Volume 5, Number 8

September 1992

THE REFERENDUM PART I: How the Networks Reported the Campaign

During the First Minister's Conference at Meech Lake in June 1990, CBC was accused of being biased in favour of the government's position. When On Balance examined the network's coverage of that conference, we found that CBC uncritically accepted the government's position that without the Meech Lake agreement, the country would be doomed.

CBC's coverage of Meech Lake reopened the question of what role the national broadcaster should assume in periods of national crisis. In 1990, CBC was still governed under the 1968 Broadcast Act which entrusted the Corporation with: "contribut[ing] to the development of national unity." Since then, however, the new Broadcast Act requires that it "serve to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada." While in 1990 CBC could argue that it was fulfilling its role as the national broadcaster, the same mandate does not apply in 1992.

This study examines how the networks reported the National Referendum on the Charlottetown Accord. It will be divided into three issues. The first will look at how the networks reported the campaign itself, examining the politics, strategies and personalities of those on the "Yes" and "No" sides. The second issue outlines how the networks reported the reasons the two sides gave for voting "Yes" and "No." The third and final issue asks the question of whether the networks reported the referendum campaign differently than the Meech Lake debate. This will include examining the role of journalists and how their coverage of constitutional issues has changed since we first looked at the Meech Lake coverage.

CBC FOCUSES MORE STORIES ON DISCUSSION OF SUBSTANCE THAN CTV

Each story was identified by its "newspeg"--the impetus for the story or why the story is being presented. For CBC, the main newspeg was to discuss the Charlottetown Accord itself. Twenty five percent of CBC's total coverage was prompted by some form of debate on the Accord. Much of this attention was on "The Journal" which included several in-depth reports on the details of the accord, the making of the accord, and debates on the substance of the accord. On CTV, discussion of the details of the Charlottetown Accord prompted only 4 percent of total coverage.

For both networks, coverage of the "Yes" campaign prompted more stories than coverage of or attention to the "No" campaign. On CBC, almost twice as many stories originated as an investigation of the "Yes" campaign as those originating as an investigation of the "No" campaign. On CTV, three times as many stories about the "Yes" versus the "No" campaign were presented. Reviews of both campaigns were the focus in 22 percent of CBC and 16 percent of CTV overall coverage.

Trudeau Creates More News than Decline In Dollar

As figure A shows, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's entry into the debate initiated more stories than did the decline in the dollar and the subsequent increase in interest rates. It also received more attention than economic studies. Stories which were centred on Trudeau comprised a total of 3 percent of CBC and 5 percent of CTV overall attention. Stories based on the interest rate or the dollar comprised only two percent of CBC and 4 percent of CTV overall attention. Economic studies received even less attention at one percent of CBC and 2 percent of CTV overall attention to the referendum campaign.

Click here to view Figure A: Newspeg (What was the Impetus for the Story?)

For example, on the 20 September 1992 "Sunday Report" Peter Mansbridge introduced a story on Trudeau: "To the Canadian referendum now, and a new entry into the debate. Pierre Trudeau has always had a strong influence on the constitutional front, but he's been silent since he expressed his opposition to the Meech Lake Accord two years ago. Well, he's silent no longer. In an essay to be published tomorrow in Maclean's magazine, Trudeau makes his feelings very clear. And they're not going to make supporters of the `Yes' campaign very happy." In addition to that story, the panel that night on "Sunday Report" also focused on the possible impact that Trudeau's essay might have on the campaign.

CTV More Interested in Horse-race than CBC

During election campaigns, the horse-race, or how candidates are faring in the public opinion polls in relation to each other, influences the way in which the public views the campaign. Television news is often criticized for devoting more time to the horse-race at the expense of examining the campaign's issues. In many ways the referendum campaign can be assessed in the same way.

For this campaign, the networks used poll information differently. On CTV, polls initiated 13 percent of all coverage compared to only 2 percent of CBC's attention. This differs dramatically from the 1988 election campaign where the networks focused on polls in roughly the same proportion.

One reason for the difference is that unlike the last election campaign during which CBC sponsored polls, the national broadcaster did not sponsor or conduct any of its own polls. Instead, results from polls sponsored by other organizations were used sparingly. CTV, however, did sponsor its own polls and reported the results in depth.

