Volume 7, Number 8

MEDIA LABELLING AND THE LEGITIMACY OF ORGANIZATIONS

THE MAJORITY OF THIS EDITION EXAMINES HOW the media confers credibility and legitimacy on organizations through its use of labels. The first article, "Groups That Don't Get Labelled," continues on from last month's analysis of which groups are called right/left or conservative/communist. This month we examine some prominent Canadian think tanks and interest groups to see whether they are labelled, and if so, how often.

This theme of labelling is carried into the second article on Canada's social policy review. It examines how the media have begun to frame this important debate. It looks at organizations such as the Council of Canadians that have started to debate the issue, and examines how the media portrays them. No doubt this issue is one in which Canadians will become embroiled in the months to come, so it is paramount to see how the groups are being characterised.

The third article is a case study into who and what the media considers controversial and the consequential treatment those organizations receive. The Canadian Institute of Child Health's study on the state of children in Canada is contrasted with The Fraser Institute's study on the debt of a independent Quebec. We also examine how the Canadian Institute of Child Health is portrayed and how outside sources are used, particularly whether they functioned in a critical or supportive capacity. The study then asks under what criterion do the media judge a study controversial, and when do they accept a study's conclusions without criticism.

Last month's On Balance found that when the media calls a group or organization left-wing, right-wing, conservative, or communist, the term is usually employed in a negative or derisive context. "In descriptions of the left, including communism, 84 percent of CBC and 96 percent of CTV usages were negative. Sixty-one percent of CBC's and 80 percent of CTV's uses of `right-wing' were negative," we found. This month we examine the issue from a different perspective and try to determine when groups are not labelled.

Groups That Don't Get Labelled

WE SURVEYED THE COVERAGE THAT INTEREST groups and organizations listed in the 1994 Canadian Almanac and Directory received between January 1, 1988 and October 10, 1994. The number of times the organization was mentioned either because it was presenting the results of a study, or because its members were debating or promoting a policy alternative, was also noted. We then examined the reference to see when and what labels were attributed to the group.

Most groups not labelled

Groups mentioned on the nightly newscasts of CBC and CTV were rarely labelled or affiliated with other groups or causes. Only nine percent of CBC and 13 percent of CTV references to think tanks or interest groups labelled them in any manner. (See table 1.)

Click here to view Table 1: Mentions and labelling of Canadian think tanks and interest groups on T.V., 1988-1994

Groups such as the Canadian Council on Children, Institute for Policy Analysis, Caledon Institute on Social Policy, Canadian Institute of Child Health, North-South Institute, and Campaign 2000 were never labelled as to their political or social leanings, nor were their associations with other organizations made clear, nor whether their ideas or policy prescriptions were ideologically motivated.

For the most part, groups that were labelled were done so inconsistently and infrequently. For instance, CBC called the Business Council on National Issues, to varying degrees, "the largest business lobby in Canada," and "spokesman for big business," and, on CTV particularly, terms which ranged from "a blue chip lobby group," to "the most powerful business group." However, these labels comprised only 12 percent of CBC and 26 percent of CTV references to the organization.

Similarly, the Council of Canadians was labelled in 4 percent of CBC's and 10 percent of CTV's mentions of the organization. On CBC, the labels ranged from the relatively neutral "social activist," and "nationalist group," to the extremely neutral "non-partisan." CTV also called the group "nationalist," but more pointedly labelled it "left-leaning." For example, on October 15, 1993, Sandie Rinaldo reported: "There were more accusations today that the Reform party's immigration policies have a racist overtone. They were made by the Council of Canadians, a left-leaning group that promotes sovereignty." It is noteworthy that the "left" label was only given when the Council had called another group "racist."

Similarly, the Action Canada Network was labelled in 16 percent of CBC's references to the organization. They were the only other group to receive the "left" label. On the February 3, 1992, "Journal," CBC's Bill Cameron described a conference on proposed changes to Canada's constitution: "The air is full of macroeconomic polysyllables, speeches range from long to longer, the atmosphere does not have a lot of sparkle to it. Except here, room 2231, the coordinating headquarters of Action Canada, the left coalition of unions, women's groups, academics, and economic nationalists." The remaining labels of Action Canada were neutral or non-ideological, describing them as social activists or a coalition of organizations.

