Volume 6, Number 1

Major Findings on Referendum III

DURING THE REFERENDUM, PAUL ATTALLA, professor of Journalism at Carleton University remarked on the CBC Radio program Prime Time that the work of the National Media Archive was having an influence on the way CBC examines its reporting of the issues: "... The Fraser Institute took the CBC again, in particular, to task for its coverage of the Meech Lake Accord. Well, the result of that was not that, you know, that CBC stopped covering constitutional affairs. The result was that the CBC is now monitoring itself, and is being much more careful, is making an attempt to be, you know, not just balanced in its own bureaucratic procedures, but to be balanced publicly and visibly ... so that there's no question about it. So, they've had that sort of impact."

While CBC management showed their concern about balance as a result of our analysis of the First Ministers' Conference on the Meech Lake Accord, can it be said that the same concern holds for those who report the news? This issue of On Balance compares how the networks reported the First Ministers' Conference in June 1990 and the referendum. Did our criticism of the networks in 1990 change their reporting practices to reflect more balance in 1992?

CBC Changes Reporting Practices as a Result of On Balance

IN 1990, WE FOUND THAT WHEN CBC COVERED the First Ministers' Conference on the Meech Lake Accord, they uncritically reported the government's position that without the deal the country would be doomed. Neither network presented any positive outcome of a failure to sign the Accord.

In contrast, in 1992 not only were different positions described, but more arguments rejecting the agreement than supporting it were presented.

Sense of crisis diminshed in referendum

One of the problems with the way in which the networks reported the Meech Lake Accord was the crisis atmosphere that permeated the coverage. The sheer volume of attention dedicated to Meech Lake suggested that the networks, especially CBC, considered this issue more important than regularly scheduled programming or coverage of other domestic and international events. Of 69 stories reported during the week of the First Ministers' Conference, only 17 dealt with events or issues other than Meech Lake. Three-quarters of CBC's regularly scheduled news programming was devoted to this one issue.

In contrast, on CTV, a total of 83 stories were presented, of which 48 covered stories other than Meech Lake. CTV's attention to Meech Lake, in terms of total stories presented, comprised 42 percent of the week's regularly scheduled news coverage.

During the 1992 referendum campaign, neither network allowed the issue to dominate the agenda. Although CBC provided 247 stories and CTV 181 stories on the campaign, this comprised proportionately less attention than the 1990 Meech Lake issue. On CBC, the referendum campaign comprised over one-third of the network's regularly scheduled national news programs. On CTV, the referendum garnered even less attention, constituting slightly over one-quarter of the total attention for that period.

Dissenters no longer "enemies of Canada"

In 1990, one of the main charges against CBC was that the Meech Lake "hold-out premiers" (Clyde Wells and Gary Filmon) were portrayed as "traitors and unethical opportunists." In fact, we found that although Filmon did receive more unfavourable than favourable press in 1990, Clyde Wells received favourable attention from the networks. This favourable coverage was primarily illustrated by supporters cheering him outside the meetings.

Just prior to the referendum campaign, pundits speculated that those who campaigned against the Accord would be painted as "enemies of Canada." In fact, on 3 September 1992 Denise Harrington reported: "As for Mulroney, he won't shy away from calling Quebec sovereignists `enemies of Canada,' though he won't label every critic that way." Interestingly, there were no substantive differences in the way in which individuals campaigning on the "Yes" or "No" sides were treated by the networks. Representatives from both campaigns received negative press.

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 25 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.

Reporters Change Alliances

DURING THE REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN, CBC commentators and reporters indicated that the corporation was not going to favour one side over the other. Journalists were not only required to be objective but were instructed to prove it. As Kevin Newman reported on the 4 October 1992 Sunday Report: "At the CBC, people with stopwatches measure the length of air time spent on issues, analysis, and the campaigns, similar to an election. That information, along with input from editorial boards across the country, is used to ensure that the CBC, week to week, balances its coverage of the `Yes' and `No' campaigns. As a taxpayer- supported broadcaster, the CBC says it must be able to answer any charges of bias ... Canada's private network doesn't track that closely. Balance, its referendum producer says, should be a goal, not a rule."