Scandals Prompt Some Attention

Scandals such as the Wilhelmy affair, the taped recording of Robert Bourassa's constitutional advisor Diane Wilhelmy criticising the way in which the Quebec premier negotiated the Accord, prompted 4 percent of CBC and 5 percent of CTV overall attention.

This coverage was concentrated in the beginning of the campaign when a Quebec court ruled that the contents of the tape could not be aired in Quebec. The injunction against the broadcast of the tape and the injunction's subsequent removal, rather than the contents of the tape, kept the event in the public eye. For example, on 1 October 1992 David Kyle reported on "The CTV News": "Rae dismisses the Wilhelmy case as

native . . . concerns initiated very little coverage of the issues . . .

old news but now that a court has lifted the publication ban, many Quebecers are hearing details reported for the first time. A controversy that may have died down by now if not for that injunction, has instead been given new life. Le Soleil's banner headline quoted Wilhelmy describing the deal as a `National Shame.' `A Real Bomb' another said of the recording. `We Caved In,' Wilhelmy was quoted in La Presse. In the Gazette, it was simply `The Conversation.'"

Legal Text and Aboriginal Issues Given Little Attention

Despite the calls for the legal text, this issue prompted very few stories in the two month campaign. Similarly, native issues and concerns initiated very little coverage of the issues in the campaign.

COVERAGE OF "YES" CAMPAIGN GIVEN MORE ATTENTION THAN "NO" CAMPAIGN

Coverage of the campaign, i.e., leaders, strategies and the horse-race comprised slightly over one-quarter of CBC (26 percent) and over one-third of CTV (38 percent) of total attention to the Accord.

Of this coverage almost twice as much CBC and almost twice as much CTV attention examined the "Yes" side as examined the "No" side.

"Yes" Campaign Given Unfavourable Attention

Neutral descriptions of the "Yes" campaign comprised half of CBC and two-fifths of CTV's attention. Of the remainder, both networks provided almost twice as many unfavourable as favourable assessments.

Coverage of "Yes" Campaign Focused on Elites

Of the attention to the "Yes" campaign itself, the majority of attention for both networks was on the actions and assessments of the leaders. Half of CBC (50 percent) and almost half of CTV (46 percent) overall attention to the "Yes" campaign focused on the leaders (figure B).

Click here to view Figure B: Coverage of the "Yes" Side Campaign

"Yes" Side Leaders Criticised

Slightly over half of CBC (52 percent) and almost half of CTV (42 percent) coverage on the personalities of the "Yes" side was neutral. Of the remainder, both networks were over twice as likely to unfavourably assess the personalities.

Considering that polls during the referendum campaign pegged the prime minister as the least trusted of all the major figures involved in the constitution and referendum it does not come as a surprise that Mulroney received the largest number of negative assessments of any leader on the "Yes" or "No" sides. [Winsor, Hugh (1992) "Mulroney wipes out on national trust scale: Joe Clark up there with Bourassa, Parizeau in Quebec," Globe and Mail, October 9, p. A6.] Of "Yes" leaders, Mulroney received 28 percent of CBC and 40 percent of CTV attention. Half of both networks coverage of the prime minister was neutral. Of the remainder, four out of every five evaluations were unfavourable.

The unfavourable attention the prime minister received ranged from his high disapproval rating with the public to his comments about Reform Party Leader, Preston Manning, and his predictions that the country would fall apart if the Accord were not ratified.

In terms of poll ratings of the prime minister, both networks reported his negative standing. For example, on the 8 September 1992 CTV News, Lloyd Robertson reported on a CTV poll: "The poll shows most Canadians think the prime minister has not done a good job on the constitution. 59 percent disapprove of the way he's handled the negotiations." Similarly, on the 17 September 1992 "Journal" Donna Dasko provided a litany of the negative approval ratings of most "Yes" leaders, including Brian Mulroney: "...the prime minister who still has a negative approval rating when it comes to the constitution. And a number of premiers are in the same kind of deep water, particularly premier Harcourt in British Columbia, who really has not done well in this area."

Other criticisms of Mulroney focused on specific actions by the prime minister or on the impact his negative rating would have on the mood of the electorate. For example, on 7 September 1992, Liberal MP David Walker noted: "I think the fact that the prime minister wasn't seen to be putting pressure on this time makes a difference. If it becomes a Mulroney deal, it's not going to sell anywhere in the country, and particularly in the West."

