Volume 6, Number 10

CHILD POVERTY, GATT, AND BOB WHITE: How the Media Frames Ideas, Sides in Debates, and Creates Stars

THIS ISSUE MARKS THE FINAL EDITION OF ON Balance in 1993. With the end of the year, we have been reflecting on the format and content of On Balance. Over the years our readers have lamented the fact that because we have concentrated on in depth analyses in our studies, we often fail to be timely enough. Others have indicated that our research is so vital to the discussion on public policy issues that our net should envelop more news sources.

To this end we are announcing a significant change in the format of On Balance. First, our goal in 1994 will be to provide more current assessments of the media's coverage of major issues. We will be offering detailed analyses of issues as they emerge. As such, each issue of On Balance will consist of several current topics.

Second, our net will reach beyond national television news and include major Canadian daily newspapers. The selection of newspapers will vary depending on their availability at the time of writing.

Since many of you have come to depend and rely on our detailed content analysis of national television news coverage of issues over longer periods of time, we will continue this feature of On Balance. However, rather than being contained in a single issue, these results will appear over the course of several issues.

This edition of On Balance examines two issues that emerged at the end of November and the beginning of December 1993: child poverty and Article XI of GATT, which struck down Canada's supply-side marketing boards. Our detailed study this month is an examination of how television news used Bob White as a source for economic, social and labour issues.

Canadian Media Uncritically Accept Advocacy Groups' Assertion that 1.5 Million Canadian Children Live in Poverty

DURING THE LAST WEEK IN NOVEMBER 1993, Campaign 2000, a 45-group coalition, reported an increase in the number of children living in poverty in Canada. This finding was widely reported in most major Canadian daily newspapers as well as on the national newscasts of the networks.

Each of the reports faithfully conveyed the coalition's findings. All had given the following information as was reported by CTV's Ken Ernhofer: "The child poverty numbers are staggering. A watchdog group, Campaign 2000, says that between 1989 and 1991, an additional 250,000 Canadian children joined the ranks of the impoverished, an increase of 30 percent. In all, 1.2 million children lived in poverty, one child in every five."

Most troubling about the way in which the media reported these stories was that there was no incredulity or question that that many Canadian children were poor. The reporters covered the story in almost exactly the same way, all repeating the information provided to them by the coalition. Despite the unanimity among the reporters, a number of facts presented could have been challenged.

Reporters claim children live below poverty line, but fail to question definition

All reporters covering the child poverty story mentioned the statement that Canadian children were poor or were living under the poverty line. Adrienne Tanner of the Edmonton Journal, Alison Bray of the Winnipeg Free Press, the Canadian Press report in the Regina Leader-Post, Rosemary Spiers of the Toronto Star and Carol Goar of the St. John's Telegram all provided the definition of the poverty line as being Statistics Canada's Low Income Cutoff (LICO). However, none of the reporters indicated that Statistics Canada does not endorse this as a measurement of poverty: "although LICO are commonly referred to as official poverty lines, they have no officially recognized status nor does Statistics Canada promote their use as poverty lines." [Statistics Canada Low Income Cut-offs, 1986, Technical Paper, 1987, p.1.]

Only one reporter questioned the measurement in a story: Canadian Press journalist Helen Branswell. In an article printed in the Winnipeg Free Press, Branswell writes: "Some contend the low-income cut-offs aren't a good measure of poverty, because they don't assess whether people who live below them can meet their basic needs. Instead the cutoffs assess how those people fared in comparison to those who are better off." While most of the story was also printed in the Regina Leader-Post, that section was excluded.

The Globe and Mail also noted the LICO figures but referred to them as "the poverty threshold." And while the Globe and Mail indicated that former Progressive Conservative MP Barbara Greene had tried to examine a real measure of poverty, her efforts were dismissed by the man who came up with the numbers for Campaign 2000, Clarence Lougheed: "When we talk about poor families there are very few poor families who live at the cutoff, or ever close to that level." Contrast this attention to that given to Barbara Greene when she chaired the parliamentary committee on poverty and actually argued that the way in which we count the poor may inflate their numbers. She was vilified in the press and her motives were impugned. For example, Debra O'Connor from the National Anti-poverty Organization said on CTV News on 8 June 1993: "And when Barbara Greene gets up and says 40 to 60 percent of the poor aren't really poor, that just reinforces people's idea that life on welfare is easy and it's too soft, and that couldn't be further from the truth. There's real suffering out there, and Barbara Greene is doing her bit to make that suffering worse."

