Volume 7, Number 10 - January, 1995

LUCIEN BOUCHARD: WHEN POLITICAL REPORTERS COVER A MEDICAL STORY

IN THE LATE AFTERNOON OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1994, a media release was issued by the Bloc Quebecois from Ottawa stating that Lucien Bouchard had undergone surgery to remove his left leg due to a serious infection popularly known as "the flesh-eating disease." That was the only formal media release or official word on Mr. Bouchard's prognosis for 18 hours. However, during the night and well into the next morning the airwaves and newsstands were filled with updates and reports on Bouchard's condition.

Canada AM broadcast repeats every rumour

CBC Prime Time News distinguished themselves by reporting only the confirmed medical facts as stated in the media release, namely, that Bouchard's left leg had been amputated because it had been infected with the Streptococcus A bacteria. On CTV News, however, Alan Fryer reported on December 1, "Doctors were forced to amputate his entire left leg and most of his hip." The coverage on December 1 then moved to reactions from colleagues and some interviews with doctors explaining the severity and public health aspects of the disease.

By the next morning, CTV's reports were graver and indeed the broadcasts took on a decidedly macabre cast as the day progressed. For example, on CTV's Canada AM Wei Chen began the day saying "And we begin this morning with Lucien Bouchard's grave medical crisis. The leader of Canada's official opposition continues to fight for his life in a Montreal hospital stricken with a deadly and rare so-called flesh eating bacteria. Doctors have amputated his leg and part of his hip in a desperate bid to help halt the rapid spread of the infectious disease which is caused by the streptococcus bacteria."

In the following story, Alan Fryer recounted the previous night's news, stating in unequivocal tones that: "A close friend of Bouchard has confirmed that the Bloc leader had contracted a rare form of bacterium which quite literally eats away at the flesh. Doctors were forced to amputate his entire left leg and most of his hip."

As the morning unfolded Wei Chen then began broadcasting "unconfirmed reports that his arm has also been amputated." In her next report she recounted: "Some reports suggest that the disease spread to Bouchard's chest region."

Later, Keith Morrison qualified the reports, adding: "There are unconfirmed, and let me put this clearly, unconfirmed reports on French language radio today that his left arm has also been amputated also, but I pass that on only because it's been reported in a public venue, but it is, as we say, unconfirmed."

Even after Morrison's caveat, Wei Chen reported again in all seriousness that there were unconfirmed reports that his arm was also amputated. Only in the next report, when a hospital spokesman said Bouchard was out of danger, did CTV stop repeating the rumours.

Radio Canada leads the pack in rumours

How did CTV television news get the basic facts so wrong? One answer is the way information was doled out. The media claimed that Bouchard's family requested that no information be provided to the public. In the absence of official information, journalists relied upon each other for updates. Radio Canada appeared to lead the pack in reporting on his condition.

For example, the Globe and Mail reported on December 2: "Radio-Canada reported that Mr. Bouchard's entire leg was amputated after he was stricken with streptococcus A bacteria. A source in Ottawa told the Globe and Mail that the Radio-Canada report was accurate." Despite the lack of official word on Bouchard's condition, an independent French-language television station, TVA, reported that "Bouchard had undergone a scanning procedure to determine whether the infection had spread to his left arm and right leg. This information was somehow transformed overnight into reports that the limbs had been amputated--information that moved on the news wires and was broadcast by radio stations across the country."

Media blame Bloc and family for false reports

The assumption by journalists that Radio-Canada had an inside lead on the story was seriously flawed. According to Mike Boone writing for the Montreal Gazette, "there was no one to confirm or deny the report." In Boone's article, Jim Duff, a radio host for CJAD in Montreal blamed the Bloc for the lack of media responsibility. Boone quotes him as saying, "I blame the Bloc. There was nobody at St. Luc that you could bounce the story off. The standing order was no medical bulletins."

When the official word got out that Bouchard was out of danger and that he had lost his leg mid-thigh, Keith Morrison shrugged off the reporting of the day with the remark, "What was bizarre about this overnight, was how the rumours were flying, rumours that an arm was amputated or the disease had gone to other parts of the body, that the situation looked hopeless. These, any time there's this kind of a story, and you get a lot of people hanging around waiting to know what the result is when no one can possibly know, this sort of thing happens." When it came time to assign blame for the spread of rumours, Morrison placed it squarely on the shoulders of the family saying it was their fault for the way they handled the situation: "It's disconcerting, and probably actually makes it worse for a family that doesn't want that kind of thing to get started, but you know they've got to make their choice about how they want to handle it."

