Volume 7, Number 4

SUSAN THIBAUDEAU CASE SEEN AS A VICTORY FOR WOMEN

TELEVISION NEWS IS SO POWERFUL THAT IT shapes the way people think about issues. When the news narrowly focuses on selective aspects of a story, it prevents the public from forming a complete picture of the situation. As Shanto Iyengar and Donald Kinder note: "Television news is a most powerful force of determining what springs to the citizen's mind and what does not. By priming certain aspects of national life while ignoring others, television news set the terms by which political judgements are rendered and political choices made." [Shanto Iyengar and Donald Kinder, News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 4.]

A recent example of the narrow focus of the media (and of television in particular), was the case of a Quebec woman who won a federal court appeal that ruled that custodial parents are discriminated against by having to pay tax on child support. Both CBC Prime Time and the CTV News ran this as their lead story on 3 May 1994. While the story received prominent placement on the networks, and indeed was reported throughout the major dailies, what was ignored in this story reveals much about the way in which the debate was formed in the weeks following. In this issue of On Balance, we examine the initial thrust of stories resulting from the case in order to determine the way in which television and major newspapers primed Canadians on this case.

Victory for women

Several newspapers declared this ruling "a victory for women." For instance, the headline of Shelley Page's story in the Ottawa Citizen was: "Women hail tax ruling on support. Men fear loss of child-support deduction." In the Winnipeg Free Press on May 3, the headline read in a Canadian Press story: "Tax ruling affects women." The headline on Edward Greenspon's article read: "Tax ruling on child support aids mothers."

Pamela Fayerman's story in the Vancouver Sun had a different twist: "Child support tax ruling `a victory for children.'" Elizabeth Aird in the same newspaper went even further, arguing in her headline: "Men can take blame for a lot of the child poverty in Canada."

While this sentiment was not the majority view of the newspapers and television stories we examined, it is interesting that these newspapers chose to frame the Thibaudeau case broadly as a "women's issue."

Media fail to provide facts

Apart from indicating that the decision affected all women favourably, many of the media were lax in providing basic facts. For example, on the one hand, CTV News, the Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Herald and Vancouver Sun took care to mention that prior to this ruling the tax was part of the formula considered for maintenance payments. Stephen Bindman of the Ottawa Citizen went so far as to say that "the judgement noted Thibaudeau herself may end up actually losing money. When she was awarded her child-support, the judge took into account that she would have to pay tax on it and increased it accordingly." The Globe and Mail alluded to decisions made

". . . parents would be better off divorced than married, at least from a tax standpoint."

by judges in awarding maintenance payments. However, the comment was so subtle that those not familiar with the complexities of divorce law might have missed the reference. They noted, "Ideally, the higher-earning spouse will channel any benefit he receives from the deduction toward more support for the children." On the other hand, CBC Prime Time, the Winnipeg Free Press, and the Toronto Star did not mention the tax aspect of divorce settlements--a fact that could have serious implications in the way people judge the fairness of the tax.

Media ignores intact families

Tax fairness was not addressed either by the major dailies nor by television with respect to intact families. Although statements made by the Justice Minister, Allan Rock, alluded to tax fairness, little mention was made of the unfair tax burden intact families carry if the decision is upheld. The editorial in the Vancouver Sun on 5 May went so far as to say: "Most people who receive financial support from relatives--including spouses living together--pay no tax on it. So taxing child support only in the hands of separated custodial parents is both inconsistent and, since so many of them and their children live in poverty, socially undesirable." The same theme was carried in a background piece in the Globe and Mail by Jane Coutts who extensively quoted Ellen Zweibel, a University of Ottawa law professor: "Ms. Zweibel said child-support payments should never have been considered income in the first place, since parents who remain together don't declare money spent on raising children as income for the mother." What these statements in particular, and the media in general, failed to identify was that spouses who live together are not eligible to deduct their support payments as are those who are separated or divorced. It was only on 7 May that the Globe and Mail identified this aspect of the decision when Edward Greenspon listed several concerns for Ottawa: "As a consequence, parents would be better off divorced than married, at least from a tax standpoint."

In addition, many in the media failed to examine the actual tax burden and tax benefits of single parents compared to families. In British Columbia, for example, single parents may be eligible for subsidies for day care and added tax credits claiming dependent children which are simply not applicable to married couples. Only Karen Gram reporting for the Vancouver Sun mentioned the added tax deductions allowed for single parents. She quotes an accountant with Revenue Canada who pays child support and notes: "He said his ex-wife gets the added bonus of being able to claim one child as an equivalent-to-married dependent and collect the child tax benefit."