Much has changed at Canada's two television networks since the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. Prominent reporters covering Meech were nowhere to be seen in the referendum coverage. The reporting of the First Minister's Conference in June 1990 was dubbed the "Don and Wendy Show," referring to the prominence of CBC journalists Don Newman and Wendy Mesley. Neither of these reporters filed any stories on The National during the referendum campaign. In total only two CBC reporters, Tom Kennedy, Paul Adams and one CTV reporter, Craig Oliver, filed stories on the national broadcasts on both events. Therefore, this section does not necessarily refer to changes made by individual journalists but rather how the demands of CBC influenced story construction.

CBC reporters more critical of "Yes" side than CTV

In 1990, when CBC and CTV reporters examined the First Ministers' Conference on Meech Lake, one-fifth of CBC's and almost one-fifth of CTV's reporter statements examined ways of resolving the impasse. That the journalists were preoccupied with how to get the deal signed, rather than questioning whether Meech Lake in its present form should go through, indicated to us that they were uncritical of the government's position.

In contrast, reporters covering the referendum campaign were critical of the Charlottetown Accord. Unlike the First Ministers' Conference on Meech Lake, reporters covering the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord did not accept the government's position. In total, CBC's top reporters provided twice as many negative as positive evaluations of the "Yes" side.

Was it a Constitutional Accord or a Unity Deal?

One of the more subtle differences between the networks was how they labelled the Charlottetown Accord. CBC opted for the official title "Charlottetown Accord" or "Constitutional Accord" in 92 percent of its references. CTV, however, mentioned the official title slightly less often (48 percent) than "Unity deal" (49 percent of the labels). The use of "Unity Deal" could imply that rejection of the deal would mean disunity. This finding underlines the fact that CBC was simply more careful in how it reported the referendum campaign. Clearly, the public broadcaster was more concerned about charges of bias than was the private broadcaster.

Click here to view Table

Yes side

In examining all statements the top reporters made on the "Yes" side, on CBC only Denise Harrington, Kevin Newman, Karen Webb and Ian Hanomansing provided more neutral statements than assessments. Similarly, CTV reporters provided more assessments of the "Yes" campaign than neutral statements.

Of descriptions and evaluations of the "Yes" side, Neil MacDonald and Denise Harrington balanced assessments of the "Yes" position. Terence McKenna was by far the most critical of the "Yes" side. This unfavourable coverage of the "Yes" side stemmed from his report Anatomy of a Deal where he recounted the backroom manoeuvring and concessions made by the premiers in negotiating the agreement.

The frank discussion of what went on during the negotiation process certainly did not make the "Yes" position look very good. Not only did the three-part series show the federal government at odds with the provinces, but it provided several instances where the premiers admitted that certain parts of the deal would not sit well with the public. For example, in the second part of the series aired on 12 October 1993 McKenna reported: "During the deal Bob Rae confides that if he is too accommodating on the Senate issue, Ontario voters will turn on him and he'll suffer the same fate as David Peterson after the Meech Lake round." Later in that evening's broadcast McKenna speculated: "On the night of his historic agreement, did Joe Clark know how unhappy the prime minister would be to hear of the deal? Did he know how upset his cabinet colleagues would be? Did he realize that the deal was an extremely unpleasant surprise for Robert Bourassa?"

Tom Kennedy was the only reporter who was twice as likely to provide unfavourable as favourable comments. All the remaining reporters provided slightly more unfavourable than favourable assessments of the "Yes" side.

In contrast, CTV reporters were only slightly more likely to provide more unfavourable than favourable assessments of the "Yes" side. Only Leslie Jones, Ken Ernhoffer and Mark Sikstrom provided slightly more favourable than unfavourable statements. While most CTV reporters provided only slightly more unfavourable than favourable assessments of the "Yes" side, Alan Fryer and Mike Duffy were three times as likely to present unfavourable as favourable comments of the "Yes" side. David Kyle was almost twice as likely to present unfavourable as favourable comments on the "Yes" side.