Preston Manning attempted to capitalize on that sentiment by labelling the Charlottetown Accord "The Mulroney Deal." On the 16 September 1992 "CTV News" he stated: "Many see this is as Mulroney's deal, not a constitutional deal that they themselves identify with and they want to get at him and one way they'll get at him is through this referendum."

Without a doubt the event which pointed the daggers at Mulroney was his statement in Sherbrooke Quebec where he said a "No" vote would mean separation and economic hardship. The "No" supporters attacked this statement saying, as Leslie Jones reported on 30 September 1992: "But one of the leaders of Quebec's `No' campaign was quick to attack Mulroney. Lucien Bouchard blamed Mulroney's comments for the instability, and in Ottawa, the Liberals said the prime minister had made a bad economic situation worse." Sergio Marchi, a Liberal MP then said: "People don't trust Mulroney to start with, and he's adding fuel to the fire."

Bourassa Most Watched Premier

Next in attention and critical assessments was Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa. One quarter of CBC and over one quarter of CTV attention to "Yes" leaders discussed the Quebec premier. Almost half of CBC and one-quarter of CTV statements about Bourassa were neutral. Of the remainder, Bourassa was also twice as likely to receive unfavourable as favourable evaluations (figure C).

Click here to view Figure C: Assessment of "Yes" Side Leaders

Many of these unfavourable assessments resulted from the Wilhelmy affair and charges by Quebec "No"

"I found it a little offensive to have a whole troupe of Eastern premiers come into British Columbia to tell British Columbians what we ought to have."

leaders who claimed that Bourassa had "caved in" during the Charlottetown negotiations. For example on 8 October 1992, Jacques Parizeau, the Parti Quebecois Leader, said on the "CTV News": "And everything we're being told, by all the witnesses, is that, in effect, Bourassa caved in." Similarly, on the 15 October 1992 "Journal," Brian Stewart introduced the first story by saying: "Among all the campaigns being fought across Canada, there is one province where the ups and downs are being watched most closely: Quebec. Throughout the campaign, Quebec Premier, Robert Bourassa, has struggled to shake off an image as a bad negotiator."

On both networks, the other major politicians and premiers received very few assessments. However, those they did receive were generally more unfavourable than favourable. The notable exceptions were Clyde Wells, and Frank McKenna who received more positive than negative assessments on both networks. As well, on CBC Gary Filmon received more positive than negative coverage. On CTV, Don Getty, Ovide Mercredi, Benoit Bouchard and Jean Chretien received more favourable than unfavourable attention.

Campaign Strategies and Execution Given Unfavourable Attention

For both networks, the way in which the "Yes" side ran the campaign was a major focus of discussion. Campaign strategies comprised 20 percent of CBC and 25 percent of CTV's attention to the campaign. The execution of the campaign received 22 percent of CBC's and 17 percent of CTV's attention to it.

While neutral statements predominated the coverage (for example, explaining what the "Yes" side was going to do or was about to do), negative assessments outweighed the favourable ones.

While the personalities of the leaders on the "Yes" side were given unfavourable attention, some people complained that the very use of such politicians

". . . everything we're being told, by all the witnesses, is that, in effect, Bourassa caved in."

stacked meetings. For example, on 14 October 1992 in a "CTV News" story Roger Smith reported how an important meeting of Aboriginal leaders was stacked: "Forced to play the White way, leaders hope to build a consensus the native way, by airing and answering all the doubts. But some complain the `Yes' side stacked the deck by inviting three `Yes' politicians to speak." Joe Peltier of the Mohawk Nation then spoke: "It's loaded against us. They got Bob Rae, they got Joe Clark, they got Harcourt. All of these people that are going to be saying `Yes' to this package and trying to brainwash those chiefs that are here."

Similarly, on the 20 October 1992 "Journal" Gordon Wilson complained of the "Yes" tactics: "...and quite frankly I found it a little offensive to have a whole troupe of Eastern premiers come into British Columbia to tell British Columbians what we ought to have."

Apart from the use of prominent Canadian politicians, the "Yes" side also had its share of criticism of the ads during the campaign. For example on the 21 October 1992 "National" Peter Mansbridge introduced a story on the "Yes" ads by saying: "So, a tougher line from the prime minister. And starting tonight, a tougher line on the tube. The `Yes' committee is pulling out the big guns in the living room war--new ads--they're personal, negative, and warn of a splintered country. The CBC's Kevin Newman tunes in the new sales pitch: the hard sell." In the story Kevin Newman found experts who indicated that negative ads are a gamble. He also noted: "But as the `Yes' Committee discovered, the more traditional ads haven't had an impact. Internal polling has shown that every other commercial that's been released nationally has been rejected by voters in at least one part of the country."