Summary of Thibaudeau ruling

•    Several newspapers declared that this ruling was "a victory for women."

•    Many facts were excluded or underplayed in the media coverage, such as ignoring the court's statement that the change in law might in fact lower payments to single parents.

•    The media ignored how intact families are treated under the current tax regime. While the Thibaudeau decision affects single parents the most, few stories looked at the other side of the issue: the tax burden on intact families.

The Good Economic News in May: Unemployment Up

ON FRIDAY MAY 6, 1994, STATISTICS CANADA released figures on the jobless rate in April. StatsCan found that the unemployment rate was 11 percent, up 0.4 percent from March. In its release, Statistics Canada reported that in all provinces except for Alberta and Manitoba, the unemployment rate was up.

In our four-year study of unemployment from 1988 to 1992 we found that CBC and CTV emphasized increases in unemployment more than decreases in the jobless rate.

In our four-year study of unemployment from 1988 to 1992 we found that CBC and CTV emphasized increases in unemployment more than decreases in the jobless rate. Even more significant was the finding that the networks reported unemployment decreases as bad news stories in 33 percent of CBC and 45 percent of CTV's coverage over the four year period.

If the reporting of unemployment in May of this year is any indication, a lot has changed in the reporting practices in Canada since 1991. We examined the reports stemming from Statistics Canada's release on unemployment in May. CBC and CTV national newscasts were examined, as were the reports from the Vancouver Sun, the Calgary Herald, the Globe and Mail and the Ottawa Citizen. As figure A shows, while each of these media reported the rise in unemployment, only the Vancouver Sun provided slightly more negative than positive assessments of this finding. All other newspapers and television stories focused on how this rise in unemployment was a good thing for the economy.

Click here to view Figure A: Assessments of Increasing Unemployment Rate May 6, 7, 1994

For example, the headline in Eric Beauchesne's story for Southam News printed in the Calgary Herald read: "Hope boosts jobless rate." In that story Beauchesne explained, "An estimated 70,000 of those hidden unemployed, apparently buoyed by reports of jobs, flooded back into the labour market in April driving the rate up from a two-year low of 10.6 percent in March, Statistics Canada reported."

Bert Hill in the Ottawa Citizen even linked more employment with a lower deficit. He wrote: "Meanwhile, Finance Minister Paul Martin said stronger-than-expected job growth in the last few months means the deficit for the fiscal year just ended could come in under $44 billion forecast in February's budgets."

CBC's Allen Garr linked the increase in unemployment to confidence in the economy: "Optimism like that, Statistics Canada says, is the main reason that the unemployment rate went up last month. More people, particularly men 25 years of age and older, decided to look for work. Take the construction industry, for example. Even though more jobs were created for the third month in a row, unemployment actually went up because there were more workers actively chasing those jobs."

Youth unemployment criticized

Although the thrust of most of the unemployment stories in the beginning of May were framed as a positive sign for the economy, news reports did acknowledge that youth unemployment was up. For example, Daphne Bramham wrote in the Vancouver Sun: "Hardest hit by last month by job cuts were youths aged 15 to 24, who lost 7,000 of the 8,000 positions lost last month in B.C."

Summary of the good news on unemployment

The main theme in reporting unemployment statistics in May was that the rise in the unemployment rate signalled an increase in the number of people looking for work.

Reports indicated that more people had entered the workforce since April.

Only the Vancouver Sun emphasized the negative aspect of the increase in unemployment by highlighting the issue of youth unemployment.

Methodology

Results on Unemployment are based on stories printed or aired on May 6 and May 7 1994 on CBC Prime Time, CTV News, the Globe and Mail, Vancouver Sun, Calgary Herald, and the Ottawa Citizen. All statements were coded by two researchers. Reliability was .089 percent. Further information on coding or analysis can be obtained by contacting the National Media Archive.

Reactions to Our Smile Count

A FEW MONTHS AGO WE ASSESSED TELEVISION'S coverage of the first Liberal budget. In our analysis we compared television's coverage of that budget with the last economic statement of the Conservative government. To illustrate the difference in tone in the media's reaction to the budget we compared the number of smiles Peter Mansbridge and Pamela Wallin exchanged with their guests, Don Mazankowski and Paul Martin. The results were that "In 1992, Pamela Wallin smiled in her interview with Don Mazankowski 6 times for a total of about 9 seconds. Peter Mansbridge did not smile, and Mazankowski had one slight grin for less than a second. This year, in the interview with Paul Martin, Pamela Wallin smiled 14 times for a total of 24 seconds, almost three times as many smiles. Mansbridge also was more friendly. He smiled three times for 13 seconds. Paul Martin returned the smiles six times for 9 seconds."

