Volume 7, Number 5

MEDIA IDENTIFY GRIT REPACKAGING OF TORY POLICIES

IT APPEARS THAT THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT'S honeymoon period with the media is beginning to sour. Recent media coverage of two issues shows that the Liberal government is doing an about-face in what amounts to a repackaging of Conservative policies. CBC Prime Time and CTV National News identified that the Liberal government's proposed changes to the GST were changes in name only. The Globe and Mail pointed out that the Liberal government's announcement that it was "commercializing" Canadian airports was merely a new way to package privatization. While television was critical of the proposed changes to the GST, the only criticism the Grits' new "commercialization" plans were charges that the former Conservative government's privatization policy has been repackaged.

The Son of GST: TV coverage of the NVAT

As parliament wound down for the summer, the finance committee released its recommendations on changing the GST. Initial media reports were unfavourable, and could signal the end of the Liberal honeymoon with the media.

Both CBC and CTV national television newscasts began their 20 June 1994 stories on the proposed National Value Added Tax, and linked it with the GST. CTV's Lloyd Robertson began his newscast with: "Canadians were reminded of a lesson today that most of us would just as soon forget. We found out that a tax is a tax is a tax. And here's why. A Commons Committee set out its recommendations for replacing the Goods and Services Tax. Reforming the GST became an issue when the Liberals promised to scrap it during the last election campaign. But some say that's not what's happening here. They say all the changes are cosmetic, just the GST just got a new name--the National Value Added Tax or NATVAT--and it will still dig as deeply, if not deeper, when Canadians cross the cash register."

Similarly, Pamela Wallin began CBC Prime Time by stating, "The much-maligned GST could soon be history, at least in name. The House of Commons Finance Committee has released recommendations that propose a replacement called the National Value Added Tax."

CBC Links Demise of Tories to GST

CBC pointed out the political pitfalls of the GST in graphic fashion. File footage of taxpayer protests was presented in a story by Allen Garr. "From coast to coast to coast it was often called the most-hated tax in Canadian history. Support for an already unpopular Tory prime minister plunged. The GST has been held responsible for everything. From helping to bring down the Tory government, to fuelling the underground economy."

Both networks identified the futility of trying to harmonize the federal tax with the provinces. Leslie Jones said: "Ever since the Tories introduced the GST most provincial premiers have rejected harmonizing their sales tax with the federal one. And a change in government hasn't changed their minds." Keith Boag concluded his story similarly: "It all depends on the provinces. Without their cooperation, the other changes that the federal government can make on its own really don't amount to very much."

In all the stories and panel discussions aired in the first two days after the Parliamentary Committee tabled its report regarding the GST, no sources outside of the government endorsed the proposals. The consensus around the country was that the GST was a punitive tax and about as popular as Margaret Thatcher's poll tax. Most critics predicted it would not succeed. This was similar to the nation's disdain for the tax in 1989, the year the Tories were trying to sell the tax to the public. That year CBC issued twice as many negative as positive evaluations of the GST, and on CTV there were three times as many negative as positive statements about the proposed tax.

Terence Corcoran calls "commercialization" just another word for "privatization"

In contrast to the rigorous criticism of the proposed GST changes, coverage of the Liberal government's commercialization policy was more favourable. This kid glove treatment contrasts starkly to the way in which CBC and the Globe and Mail reported on the privatization plans of the Tory government in 1988. The former Conservative government was put through the media and interest group wringers for proposing what were basically the same policy initiatives.

While the Liberal government says it is not continuing the privatization plans of the former Tory government, the Globe and Mail quickly made the connection between the Liberal government's commercialization program and the former Conservative government's privatization policy.

Terence Corcoran, writing in the 14 July "Report On Business" noted: "The old Tory word privatization is out, the new Liberal word commercialization is in. The difference between the two is largely cosmetic, but if commercialization makes Liberals cosy up to the idea of getting Ottawa out of the airport business, then so be it."

While Corcoran noted the similarity between the two policies, Barrie McKenna, writing in the front page of the Globe, only referred to commercialization. He did however, allude to the Tory privatization policy: "Critics--some within the ranks of the governing Liberals--say the plan is nothing more than a new name for a process that was started by the former Progressive Conservative government, and they accused Ottawa of abdicating its role in safeguarding the interests of Canadian travellers."

In its news reports, the Globe and Mail made 5 references to "commercialization" using quotation marks, while the networks ignored the government's new phraseology. This is significant since journalists are notorious for using short-hand whenever it is convenient. Their rejection of the word to explain the announcement signals their unwillingness to participate in the government's renaming of privatization.