"NO" SIDE CAMPAIGN RECEIVES FAVOURABLE ATTENTION FROM NETWORKS

While the "No" side campaign received less attention than the "Yes," they enjoyed more favourable coverage. Slightly over one-third of both networks' attention to the campaign examined the "No" side's strategies, personalities and politics. Of this coverage almost half of CBC and over one-third of CTV's attention was neutral. Of the remainder, both networks provided slightly more favourable than unfavourable attention (see figure D).

Click here to view Figure D: Coverage of the "No" Side Campaign

"No" Personalities Scrutinized Less than those on "Yes" Side

While coverage of the "Yes" side was dominated by the discussion and assessments of the elites, coverage of the "No" side focused less attention on this area. Over one-third of both networks attention to the campaign examined the conduct of the leaders. Of course, this reduction in emphasis was due in a large part to there being fewer prominent leaders or politicians on the "No" side than on the "Yes" side (figure E).

Click here to view Figure E: Assessments of "No" Personalities

Of the "No" side personalities that were discussed, half of the attention to them by both networks was neutral. However, the "No" side personalities did not necessarily receive any better coverage than the "Yes" personalities. On both networks, criticisms were twice as likely to be presented as positive remarks.

Trudeau Gains Majority of "No" Coverage

While Preston Manning, Jacques Parizeau and Judy Rebick all declared themselves in the "No" camp early in the campaign, they all were given less attention than former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Trudeau, who entered the debate three weeks into the campaign, received almost one-third of CBC and almost half of CTV attention to the "No" leaders. Two-fifths of CBC and almost half of CTV's discussion of him was neutral. While both presented more unfavourable than favourable assessments of the former prime minister CBC was less likely than CTV to produce negative comments. On CBC, negative assessments of Trudeau were presented slightly more than positive comments. On CTV, unfavourable comments about him were presented three times as frequently as favourable comments.

Little Attention to Manning on CTV

The networks also differed substantially in the amount of attention they gave other "No" leaders. On CBC, for example, Preston Manning was the second most frequently assessed "No" personality attaining slightly over one-fifth of coverage of "No" leaders. On CTV, not only did he rank third, but he received only 10 percent of the private broadcaster's coverage of "No" leaders (figure E).

While Manning did not get as much attention on CTV as he did on CBC, his coverage on CTV was more likely to be favourable as unfavourable. Assessments of Manning on CBC were negative in four-fifths of the evaluations. On CTV, there were slightly more favourable than unfavourable assessments of the Reform Party leader.

Jacques Parizeau received 14 percent of CBC and 24 percent of CTV coverage of "No" leaders. Both networks provided twice as many unfavourable as favourable assessments of him. These came from "Yes" supporters who claimed during the campaign that the Parti Quebecois leader was a separatist hiding his true aspirations until the end of the campaign. For example, on the 20 September 1992 "Sunday Report," Lorne Nystrom, the NDP Constitution Critic stated: "The real world is that Mr. Bourassa's facing a very strong separatist movement. Jacques Parizeau wants to separate this country and, and divide Canada."

"NO" STRATEGIES, CAMPAIGN PERFORMANCE CRITICIZED

While much was made of the criticisms of the "Yes" campaign execution and strategies, the "No" side was not spared critical comments.

Half of the attention on CBC and one third the attention on CTV to the "No" campaign execution was neutral. Of the remainder, CBC was twice as likely and CTV almost twice as likely to provide unfavourable as favourable assessments. In terms of the "No" side's strategy, the networks provided less criticism. Over half of both networks' discussions of the "No" strategy were neutral. Of the remainder, CBC provided slightly more negative than positive assessments, while CTV provided slightly more positive than negative assessments.

METHODOLOGY

Results are based on census samples of 172 CBC "National," 39 "Journal," and 36 "Sunday Report" stories as well as 181 "CTV National News" stories from September 3 to October 3 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. 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 (0.85) was obtained.

Any disagreements in assessments by researchers were discussed, and the rating was changed until consensus was reached on all stories.

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.