Click here to view Figure A: How reporteds covered the "Yes" side

No side

CBC reporters balance commentary on "No" side

CBC's reporters paid markedly different attention to the "No" campaign than to the "Yes" side. First, more reporters provided neutral descriptions of the "No" side than they did of the "Yes" side. On CBC, Tom Kennedy, Joe Schlesinger, Neil MacDonald, Kevin Newman, Paul Adams and Ian Hanomansing all provided more neutral statements than assessments or descriptions of the "No" side. On CTV, only Craig Oliver and Mark Sikstrom presented more neutral statements than assessments of the "No" side. In some respects this indicates that CBC's reporters were more willing to report the "No" side position than the arguments on the "Yes" side.

Further, reporters' attention to the "No" side was not as uniformly unfavourable as it was to the "Yes" side. Overall, the top reporters on CBC balanced assessments of the "No" side. CBC's Terence McKenna, Tom Kennedy, Neil MacDonald and Jeremy Thompson all assessed the "No" side more favourably than unfavourably. Joe Schlesinger, Denise Harrington, Paul Adams, and Ian Hanomansing were more critical than approving of the "No" side. Only Kevin Newman balanced assessments of the "No" side.

CTV reporters give "No" side favourable attention

CTV's top reporters commented on the "No" side one-fifth more favourably than unfavourably. Only Craig Oliver, Leslie Jones and Mark Sikstrom presented more unfavourable than favourable assessments. All of the other top CTV reporters provided more favourable than unfavourable assessments of the "No" side.

Much of the favourable attention to the "No" side focused on the horse-race aspect of the campaign. For example, on 6 September Tom Kennedy provided this analysis: "The sovereignists do have a jump on the federalists so far." On the 17 September CTV News, Roger Smith reported on B.C.'s "No" campaign. "In the only province outside Quebec where the `Yes' side is trailing, Joe Clark told law students....`While the key battle may be Quebec, rejection here could also torpedo the deal.'"

Click here to view Figure B: How reporters covered the "No" side

Reporters Prefer Sources on "Yes" Side

DESPITE THE UNFAVOURABLE COVERAGE THE reporters gave the "Yes" side, most reporters preferred to quote the "Yes" over the "No" representatives. On CBC, 6 out of the 10 top reporters presented more statements from "Yes" sources than "No" sources. These sources tended to be high-ranking politicians. For example, Tom Kennedy, who presented more unfavourable than favourable assessments of the "Yes" side, relied heavily on Robert Bourassa as a source. However, rather than offering reasons to vote "Yes," Bourassa's statements were admissions of problems on the "Yes" side. For example, on the 3 September National Kennedy reported: "And the problem for the federalist side is the deal itself. Bourassa himself says it's not perfect." One month later Kennedy repeated the issue on the 5 October 1992 National: "The fact is, the referendum has split Bourassa's party. He's admitted the deal is less than perfect, and he's failed to generate much enthusiasm for it."

Click here to view Figure C: What sources did reporters quote?

Paul Adams also relied heavily on "Yes" politicians such as Brian Mulroney and Audrey McLaughlin. However, using these sources did not in and of itself guarantee positive attention to the "Yes" side. For example, on 25 September 1992 the NDP leader was critical of an often-used argument on the "Yes" side: "As a politician that's not the director of the Royal Bank, I think we just have to be careful that we're not overdrawing the negative consequences [of a `No' outcome]."

Only Joe Schlesinger and Paul Adams balanced statements from both "Yes" and "No" side sources. Neil MacDonald and Ian Hanomansing were the only two CBC reporters who used more "No" than "Yes" sources.

On CTV, a similar trend emerged. Five of the eight top reporters presented more "Yes" than "No" sources. Mike Duffy had equal numbers of "Yes" and "No" sources. Alan Fryer and Mark Sikstrom were the only two CTV reporters who relied more on "No" than on "Yes" sources.