CBC's only mention of privatization was to criticize it

Indeed, the media were quite critical of privatization when it was a Tory policy. The Globe and Mail and CBC focused more on labour's concerns about potential wage losses than on the economic arguments in favour of privatization. Given the difficulties the former Conservative government had selling its privatization policy, it is not surprising that the Liberals are repackaging the concept.

That attempt was partially successful, at least as far as television's coverage goes. CBC's Des Kilfoil examined the proposal by looking at the track record of "the several big Canadian airports [that] have already been turned over to local authorities, airports in Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver." While Kilfoil calls this privatization, he only uses the word "privatization" critically: "But privatization hasn't been so popular with other major cities. In Vancouver the local airport authority brought in something called the airport improvement fee when it took over. All passengers have to pay before they take off."

Interestingly, Kilfoil refers to privatization, but never uses the word "commercialization" to describe the Liberal government's new proposal. As a result of this ambiguity, it is unclear whether the success stories are examples of "privatization" or "commercialization." Kilfoil says, "Stampede visitors arriving at the Calgary airport are greeted with much more fanfare than they were two years ago, when it was all organized by federal government bureaucrats. Ottawa still owns the airport, but except for safety and security, local authorities like the one leasing the Calgary airport now control everything else. Calgary officials say having their hands on the purse strings has allowed them to do major renovations. That includes new restaurants and other services to the travelling public. There were no layoffs, and even union officials agree with management's claims of success."

Summary of Liberal Repackaging of Tory Policies

•    The networks were critical of the Liberal government's proposed changes to the GST, most notably pointing out that the changes were changes in name only.

•    The Globe and Mail illustrated that there were few differences between the Liberals' commercialization plan and the former Conservative government's policy of privatization.

•    The desire to repackage privatization as commercialization was borne out by the finding that CBC's only mention of privatization was to criticize it.

Liberals Not Blamed for Interest Rate Hike

ON JUNE 21, 1994 THE PRIME RATE WENT TO 7.09 percent--the highest interest rate hike since the sharp rise following the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord. How has television assessed the Liberal government's role in the interest rate increases?

While the former Conservative government was consistently criticized for having a high interest rate policy, even when the rates were declining, the recent increase in the rates have not been attributed to the Liberal government.

The network's attention to the interest rate increase on 21 June was, for the most part, no exception. In both lead stories almost every aspect of the change was remarked upon--except the government's role. The lead story on the interest rate increase focused on the plight of a pub owner in the wake of the rise. Denise Harrington made no mention of the Liberal government and ended her report by saying: "That's because there's another factor driving interest rates: uncertainty about the outcome of the Quebec election. Investors are nervous about it, economists say, and Canadians will feel their jitters throughout the summer." CTV's Colin Gray did acknowledge the deficit but in effect agreed with Harrington's sources saying: "The reasons for all of this range from usual deficit concerns to fears of a major interest rate hike in the U.S.--and there's one other thing. Analysts say that foreign investors are extremely concerned about the political situation in Quebec and are likely to remain that way until after the election in that province."

Although the political uncertainty in Quebec has affected the dollar's stability, it is interesting that the federal government's lack of policy on the Quebec issue has not been implicated in the rising rates. In the second story, both networks focused on the role of Quebec and Parliament in fostering uncertain markets. As Lloyd Robertson noted: "Investors weren't the only ones focusing on the situation in Quebec. On Parliament Hill the politicians were doing exactly the same thing and doing their best to, well as they say, pass the buck."

On CBC, Keith Boag concluded his story saying: "Blaming all of this economic turmoil on uncertainty about Quebec is an irresistible temptation for the Liberals. First, it may actually frighten some Quebec voters away from the Parti Quebecois. And secondly, it deflects attention from what investors say is their other big concern about Canada, that the Liberal government isn't facing up to its debt and deficit problem."

Manning's calls for policy on Quebec met with disapproval

Although the networks parroted the attacks launched by the opposition members, they failed to examine the federal government's role in political stability. When Preston Manning linked the failure of the federal government to stake out a clear policy on Quebec with fears of market instability he was branded a "political opportunist." On the 7 June CTV News, Leslie Jones provided this analysis: "The Reform Party hoped this debate would force the government to stake out a new constitutional position. Instead, Reform Party observers say it may have exposed Reform's vague position on federalism and left Preston Manning open to charges of political opportunism, as he suddenly embraces an issue that Canadians are worried about once again."

