keith Boag, now, on a government today on the defensive." Half way through this story Keith Boag stated the fact that: "sexual harassment is already just cause for quitting a job." He was the first CBC reporter to do so.

CTV Reports the Facts

On CTV similar arguments were made, but in contrast to CBC's coverage both the reporter and the Employment Minister clarified the issue. On 2 December 1992 Judy Darcy of the Canadian Union of Public Employees stated: "We have a lot of women who quit their jobs because of violence in the workplace, because of harassment on the job and essentially what we have the government saying is `too bad.'"

This accusation was challenged by Employment Minister Bernard Valcourt and the reporter Leslie Jones who stated: "Workers can quit their jobs if they're being harassed and there are other acceptable reasons: moving with a spouse, discrimination, dangerous working conditions and the need to care for a child."

Leslie Jones also reported the government's position on persons who have been fired for misconduct: "The government says the rules for voluntarily quitting a job are clear and when someone loses UI benefits after being fired for misconduct, they'll get a fair hearing." This statement was followed by a quote from the Employment Minister: "officials have been instructed to apply this with common sense."

CBC Ignores Government Response

While the government attempted to clarify existing UI policy, the networks' coverage shifted to the process necessary to prove that harassment or discrimination had occurred. CBC's report centred on the emotional trauma associated with establishing that sexual harassment had occurred in the workplace. On December 3, 1992 CBC's labour specialist Allen Garr stated: "After April 1 people who quit because they are sexually harassed will have no choice at all. If they want to receive any benefits, they will not only have to say they were harassed, they will have to prove it, and that could mean months of appeals and pain that they are now able to avoid."

Nowhere in the story was this conclusion supported. The report merely provided speculation as to why an individual would be inhibited from reporting an incident of sexual harassment. However, the government's position was clearly articulated the same day in the House of Commons. Employment Minister Bernard Valcourt stated: "The instructions to the officers are to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant." [House of Commons Debates, Thursday, December 3, 1992, Volume 132, Number 137, 3rd Session, 34th Parliament p.14,544.] CBC did not report the government's position on this matter, only speculative claims that proceedings into sexual harassment hearings would be long and arduous.

CBC Sources Make Unsubstantiated Claims

The proposed changes to UI was the story focus in three CBC and two CTV reports. Statements of fact accounted

. . . CBC quoted Judy Rebick and other representatives of special interest groups misrepresenting government policy.

for 67 percent of CBC's and 46 percent of CTV's coverage which was dedicated exclusively to this issue. Reaction to the government's initiatives, primarily composed of UI recipients, politicians or interest groups expressing negative opinions, comprised the 20 percent of CBC's and 25 percent of CTV's attention. All reactions were either ambiguous or negative.

The remaining 13 percent of CBC's and 29 percent of CTV's coverage speculated on the consequences of the proposed changes. On CBC, all of these statements made unsubstantiated claims that the proposed changes would harm women. In contrast, on CTV three-fifths of the statements reported the claims of interest groups and other politicians opposed to the changes while two-fifths reported the government's response. The quotes in Boxes 1 and 2 are a complete record of the speculative statements on both networks.

Click here to view Box 1: CBC Parrots Critics

Click here to view Box 2: CTV Clears Up the Confusion

Neither Network Commends UI Changes

Neither CBC nor CTV presented the view that the proposed changes to UI would result in a more equitable system. About 6 percent of national UI claimants quit their jobs or were fired for misconduct. [McInnes, Craig (1992) "Changes to UI harm workers, critics charge," The Globe and Mail, December 4, p. A5.] Under the proposed changes these same people would not be eligible to collect UI benefits. As UI spokesperson Richard Fix pointed out in the 4 December 1992 Globe and Mail: "Unemployment insurance is there for people who lose a job through no fault of their own and have no control over that situation. It's not there so you can choose to take a couple of months off, which is the extreme example of a voluntary quit." [McInnes, Ibid., p. A5.] Neither network provided a single statement in favour of the proposal on the grounds that it would alleviate exploitation by the employees of the UI system. In fact, neither network discussed this issue whatsoever.

NETWORKS ADVISE STIMULATING THE ECONOMY

Almost one-fifth of both networks' coverage of the budget examined the predictions and advice of various experts with regards to the upcoming mini-budget. The primary difference in the networks coverage was that CBC provided proportionately more advice while CTV focused on predictions. However, the advice given by both networks was similar.

The central question posed by the reporters was whether the government should stimulate the economy through increased spending or contain the deficit through government cutbacks. Thirty-eight percent of CBC's and 30 percent of CTV's pre-budget coverage focused on government spending. One-sixth of CBC's and almost half of CTV's coverage on this issue predicted that the government would attempt to stimulate the economy through increased spending. Of the advice given, both networks provided 6 in 10 statements supporting government intervention (figure A).

Click here to view Figure A: Predictions and Advice

Networks Propose Job Creation Program

Interestingly, both networks specifically proposed job creation as a means to economic well-being. Of the statements which advised government spending, almost half of CBC's and exactly half of CTV's specified that job creation should be the primary objective.