Mark Sikstrom relied upon Sharon Carstairs and Preston Manning most often as sources. Alan Fryer's most frequently used sources on the "No" side were Jacques Parizeau and Pierre Trudeau. Fryer used opposition leader Jacques Parizeau more frequently than the premier, Robert Bourassa. As well, he was more likely to support Parizeau's statements over Bourassa's. For example, on the 20 October 1992 CTV News Fryer reported: "On this French-language public affairs show, Robert Bourassa says the Canadian economy is sick enough, why subject it to even more uncertainty? But that argument has so far failed to convince and Bourassa can do little more than urge Quebecers to reflect, to think twice. `Think of the consequences of a "No" vote,' he says. Jacques Parizeau, for one, likes the consequences. `I'm proud of Quebecers,' he says. `The choices for Quebec will now be more clear cut.' Sensing victory, he urges the "No" forces to fight on. . . . As for Bourassa, you just know a politician's in trouble when he starts quoting Yogi Berra: `It's not over 'til it's over.'"

Anchors in the Spotlight

EACH NETWORK INTRODUCES ITS STORIES WITH A remark from the anchor. During the referendum, CBC's main anchor during the week and on Sunday was Peter Mansbridge. Knowlton Nash reported the Friday and Saturday news. Bill Cameron was the primary anchor on the Journal during the referendum campaign.

On CTV, Lloyd Robertson hosted the weekday news, while the weekend news was hosted by either Sandie Rinaldo or Peter Murphy. In practise, the anchor provides the context for the story and gives the introductory remark. How did these introductions frame subsequent referendum stories?

The anchors who introduced and reported on the referendum had the most neutral statements of either campaign. In fact, almost three-quarters of Peter Mansbridge's comments simply reported the facts. Bill Cameron and Knowlton Nash provided twice as many neutral as evaluative statements overall. CTV's anchors were less likely to provide that level of neutrality. Sixty percent of Sandie Rinaldo's comments were neutral, whereas slightly over half of Lloyd Robertson's statements were neutral. Peter Murphy presented the least proportion of neutral statements comprising 44 percent of his total commentary.

Unlike the reporters assessments of the "Yes" side, where there tended to be more criticisms than praise of that campaign, the network anchors balanced favourable and unfavourable assessments of the "Yes" side. On CBC Bill Cameron had exactly the same number of assessments for and against the "Yes" position. Peter Mansbridge provided slightly more favourable than unfavourable comments. Only Knowlton Nash criticized slightly more often than he approved of the "Yes" side. On CTV, all the network anchors assessed the "Yes" side more favourably than unfavourably.

Click here to view Figure D: "Yes" Coverage by CBC and CTV Anchors

Neutral statements by Peter Mansbridge and Bill Cameron comprised slightly over half of their comments on the "No" side. Only 46 percent of Knowlton Nash's comments on the "No" side were neutral. On CTV, anchors' neutral statements comprised slightly less than one-third of their "No" statements.

Click here to view Figure E: "No" Coverage by CBC and CTV Anchors

When the anchors discussed the "No" side, not only did they provide fewer neutral descriptions, but they provided more favourable than unfavourable assessments of it. CBC's anchors' favourable attention to the "No" side ranged from most of Knowlton Nash's assessments to twice as many of Peter Mansbridge's and three-quarters of Bill Cameron's analyses. On CTV, Lloyd Robertson's assessments were twice as likely to be favourable as unfavourable. Sandie Rinaldo's assessments were favourable almost three times out of four. These comments focused on the strategic gains the "No" side received from prominent groups and individuals who joined the campaign. For example, Peter Mansbridge made much of Pierre Trudeau's comments rejecting the Charlottetown Accord. On 20 September 1992 Mansbridge asked B.C. Liberal Leader Gordon Wilson about the impact Trudeau would have on the "No" campaign: "Do you think it becomes the most forceful point so far on the `No' side of this campaign, even though Mr. Trudeau has not said he's actually voting `No'?"

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.