Interestingly, CBC's Sasa Petricic linked Manning's proposal in the house with Reform's consistent desire to balance the budget: "In the end, the Liberals used their majority to change Reform's very broad motion, one that included things like balanced budgets, and replaced it with a simple statement of support for federalism."

The Liberal government's ability to deflect criticism from its performance on the economy onto the opposition is particularly unusual from a media watch standpoint. When we examined four years of television coverage of inflation we found that the common theme in "reporting increases and decreases in the inflation rate was criticism of government policy."

Networks out of Sync with Public Mood

Although the networks have not been particularly critical of the Liberal government's handling of the economy, the public has not been happy with its performance. For example, on 2 June Gallup released a poll which found: "Fifty-nine percent of Canadians believe that the Liberals are not handling the economy in an effective manner, compared to 30 percent who feel that the federal government is doing an effective job in handling the nation's economy." [Gallup (1994) "Federal Government Receives Low Marks for Handling of Economy." Results on 1,009 telephone interviews with adults, 18 years of age and older, conducted May 2-9, 1994. A sample of this size is accurate within a 3.1 percentage point margin of error, 19 in 20 times.]

Given the public's lack of enthusiasm for the government's handling of the economy, it is especially troublesome that so many critics appear to be mute on the issue, and that the vocal critics are dismissed so easily.

Summary of Interest Rates

•    Liberals were not blamed for the interest rate hikes. While the former Conservative government was consistently criticized for having a high interest rate policy, even when the rates were declining, the recent increase in the rates has not been attributed to the Liberal government.

•    Manning's calls for policy on Quebec met with disapproval. When Preston Manning criticized the federal government's failure to stake out a clear policy on Quebec for fears of market instability he was branded a "political opportunist."

•    The networks are out of sync with the public mood. Although the media have not been very critical of the Liberal government's role in the economy, 59 percent of Canadians believe that the Liberals are not handling the economy in an effective manner.

Name Calling in Parliament and in the Media

NAME CALLING IS NOTHING NEW IN CANADIAN politics. Former Conservative cabinet minister John Crosbie achieved a high degree of notoriety for some of his remarks and was broadly referred to as a sexist by the media. Indeed, many people have been labelled racist or sexist or bigoted to some extent. Since 1993 there have been 376 allegations of racism, sexism, intolerance, or bigotry on CBC Prime Time newscasts and 303 such allegations on CTV News. Fifteen percent of CBC and 14 percent of CTV racism, sexism, intolerance, or bigotry comments resulted from foreign affairs incidents such as descriptions of South Africa's National Party or the neo-Nazi movement in Germany.

In North America, however, accusations of intolerance and bigotry tend to be generalized. Aside from the Somalia affair, where the Canadian Armed Forces was accused of racism, and aside from similar and perpetual charges about major Canadian police forces, the political parties have also borne such labels. The Conservatives were branded racist in May 1993 when backbencher John McDougall asked his minister whether "the government knew that the next president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women doesn't have a permit to work in Canada." CTV's Ken Ernhoffer linked charges that the Liberal Party was racist during the federal election campaign when they would not allow the nomination of a black, Bubakar Torre, with similar charges that the Parti Quebecois was anti-anglophone. "But black groups called it the latest example of political racism in Canada, similar to Jacques Parizeau's statement that old-stock francophones don't need anglophones or ethnics to bring about Quebec independence."

Recently, Reform MP Herb Grubel has been called everything from ignorant to racist, from reprehensible to insulting. These attacks stemmed from his speech in the House of Commons debating bill C-34 on Yukon native self-government. In arguing that giving natives more money will "not help alleviate the problems but in fact will make them worse," Grubel made the analogy that people who are given handouts are like a person who has a rich uncle who lets them live on a south sea island. His point was that more free money would not make the natives in question any happier. Initial criticism by native leaders was that life on a reserve is nothing like life on a south sea island. While Grubel's analogy was inappropriate and duly noted as such by all media, he was branded a racist for the larger implications.

The tactics used by Grubel's opponents have been commonplace in attempts to marginalize some opinions expressed by Reform party members. The debate gets shifted from the argument, be it on multi-culturalism, immigration or, in the case of Herb Grubel, native self-government, in which "endless government handouts are hurting the natives' prospects for real self-sufficiency," to the ad hominem attacks of racism.

Name calling is nothing new in Canadian politics.

Deborah Grey, an Alberta Reform MP, argued in the House of Commons earlier this year, "It is quickly becoming a habit in this Parliament that any MP who disagrees with Ottawa's politically correct dogma is labelled as racist, prejudiced, ignorant or now redneck--the pejorative definition."