The reaction in editorials across the country was remarkable. For example, the headline for Stewart MacLeod's column for Thomson News' Guardian read: "Media Watchers go to ridiculous extremes." While we usually refrain from assessing our own media coverage, the reaction from columnists like MacLeod who said, "It makes us grateful that we might yet escape the worst of the epidemic . . ." is too compelling not to respond. More importantly, the way in which some columnists reacted to the analysis provides an interesting insight into the thin skins of Canadian journalists.

In addition to MacLeod, Robert Sheppard, whose column runs in the Globe and Mail and other major dailies, and Tom Oleson, who writes for the Winnipeg Free Press were especially reactive. [Others, such as the Vancouver Sun's Gillian Shaw and the Wall Street Journal's John Urquhart also ran pieces on the study, but these reporters did not shy away from assessing their fellow journalists' products.]

Do bears poop in the bush?

MacLeod, Sheppard, and Oleson responded to our findings with apparent humour. For example, Tom Oleson began his column with: "Most people, if they were to be asked the question `Is the CBC left-wing'--or for that matter, if the Canadian media in general are left-wing--would probably reply something to the effect of: `Do bears poop in the bush?'"

While humour can be used to edify the reader, these columnists used it pejoratively in an ad hominem attack to dismiss our results. Rather than acknowledge the importance of body language and provide possible reasons for the differences in the two interviews, they thought up banal reasons for the difference in tone of the reporters. Robert Sheppard argued: "Does it have anything to do with getting better ratings, spring in the air, or the onset of hockey playoffs?" In the case of Mansbridge's facial control Sheppard argues: "Peter Mansbridge, on the other hand, does not smile. (Except for the occasional PR photo, his facial manoeuvres are formed more by an ironic harrumph.) So there may be something quite amiss here with the Media Archive's methodology." Tom Oleson went further by declaiming: "It is possible that Mr. Mansbridge was suffering from haemorrhoids when he interviewed Mr. Mazankowski and was concentrating on trying not to squirm rather than on appearing pleasant. It is possible that Ms. Wallin was looking forward to a post-broadcast white-wine social at the local chapter of the Fabian Society, a prospect that left her unable to concentrate fully on the budget."

As funny as these comments might be, their authors failed to grasp the central point, namely, that the overall tone of the two interviews was markedly and demonstrably different. That the Archive found a way to quantify the difference was probably most unnerving for these journalists. This study graphically illustrated how the coverage differed between the last economic statement of the Tory government and the first budget of the Liberal government. For these columnists to argue that "There are several possible conclusions that can be drawn from this statistical survey, but none of them, unfortunately, reflects on the CBC's news coverage," ignores that the smile count was a very small part of our analysis. The main thrust of the article examined the way in which the substantive issues of the economic statements were treated. As well, this analysis was made available to reporters who chose to write stories on the subject.

And therein lies the crux of media coverage of the issues. The fact that this smile count received so much attention reflects the occupational bias of journalists. Journalists are always more amenable to the flashy story, but in emphasizing the flash they often ignore the substance. Rather than ask their counterparts why, as we pointed out, the Unemployment Insurance cuts enacted by the Tories were given more negative attention than the further cuts by the Liberals, they appear to prefer to engage in lively prose in the vein of Tom Oleson's quips: "It is possible that bears do poop in the bush. And it is probably that most people who do absurd surveys and studies of statistics should go out and get a life instead, and let us muddle through on our own in our decent, boring way." While the media we assess might like us to stop uncovering flaws in their product, that wouldn't provide much discussion on the role of the media in Canada, because without our analysis there just wouldn't be consistent and thoughtful discussion of these matters.

Nixon and Onassis: How Will Television Influence History?

ONE CONSISTENT THEME IN OUR WORK IS THAT despite the increase in information available to the public, most people are becoming less informed as they consume more media. Robert Entman in Democracy Without Citizens makes the compelling case that American knowledge about politics is less than it was 20 years ago. "They vote less. According to some observers, the public's knowledge of facts or reality has actually deteriorated, so that more people are prone to political fantasy and myth transmitted by the very same news media." [ Robert Entman, Democracy Without Citizens: Media and the Decay of American Politics. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 4.]