Increase in parents on UI used as indicator of increase in poor children

Six of the twelve news agencies examined by the National Media Archive reported the finding of Campaign 2000, subsequently included in Margaret Philp's story for the Globe and Mail, that "more than 800,000 children had a parent who was collecting unemployment insurance for at least six months in 1991--a 41 percent increase from 1989." This fact, contained in Allyson Jeffs article for Southam, was reprinted in the Vancouver Sun, the Edmonton Journal, and the Montreal Gazette. Carol Goar included it in the St. John's Evening-Telegram, and the Telegraph Journal reported it in the CP story they printed.

All of these journalists and newspapers reported the finding. Implicit in its conclusions was that this was yet another indicator of how things have become worse for Canadian children. The gullibility of these reporters, or at least their willingness to believe and report the worst, illustrates how uncritical they were of the coalition's findings. An equally plausible explanation for the 41 percent increase in the number of children who had one parent collect Unemployment Insurance for at least 6 months is that since 1989, the rules governing maternity and parental benefits had changed. In 1990, the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended so that mothers could claim maternity benefits, and then claim parental benefits, if their husbands did not use them. This translates to 6 months' worth of Unemployment Insurance payouts. To suggest that an increase in the number of people collecting unemployment for this length of time is an indicator of more poverty is highly misleading. An equally strong case could be made that more people were simply taking longer maternity benefits because they had become entitled to receive them.

No reporter questioned assertion that numbers could be worse

Four of the newspapers that the National Media Archive examined indicated that the figures released by Coalition 2000 were out of date. Allyson Jeffs writing for the Vancouver Sun and the Ottawa Citizen mentioned that the group "predict it has climbed higher since then." Similarly, Adrienne Tanner and Margaret Philp repeated the assertion that the facts were "probably worse." None of the reporters argued that because the numbers were out of date, the number of poor children could actually be less.

How the statistics became a political cause

This seemingly benign story on the number of poor illustrates two important points on the nature of the media's role in priming audiences to view certain issues as problems. The first is that regardless of the truth of information presented on the news, if it is presented as fact, it will become a fact in the media eye. As James Blackburn wrote in a recent Globe and Mail editorial: "Debates are frequently controlled by those who assert most forcefully that `studies show.' But the original data and reports cited are rarely given critical appraisal."

The second point is that once these unscrutinized issues become part of our belief system, they also become part of our ammunition to further other agendas.

In a number of stories, Lynne Toupin, executive director of the National Anti-poverty Organization offered a way to solve the problem: "Can we continue to allow very rich people to have access to RRSPs at very high limits when you've got kids who are lining up at food banks and kids who are sleeping in shelters? I hope we as a nation still feel strongly enough about being compassionate to want to address this issue collectively." Others such as the Edmonton mayor called for increased funding for programs. The Globe and Mail called for job creation. Evening Telegram sources wanted poverty to become the number one issue. The Telegraph-Journal wanted child poverty to be a top priority for the Liberal government. In two articles the Winnipeg Free Press wanted social spending to be targeted, and claimed that we should overhaul the system.

Since the release of these numbers, the Human Resources Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, has repeated them as an indication of how important job creation is, and his hopes that the Liberal jobs plan would solve the child poverty problem.

The irony of the way the media treated this story is that when Christopher Sarlo attempted to find a meaningful measurement of poverty, it was swiftly debated in newspaper columns and on television talk shows. Unfortunately, it appears that the debate has ended since not one of the reports about Coalition 2000's poverty estimates questioned or debated their definition of poverty.

Gatt Portrayed as a Bad News Story

DURING THE FIRST WEEK IN DECEMBER, THE negotiators in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade agreed "to replace quotas and other non-tariff barriers to imports with tariffs." In other words, the Canadian system of supply management of dairy, egg and poultry products would be open to competition. Canadian media outlets reported this as a bad news story. The front page headline in the Globe and Mail was: "Supply system appears doomed." Similarly in the Friday Globe and Mail, the headline loomed: "Farmers warned of GATT attack." On CTV News on Monday December 6, Lloyd Robertson announced a story on the issue by saying: "The United States and Europe today ended their feud over farm subsidies. It's a compromise that makes Canada and other members of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs a little more hopeful they can complete a deal to overhaul the rules of international trade. But, one price of a global deal will likely be the loss of the import quotas and marketing boards that protect the livelihood of Canadian farmers. As CTV's Colin Gray reports, many fear for their future."