CBC Newsworld shows more restraint

The word "choice" is particularly relevant when applied to the media's behaviour and their role in providing grist for the rumour mill. Ironically, no one on Canada AM that morning thought they had a choice when it came to reporting every unsubstantiated rumour in circulation. CTV, however, did have a choice. They could have, as CBC's Morning Show did, simply indicate that rumours were spreading but not give them credibility by repeating them on air. For example, CBC's Scott Laurie reported: "There have been many rumours since then about infection spreading to other parts of his body, but those are unconfirmed."

Newspapers

News of Bouchard's illness made the front page of every major daily in the country. There were errors in the newspapers, but their impact was mitigated because they were not so desperately repeated throughout the morning. Due to the way newspapers put out information, they were in no position, as television was, to give a minute-by-minute report on Bouchard's health status.

Apart from a few minor technical errors, most newspapers accurately related the medical details of Bouchard's operation. One fairly common medical error was to refer to the bacterium as a virus as, for instance, Hubert Bauch did in the Montreal Gazette on December 3. On CBC Newsworld, too, both Norma Lee and Don Newman also called the bacterium a virus on December 2.

Another factual error was made by the Calgary Herald's Eric Siblin who incorrectly repeated a Radio Canada report that Bouchard had undergone "two operations--one to remove his foot, the second that amputated his leg above the knee."

Bouchard's "suffering will make him a more formidable opponent, almost a mythic, tragic hero for the sovereignist side, impervious to partisan attacks."

There was, however, some conscientious journalism. Anne McIlroy writing for Southam in the Calgary Herald and two Canadian Press stories carried in the Montreal Gazette and the Vancouver Sun noted that the amputation was localized to the "left leg" and stressed, moreover, that it had occurred at mid-thigh. Compared to the CTV News, both the Chronicle-Herald and CBC Morning News were also forthcoming on what they didn't know, saying "it was not clear exactly where on his leg the amputation had occurred."

The death watch

There were two interlocking themes in the intense coverage of Bouchard on December 2. The first was that the vigil was in fact a "death watch." Keith Morrison admitted as much: "All night long, in the trade, what is termed a death watch and it's apparently turned much more positive than that." That death watch promulgated the second theme. Because journalists believed the rumours that Bouchard's condition was worsening they jumped the gun and provided eulogies which in turn greatly intensified the coverage.

The press also focused to a great extent on the outpouring of sympathy from across the country. CTV's Craig Oliver stated: "He's picked up the mantel of Rene Levesque, he's greatly loved. He's a warm, charming man, whatever side you may be on in politics." The Montreal Gazette's Hubert Bauch wrote, "Most of the professional prognosticators and licensed spin doctors were commendably reluctant yesterday to indulge in hardnosed speculation about the political consequences of Bouchard's stunning brush with death as he fought for his life on the operating table." This politeness took extreme expression at times. For instance, a Canadian Press story in the Vancouver Sun on December 2 was released under the non-threatening headline, "Lucien Bouchard, an unlikely politician: Quebecois sovereignists do not want to destroy a country but to build another one, fashioned on their aspirations and specifically dedicated to their progress." The image crafted by the media was not that of a hard-noised separatist negotiator, but that of a good-hearted Canadian.

Because Bouchard's recovery was problematic as of Friday December 2, reporters were polite and kept speculation about the political implications of Bouchard's illness to a minimum. It is indeed ironic that while the media shied away from providing the political ramifications of Lucien Bouchard's convalescence, a topic they have some expertise on, they did not shy away from describing in detail rumours that made Bouchard's condition appear far worse than it actually was.

By Saturday December 3, however, it was more or less business as usual for the press. With confirmation of Bouchard's certain recovery, reporters stopped eulogizing and started reporting on the affect his illness would have on the sovereignty movement. But while the discussion in the press had moved on to the political consequences of his illness, as an individual, Bouchard was still personally cocooned from any negative press.

A myth is born

Another theme that cropped up in media reports was Bouchard's new "mythic" status. In a Vancouver Sun article, Southam reporter Joan Bryden quoted Environics pollster Michael Adams as saying, "He was already a personality for whom mythology was being developed.... this will transform him from the essence to the quintessence." In the Globe and Mail, Tu Thanh Ha and Susan Delacourt quoted some Ottawa bureaucrats who opined that Bouchard's "suffering will make him a more formidable opponent, almost a mythic, tragic hero for the sovereignist side, impervious to partisan attacks."

The interesting question is what role, if any, did the media play in creating Bouchard's new persona? Arguably, Bouchard's emergent identity as "cult figure" can be linked to the media's flattering portrayal of him. The media quoted sources who almost exclusively referred to Bouchard as "a great leader," "a person of very high quality," and "magnetic." The most commonly used adjective to describe the Bloc leader was "charismatic."