This sentiment has certainly been well documented in the pages of On Balance as we uncover how little substantive information the networks provide on major public policy issues. Neil Postman, in his often-quoted book Amusing Ourselves to Death, argues that television is unable to provide a meaningful forum for debate on complex issues because it is by its very nature an entertainment device: "we know that the `news' is not to be taken seriously, that it is all in fun, so to say. Everything about a news show tells us this--the good looks and amiability of the cast, their pleasant banter, the exciting music that opens and closes the show, the vivid film footage, the attractive commercials--all these and more suggest that what we have just seen is not cause for weeping." [Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (New York: Viking, 1985), p. 6.]

Television news has always been this way. What is significant is that politics has not always been so influenced by television. Probably the first major influence of television on the political process was the famous Kennedy/Nixon presidential debate which Nixon once said he lost because he was sabotaged by makeup men.

That a former President of the United States and the wife of his political rival died within one month of each other has provided the media (and the media watchers) with an unusual opportunity for comparison. Richard M. Nixon died on April 22, 1994 of a stroke, and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis died 27 days later of non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

The myth of the American Camelot is said to have been promoted by Jacqueline herself. The Kennedys' ability to create the image of an elegant White House has endured over the years. Television helped foster that image as Jacqueline invited the cameras into the White House to showcase her redecorating efforts. In fact, if the film footage from her obituary is indicative, television was there for all of the significant events of her life. Her marriage, pregnancies, child births, and the death and subsequent mourning of her husband were all filmed extensively. In fact, although the Kennedys were only in the White House for 1000 days, television gave more coverage to her death and burial than it did to Richard Nixon, who resigned near the end of his second term in office.

Just by presenting more footage of Onassis than of Nixon in the days following their deaths indicates that the television networks consider Onassis' life more significant historically than Nixon's. On April 22, news of Nixon's death was placed fifth on CBC Prime Time News. When Onassis died on May 19, her death was the first story of the night. Tributes to Nixon were given third placement on the night after he passed away, whereas tributes to Onassis were reported in the first story on the evening after she died. Nixon's state funeral on April 27 was the fifth story of Prime Time News that night, but Onassis' private funeral was the first story of the night on May 23. Even more revealing about CBC's coverage was that on May 20, the night after Jacqueline's death, Prime Time ran an interview with panellists discussing the influence of the former first lady. No panel was convened on Richard Nixon at the time of his death.

CTV's coverage of the two deaths was more consistent. It placed the news of each first in both cases. CTV also gave the tributes equal attention--the fourth story in each case. However, Nixon's state funeral was the story in third placement, while Jacqueline's funeral was the top news of the night in the private broadcaster's coverage.

Many will argue that it was the myth of Camelot and the fact that John F. Kennedy was assassinated that gives that family more importance for the American public than Richard Nixon. But at its core, it was the Kennedys' skill at presenting the myth and image of a lost realm through television that so distorts history and public policy debate today. The Kennedys were indeed telegenic. In part, Nixon did lose the election because the Kennedys simply looked better. That the media would give a woman known for her sense of style and aptitude for entertaining more attention than the only man forced to resign the office of the presidency illustrates how distorting this obsession with image has become. Jacqueline Kennedy may have elevated the Kennedy clan to a status near that of royalty, but Nixon was, after all, the first U.S. president to visit communist China.

It would not be so bad if television were the only medium which holds these values. Unfortunately, the pervasiveness of television is that all other media judge political persona in the same manner. The week after Jacqueline Onassis died her face was on every mainstream news magazine in both Canada and the United States. Not only was her image dominant in the newsstands across the nation, but she was also immortalized in her mid-thirties. David Halton ended his 20 May CBC Prime Time story with the following: "She was 64 when she died. But for many of the people who remembered her today, she will always be in her 30's, frozen in time as the Lady of Camelot." Ironically, only the tabloid publications of the ilk of the National Inquirer printed more recent pictures of her. In this instance, the tabloids provided a more accurate reflection of reality than the so-called respectable publications.

In contrast, while magazine covers featuring Nixon were fewer, they also varied more in their portrayals of him, showing him variously in his days as president, and as an older man, just before he passed away. While Time devoted as many pages to Nixon as it did to Onassis, Newsweek printed four more pages on Onassis than Nixon.

The fact remains that regardless of Nixon's fall from grace, and perhaps because of it, as president of the United States his accomplishments must be judged as more significant than the spouse of a president. It is simply untenable that image have more import than action. Jacqueline's public life was predominately one of image, whereas Nixon, whatever faults he may have had, did accomplish many things. He may not, and perhaps should not be loved more than "Jackie O," but neither should he be cast in her shadow. The distorting lens of television, idolizing celebrities as it does--a lens by which history is now judged--deems it to be the reverse. We can only speculate about the shape and aperture of the lens future historians will use to focus on the personalities and events of the later half of the 20th century.

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.