For example, on the 1 December 1992 CBC "Prime Time News" interviewed a panel of economic experts. Political Science Professor Leo Panitch stated: "We need to have a massive capital spending program, of new deal proportions, perhaps we have to issue wartime savings bonds in order to fund it. It must go directly into job creation."

CTV Predicts a Reduction in Government

CTV was more likely than CBC to focus on reducing government expenditures as a possible budgetary measure. Thirty-seven percent of CTV's compared to 27 percent of CBC's coverage focused on cutting government's costs. On CTV the majority of these statements predicted cuts in government agencies and departments.

In comparison, on CBC over one-third of the statements predicted a reduction in government. Notably, the advice given by analysts strongly urged the government to trim its bureaucracy. Nine in ten statements agreed that reducing government expenditure was an advisable policy.

CTV Proposes Tax Reduction

CTV looked at the possibility of tax reduction in 12 percent of their pre-budget coverage. In contrast to other issues, the majority of CTV commentary regarding taxation provided advice rather than making predictions. One-fifth of the coverage agreed that taxes would be reduced or maintained at current levels. The remaining four-fifths proposed that government should reduce taxes. On CBC tax reduction was a minor issue, comprising a little over 2 percent of pre-budget attention.

Changes to Unemployment Insurance Unanticipated

Major changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act were not anticipated by either network. Of predictions and advice, changes to the UI system accounted for less than 3 percent of CBC and CTV coverage. Both networks indicated that a freeze in UI premiums would have a positive effect on the government's financial situation.

CBC GIVES BROAD COVERAGE WHILE CTV FOCUSES ON UI

As figure B shows, CTV focused almost exclusively on the changes made to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Other issues, including the small business employment and investment package, government cutbacks, and deficit reduction received peripheral coverage. Most of the attention simply summarized the information contained in the economic statement. While cutbacks were given negative coverage, deficit reduction received mostly positive coverage.

Click here to view Figure B: Contents of Economic Statement

CBC Gives Broader Coverage of the Economic Statement

In contrast, CBC's coverage explained and analyzed all major components of Mr. Mazankowski's economic statement. Although in pre-budget coverage both networks had analysts explain the need to contain the deficit in order to reassure foreign investors, only CBC focused on this issue in the post-budget analysis.

Twenty-two percent of CBC's coverage pertaining to the substance and analysis of the economic statement focused on government cutbacks. Over half of the statements were neutral. Of the remainder, 4 in 5 were critical. However, the commentary ranged from those criticising the government for cutting funding to special interest groups to those concerned that the cuts were not deep enough to address the growing deficit. In contrast, statements supporting the cutbacks focused on the need for deficit reduction. Six percent of the statements centred on deficit reduction, with 6 in 10 statements explaining the policies. Of the remainder, 4 in 5 statements were in favour of the government's actions to reduce the deficit.

The small business employment and investment package and changes to research and development received almost 8 percent of coverage pertaining to the contents of the economic statement. All assessments on these changes were positive. Investments in public infrastructure received almost 7 percent of coverage. The majority of statements on this issue were neutral. The remainder of the comments were balanced equally between positive and negative assessments.

CBC USES ACADEMIC SOURCES WHILE CTV QUOTES WORKERS

Forty-two percent of CBC's and 48 percent of CTV's commentary regarding the mini-budget originated from the anchor or the reporter. Of the remainder, almost one-third of CBC and one-quarter of CTV statements quoted the Federal government (figure C). However, further sources used by the networks were noticeably different.

Click here to view Figure C: Affiliation of Sources

Excluding reporter and anchor statements, CBC quoted other politicians in 6 percent of coverage while CTV used these sources in 22 percent of total statements. Interestingly, the number of statements originating from other politicians was actually slightly higher on CBC than on CTV, but the greater quantity of stories and the use of panel discussions on CBC accounted for the difference in proportions. The networks often included identical quotes of other politicians reacting to the proposed changes to UI.

CBC's use of panel discussions also contributed to its greater proportion of academic sources. Over one-third of CBC commentary, excluding reporters and anchors, originated from academics or consultants. Of these people, almost half were economists. In comparison, academics and consultants were quoted in only 14 percent of CTV's coverage. Further, CBC included Globe and Mail journalist Jeffrey Simpson in a panel, and he accounted for 7 percent of the statements.

The networks also differed in their proportion of union and general public sources. On both networks stories which focused on the proposed changes to UI frequently sought the views of union representatives, workers and the unemployed. While CBC quoted these sources in only 10 percent of coverage, CTV used union and general public sources in 31 percent of total coverage. Further, almost all of CTV's quotes originating from the public were identified as from unemployed people, while on CBC the unemployed accounted for less than one-fifth of the statements from the general public. While both networks emphasized the proposed changes to UI in their coverage, CTV's preoccupation with this issue is again apparent by their choice of sources.

METHODOLOGY

Results of the mini-budget are based on census samples of 15 "CBC Prime Time News," 1 "Sunday Report," and 1 "Venture" stories, as well as 8 "CTV National News" stories from November 26, 1992 to December 4, 1992. 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. 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.