That the special interest groups as represented by Dan Smith, United Native Nations president, and opposition MPs such as Audrey McLaughlin, took this tactic to diminish Grubel's point is not surprising. As figure A shows, the only party to have escaped the charge of racism since 1993 is the New Democratic Party. Any associations the NDP have with racism, sexism or intolerance occur when they are accusing others of those views.

Click here to view Figure A: Name Calling

That all the news organizations analyzed so readily accepted these arguments and failed to even cursorily examine Grubel's remarks beyond his analogy is disquieting. It suggests that in its pursuit of the story, in this case the reaction to Grubel's remarks, the media missed the bigger issue of the debate on C-34. In fact, prior to Grubel's remarks, this issue was not discussed on either CBC or CTV national television news.

"It is quickly becoming a habit in this Parliament that any MP who disagrees with Ottawa's politically correct dogma is labelled as racist, prejudiced, ignorant or now redneck-the pejorative definition."

This brings up a more interesting and perhaps more far-reaching implication of the media's treatment of contentious issues. That is, those who dare question the sacred cows of our society, such as health care or social welfare, are maligned by their opponents. And accusations of bigotry, insensitivity or callousness end up garnering more attention than the issue itself. Indeed, the treatment Herb Grubel received at the hands of the media on this issue was very similar to Dan Quayle's treatment on the issue of family values in the 1992 presidential election campaign. In fact, if his recent interview with Pamela Wallin is any indication, that is how the vice-president will be ultimately judged:

Pamela Wallin: Did you actually ever watch the Murphy Brown series and see how she coped with this?

Dan Quayle: Murphy Brown is a fictional character. Murphy Brown was used by me to make sure we got a little bit of attention. We got some attention, and we're still discussing the issue today. And I hope that Bill Clinton continues to have this discourse with the American people. It's important. He's the president, I'm not. He's actually sounding a lot like me these days on family values.

Pamela Wallin: But I guess what I'm wondering is when you make those kind of comments, I mean, I actually saw the Murphy Brown episode the other night on reruns, and it was kind of a fluke because I knew I was coming to talk to you. This was not an easy decision. She was not saying this is the right thing to do. She was not telling young women to go out and have children in a cavalier way. I'm just wondering if you misunderstood, whether it would have been worth your time to sit down and watch it.

Dan Quayle: You're totally missing the point.

Pamela Wallin: No, I don't think I am.

Dan Quayle: I think you are. You're totally missing the point of my speech. My speech was to talk about the poverty of values, that we need to have more responsibility, that we need to put our children first.

Interestingly enough, in the 16 July Globe and Mail Margaret Wente made an argument that sounded very familiar to Dan Quayle's poverty of values speech: "It has taken a remarkably long time for U.S. policy-makers to acknowledge that young, unwed motherhood is at the very centre of this cycle [of hopelessness and poverty]."

As yet, her remarks have not resulted in any outcry that she is blaming the victim or simplifying the problem. In fact, her remarks have gone without comment. And this leads to the crux of the issue: is it the person who makes the remarks or the remarks themselves that make the controversy? Has the media so diminished political discourse by chasing every supposed scandal, every slip of the tongue, that it first sees the colour of one's skin or the sex of the speaker before the person is deemed credible to speak on the subject matter? That only the NDP has withstood name calling indicates either that NDP MPs and their supporters are not called names, or if they are, that the media is not reporting those cases. In either case, it would seem that the media hold them to be the only paragons of virtue.

Herb Grubel is not the first nor the last person to argue that life on the reserve is fraught with physical abuse and hopelessness. Unfortunately, his analogy between life on a reserve and that on a south sea island was esoteric and was possibly inappropriate. But would television have treated Grubel any better had he chosen his words more carefully, or would the issue have just been ignored? The evidence collected here suggests that the issue would have been ignored, because the media's main interest is to focus on its interpretation of the motive, rather than on the issue itself.

Summary of Name Calling

•    All major political parties in the past 18 months, with the exception of the New Democratic Party, have been labelled, in one form or another, racist, sexist, intolerant or bigoted.

•    The Reform Party was most likely to be labelled racist on CBC and CTV.

•    The latest attacks on Reform MP Herb Grubel, who was accused of racism, are part of an ongoing trend to call into question the motives of Reform MPs.

METHODOLOGY ON NAME CALLING

Results are based on mentions of the words racist, racism, sexist, sexism, intolerant, intolerance, bigot or bigoted from 1 January 1993 to July 15, 1994 on CBC and CTV national television newscasts.

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.