The consistent theme of the stories was on the political fallout the Liberal government might face from Quebec farmers. As Alan Freeman wrote in the December 3, 1993 Globe and Mail: "An agreement could find the Liberal government facing its first confrontation with the Bloc Quebecois, which is expected to accuse Ottawa of abandoning the interest of 12,000 Quebec dairy farmers." Little, if any discussion was presented on how the consumers might be affected by the reduction in prices if competition were allowed in the egg, dairy, and poultry sectors.

While the daily newspapers and national press all portrayed GATT's passage as a bad news story, the business publication, the Financial Post, contrasted the concerns of Quebec farmers with market assessments and the favourable response from grain farmers. The headline on page 12 of the December 4 Financial Post story was: "GATT optimism grows." More importantly, only the Financial Post discussed the possible outcome if GATT failed. Eric Reguly concluded: "If GATT fails, protectionist walls might go up around the world, choking off exports and reducing the potential for sustained economic recovery."

The examination of marketing boards in this sympathetic fashion is not a new phenomena for Canadian television news. As was reported in the July/August 1992 On Balance, from 1991 to 1992 CBC and CTV news stories relating to marketing boards focused on farmers' demands that the supply management boards be protected, and on government attempts to save them. No debate was offered on the fairness of marketing boards to consumers or farmers.

GATT framed as a government issue

The GATT talks were framed as a government issue. First by focusing on the political fallout from Quebec, and second by focusing on how the Canada lost the battle. This emphasis denied the public the opportunity to fully understand what supply marketing boards are, and how they affect both the farmer and the consumer. By emphasizing the government position, the media primed Canadians to view the elimination of Article XI as a bad thing. As Pamela Wallin reported on 13 December 1993 CBC Prime Time: "Canadian negotiators lost a key battle today at world trade talks in Geneva. They gave up the fight over farm import quotas."

To his credit, CBC's Prime Time News reporter, Allen Garr, provided a balanced account of potential winners and loser in the marketing board issue. CTV News' Ken Ernhofer acknowledged on 8 December that the change in GATT would be good news for consumers.

Once the deadline for the conclusion of the Uruguay round was met, media outlets scrambled to provide the government's new position on the issue. By Monday, the Globe and Mail's coverage of the issue changed dramatically from the previous week as the newspaper began to examine the possible winners in the GATT agreement.

Bob White: The Making of a Source

OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE EXAMINED HOW sources used in a newscast influence the content of the story. From environmental issues to the economy, the role of the source has a direct impact in the direction of coverage an issue receives. However, many wonder what model or criterion reporters use to select sources to appear on the news.

When Bob White was the president of the Canadian Auto Workers he remarked that he thought the role of a union leader should be to promote the socialist agenda: "And the role of a social democratic movement in society is to just to get power, if you can do that, but it's also to effect change." Clearly, prominent use of Bob White as a source for comment on political and economic issues would indicate that the news agency agreed with White's view, i.e., that a union should promote the social democratic perspective, and effect change in that direction. To examine whether the networks adopted Bob White's vision of himself as a social activist or a labour leader, this study examines all statements made by Bob White on the CBC and CTV national newscasts from January 1, 1988 to December 31, 1992.

White more credible source than Mclaughlin or Carr

As figure A shows, television's use of Bob White has increasingly been at the expense of his female counterparts in the union movement and in the NDP. While nine-tenths of this study encompasses White as the president of the CAW, CBC presented him more frequently than prominent women union and NDP spokespersons. In contrast, CTV provided less comments from Bob White than from other social democratic leaders.

Click here to view Figure A: Coverage of Socialist Leaders, 1988-1992

Carr ignored as President of CLC

The Canadian Labour Congress represents almost 2.5 million Canadians and 60 percent of unionized workers. During the majority of this study, Bob White, president of the CAW, represented 150,000 auto workers. Despite this fact, CBC preferred White as a source over Shirley Carr. In the years Shirley Carr was president of the CLC, CBC quoted Bob White nine times more frequently than Carr. During White's first year as president of the CLC, CBC quoted 101 of his statements. In contrast, during Shirley Carr's final year as president, CBC quoted only 10 of her statements.