In fact, there was not a single negative reference to Bouchard with the exception of the Globe and Mail's Robert Sheppard. In a December 5 editorial entitled "The life of Lucien Bouchard" he wrote, "I can't pretend that Lucien Bouchard is well-liked in English Canada. In fact, he is heartily mistrusted and generally viewed as haughty and perversely partisan." å

Bouquets and Brickbats

ON BALANCE HAS MADE A HABIT OF IDENTIFYING areas of misinformation in media dissemination. The goal of this column is to identify and showcase those journalists who actively question the information that crosses their desks. We applaud those efforts with a bouquet. Similarly, we wish to admonish reporters who fail their journalistic responsibilities in providing balanced and accurate information. To these journalists we throw a brickbat.

Bouquets

Margaret Wente reveals flaws in Statistics Canada Study.

On November 26, 1994 Margaret Wente writing in the Women's column in the Globe and Mail pointed out that last year "news media across Canada led with the shocking results of a major Statistics Canada survey. `Fifty per cent of women report assaults,' read the headline in this newspaper."

Wente analyzed the survey's data and found that despite the "credibility of Statscan behind it," the numbers were seriously flawed. Wente noted, for example, that the "findings included only physical or sexual acts that could result in criminal charges." However, according to the Criminal Code such charges can include "any remark or gesture perceived by the person on the receiving end as a threat." According to the Statscan model "perceived" threats, for instance "a stranger making a belligerent remark on the street," are given the same weight as "real" threats.

Further, Wente points out that even in the calculation of wife assault, the definition is vague. Statscan has, for example, collapsed non-physical contact, such as throwing things, with minor contacts such as pushing, grabbing and shoving with clearly violent behaviour such as "beating up, hitting with an object etc."

Statscan has, for example, collapsed non-physical contact, such as throwing things, with minor contacts such as pushing, grabbing and shoving with clearly violent behaviour such as "beating up, hitting with an object etc."

Wente's conclusion to that column, and the theme of the following one, pointed out that if groups do not have these "sensational findings...there would be no headlines, and not much justification for their existence."

Brickbats

Uncritical reporting of child poverty

The first brickbat is shared by CTV's Lloyd Robertson, CBC Newsworld's Dave Pringle, the Winnipeg Free Press' Stan Mak, Canadian Press in the Montreal Gazette and the Globe and Mail for uncritically repeating Campaign 2000's claims that "five years after the all-party resolution, Canadian children are more likely to live in poverty than any other group in Canada." All but the Globe and Mail and the Winnipeg Free Press gave credibility to the organization's suggestion that "Ottawa could raise millions to eliminate poverty by increasing taxes on corporations and lowering tax deductions for RRSPs" by not offering the implications of such a tax increase.

None of these news organizations pointed out that there is no poverty line measurement in Canada, or that there is an ongoing debate in the country as to what constitutes poverty and what the range in estimates are.

How many poor children are there? 2.5 million, 1.4 million?

The second brickbat is hurled for a similar story reported by CBC's Peter Mansbridge as well as CTV's Lloyd Robertson, Wei Chen and Dan Matheson for their December reporting of Statistics Canada's findings on low incomes. In November, Campaign 2000 stated that there were 2.5 million Canadian children living in poverty. As mentioned above, many of the media, including CTV, ran this story. But on December 21, Statistics Canada reported that there are 1.4 million Canadian children who live in low income families. None of the television reports by CBC or CTV noted the discrepancy. Instead, they reported that, according to Statscan, child poverty was increasing in Canada.

The media . . . did not note the difference in the numbers released by the two groups. Instead, they reported that child poverty was increasing in Canada.

What did the reporters and anchors actually say about the Statscan numbers? Peter Mansbridge reported: "And the number of people living below the poverty line was up. According to Statistics Canada, nearly 18 percent of the population lived below the poverty line. That's 4.9 million Canadians. 1.4 million of them are children under the age of 18."

Lloyd Robertson on December 21, and Wei Chen on December 22 said: "The figures graphically show how the recession pushed thousands of people, especially children, below the poverty line. Statscan says that in 1993, family incomes fell for the fourth year in a row. They averaged just over $53,400, that was down more than two percent from 1992. The drop meant about 4.9 million Canadians, including nearly 1.4 million children, were poor."

At the outset of its media release, Statistics Canada noted: "Although the cut-offs are often referred to as `poverty lines,' Statistics Canada does not recommend their use for this purpose."