Commentators on the news attributed the difference in effectiveness between the two leaders to a difference in style. Desmond Morton, a labour historian, said on the 11 June 1992 National: "I think that it's gonna be more focused, and it's gonna be more practical. Shirley Carr seemed to me to have a strident speech on every subject, and people stopped listenin' to her very quickly. I think Bob White likes to be effective, likes to see results. He's a very good card player." What is interesting in these comments is that for the years that the National Media Archive examined Bob White's statements on television news, it was precisely his strident speech on every subject that permitted him to be quoted so frequently.

White interviewed more frequently than McLaughlin

The inherent sexism of using Bob White is not apparent until one compares the attention he received with that of Ed Broadbent and Audrey McLaughlin. While it has been established that while Bob White was represented the CAW he was quoted more frequently than Shirley Carr, he did not receive more attention than Ed Broadbent, the leader of the New Democratic Party at that time. In 1988 and 1989, when Ed Broadbent led the party, Bob White was used as a source in a supplemental fashion. The NDP leader was used as a source for the vast majority of the statements when the proportion of coverage dedicated to each is compared.

However, on December 2, 1989, when Audrey McLaughlin was elected leader of the party, both networks decreased their attention to the NDP leader and increased their attention to Bob White. In fact, in 1990, 1991, and 1992, the CBC quoted White 97 more times than Audrey McLaughlin. CTV did quote McLaughlin more than White, they also significantly decreased their attention to the NDP leader.

The lack of attention given to Audrey McLaughlin and Shirley Carr, who represented more individuals than did Bob White, raises serious questions about how television chooses sources in the political debate.

CTV uses White as union leader, CBC uses him as a social activist

Although CBC and CTV both increased their attention to Bob White over the period of the study, there were significant differences in the issues being discussed on the two networks. On CTV, Bob White spoke primarily about the politics of union and labour issues, comprising almost 60 percent of the total statements. In contrast, on CBC, the greatest proportion of coverage was dedicated to Bob White's views on free trade, constituting 40 percent of all statements (Figure B). Labour issues represented 36 percent of his total statements.

Click here to view Figure B: Statements made by Bob White, 1988-1992

Bob White Receives More Coverage on Free Trade Than Labour Issues

On CBC Bob White was quoted more frequently as a representative of the anti-free trade movement than in his official capacity as a representative of unions and labour issues. Further, instead of using Shirley Carr, the official spokesperson of the CLC, or anti-free trade economists, CBC chose to use Bob White as their primary source. It was not as though Bob White was talking exclusively about how free trade would affect jobs or the workers. In fact, only 23 percent of his statements on CBC and 37 percent on CTV actually referred to labour issues regarding free trade.

What did Bob White say about free trade on CBC? Thirty percent of his statements on CBC were rejections of the free trade agreements on issues other than jobs. Some of the issues White brought up in relation to free trade were social programs and sovereignty. For example, on 26 November 1990 he argued on the Journal: "If we're going to have trading relations, in whatever form it takes in the future, there has to be some discussion about the sovereignty of a nation; there has to be some discussion about the ability of Canada to make certain determinations on its own; and what I'm worried about here, and I was worried about it in the free trade agreement, I think it's correct, that we have given up a great deal of our ability to deal in foreign issues."

As the President of the Canadian Auto Workers, it is questionable whether Bob White was qualified to speak as a source on the issue of free trade. On CBC White has been used as a source for union and labour issues--subjects for which he is an expert--in only 37 percent of all statements.

The tone of Bob White's commentary is always radical. Blaming the Conservative government for the recession when the cyclical patterns of the economy are a well known fact is typical of the antics used when one wants to be quoted by the national television newscasts. Television's consistent use of radical sources in the public policy debate results in a polarization of the issues. Instead of using sources who have knowledge of a specific subject, television's tendency to use well-known figures who represent the extremes in the political spectrum result in a less informed and more confused audience.

METHODOLOGY

Results on Bob White are based on a census sample of 50 National, 18 Journal, 3 Prime Time News, 5 Venture, 3 Sunday Report stories as well as 56 CTV National News stories from January 1, 1988 to December 31, 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 (0.84) 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.