Dan Matheson on CTV's Canada AM had the opportunity to clarify the numbers but failed to do so. In a interview with Ken Battle of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy he asked about the figures: "Can we define our terms here? We hear low income, we hear poverty level. Not everyone agrees with the levels; maybe you can tell us where thery're set now." Battle did not elucidate the issue by repeating Statistics Canada's caveat that these "levels" are not poverty lines. Battle merely explained: "There are different poverty measures around, the most commonly used is the low income cutoff . . . no matter how you cut it we've got a lot of low income people in this country." Dan Matheson did not challenge Battle's explanation and instead went on to discuss child poverty.

Vancouver Sun columnist says social programs are not expensive

The third brickbat goes to the Vancouver Sun's Stephen Hume who, in his November 30, 1994 column "The big black economy is really a little white lie," claims to provide the "boring old facts" against "useful political propaganda." Ironically, it is Hume who does not have the facts. He writes: "But our social programs are not outrageously expensive--they are less than 10 percent of gross domestic product and account for a paltry two percent of the national debt."

According to the Department of Finance, social spending in the most recent year available (1991/92) was $82.4 billion. The Gross Domestic Product for the same year was $674.3. Social spending therefore, comprised 12 percent of GDP, not as Hume cites, less than 10 percent.

. . . social spending for one year alone (1991/92), comprised 1.5 percent of the total debt. Calculating social spending since 1966 puts it as 34 percent of the debt.

More troublesome than Hume deflating the percentage that social spending comprises of the GDP is his erroneous statement that social spending is only 2 percent of the debt. As we have noted in two previous On Balance reports, social spending for one year alone (1991/92), comprised 1.5 percent of the total debt. Calculating social spending since 1966 puts it as 34 percent of the debt. Moreover, social spending comprises about 40 percent of the deficit. å

Summary of Lucien Bouchard

CTV News incorrectly reported that Bouchard's entire left leg and part of his hip had been removed. They were derelict in not checking the facts and they compounded their initial error by continuing to broadcast unconfirmed reports that Bouchard's arm had been amputated.

There were two interlocking themes in the intense coverage of Bouchard on December 2. The first was that the vigil was in fact a "death watch" which gave way to journalists providing eulogies as if Bouchard's outcome was predetermined.

Another theme that cropped up in media reports was Bouchard's new "mythic" status. Bouchard's emergent identity as "cult figure" can be linked to the media's flattering portrayal of him. The media quoted sources who almost exclusively referred to favourably. The only negative reference to Bouchard came on December 5 in an editorial by Robert Sheppard.

Methodology

Results are based on CBC Prime Time News, CBC Morning News, CTV News and Canada AM starting on December 1, 1994 and ending December 2. Newspapers were examined from December 2 to December 5.

Wordwatch: Who is a Neo-conservative?

A NEW LABEL IS FILTERING INTO CANADA'S political vocabulary. The word is "neo-conservative," and it has an American etymology that dates back to the late 1970s. It was originally coined to describe ex-liberals who switched over to conservatism in response to the radicalism of the Left. This radicalism, according to David Frum, author of Dead Right, was embodied in the "Left's unwillingness to stand up to the Soviets abroad and to anti-democratic radicals at home." American purists distinguish neo-conservatives from paleo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives are Liberals at heart, who try to achieve socialist ends through conservative means. Paleo-conservatives, on the other hand, are socially and economically conservative.

Although the word neo-conservative is not uncommon in American political circles its usage by talking heads in Canada is relatively recent. There were 12 mentions of it in our CBC transcripts during 1993, and we found it was not employed with a great degree of precision. For instance, NAC spokeswoman Monique Simard confusingly labelled Jean Charest both neo-conservative and neo-liberal, while CBC reporter David Halton used the word to describe U.S. "democratic" President Bill Clinton. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher also got called neo-conservative. The lumping of Thatcher into the same partisan category as Clinton indicates that some reporters may not be fully clear on the meaning of the word.

Stephen Lewis, former Ontario NDP leader, calls those "obsessed with debt and deficit" neo-conservative. A more suitable moniker would be fiscal conservative. And calling corporate Canada "neo-conservative" is even less suitable because it confers upon the business world a collective political identity that is meaningless. å

Who and what got called " neo-conservative"

•    Bill Clinton

•    Margaret Thatcher

•    Jean Charest

•    Reagan Administration

•    Mulroney government

•    Saskatchewan government

•    NAFTA

•    Corporate Canada

•    Economic policy concerned with reducing the debt and deficit

Note: There were no mentions of neo-conservative on CTV.

Summary of Neo-Conservative

There were 12 mentions of neo-conservative on CBC during 1993.

The term was not used with great precision; both Margaret Thatcher and Bill Clinton were labelled neo-conservative.

Methodology

Using the National Media Archive's database, a text search was conducted to find the number of times the terms neo-conservative or paleo-conservative were used. Results are based on CBC Prime Time and CTV News transcripts dating from January 1993 to December 15, 1994.

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.