On CBC, the Canada West Foundation has been called both "a group of influential western leaders" and an "interest group." On the national broadcaster, the C.D. Howe Institute was called a "business group" and "conservative." On CTV, C.D. Howe received positive labels. They were described as a "private economic think tank," a "leading economic think tank" and a "respected economic think tank."

On CTV, Conference Board mentioned most frequently

Of the groups examined, on CTV the Conference Board of Canada was reported on the most often. Just 11 percent of CBC's, but 24 percent of CTV's mentions of the organizations examined went to the Conference Board of Canada. The economic organization also received the most favourable labels of any group. Only 5 percent of CBC and 9 percent of CTV references gave a label for the Conference Board, but on both networks the Board was called "independent," "leading" and "major economic think tank."

Fraser Institute most labelled

Without a doubt, the organization labelled the most was The Fraser Institute. Forty-three percent of CBC's and 75 percent of CTV's references to The Fraser Institute qualified the organization in some way. The label which accompanied the institute the most was "conservative." The Fraser Institute was also frequently referred to as "Vancouver-based." This wouldn't be significant were it not that no other organization received such close geographical scrutiny. Only one other organization was labelled according to its geography, and that was the "Ottawa-based" Institute for Research on Public Policy. No other descriptors of other groups referred to their location.

In the seven years spanned by this study, The Fraser Institute did receive one positive label--on May 11, 1994, Lloyd Robertson referred to it as a "leading economic think tank."

CBC mentions NAC most frequently

The National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) was more frequently mentioned on CBC than on CTV. It received one-third of CBC and one-fifth of CTV attention to the organizations and groups examined over the 7 years. Labels of NAC comprised 8 and 10 percent, respectively, of CBC and CTV attention to the organization. It was most frequently called "feminist," but it was also called the "biggest," "most prominent," and "largest leading women's group." NAC members were also called activists.

Conclusion

This study on how organizations are labelled illustrates the subtle way that an organization's message is tacitly approved or disapproved of by the media. When a group is presented in a neutral manner, that introduction conveys an authoritative voice for the audience. In contrast, when the media labels an organization "conservative" or "left," or as a lobby, it relates the impression that the group has a hidden agenda, or that their views or research results are somewhat suspect. In contrast, when a group is labelled "leading," or "largest," or "powerful," an added positive image is conferred on them.

Groups mentioned on the nightly newscasts of CBC and CTV were rarely labelled or affiliated with other groups or causes.

This study illustrates, therefore, that media labels act to legitimize an organization or undermine its credibility. The labels do so in such a way as to give more legitimacy to social activist groups than to main-stream economic think tanks. That the Fraser Institute's position was qualified in almost half of its references on CBC and three quarters of its references on CTV and, moreover, that the NAC's labels comprised only 8 percent of CBC's and 10 percent of CTV's references to that organization powerfully illustrates media favouritism.

Summary of "Groups That Don't Get Labelled"

Only nine percent of CBC and 13 percent of CTV references to think tanks or interest groups labelled them in any manner.

The National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) was the most frequently mentioned organization on CBC. Labels of NAC comprised eight and ten percent, respectively, of CBC and CTV attention to the organization.

Without a doubt the organization which was labelled the most was The Fraser Institute. Forty-three percent of CBC and 75 percent of CTV's references to The Fraser Institute qualified it as either "conservative" or "Vancouver-based."

Methodology on "Groups That Don't Get Labelled"

Using the National Media Archive's data base, a text search was conducted to find the number of times various economic and social think tanks and organizations listed in the 1994 Canadian Almanac and Directory were mentioned. Results are based on CBC and CTV transcripts dating from January 1988 to October 10, 1994.

Social Policy Review: The Battle Begins

HUMAN RESOURCES MINISTER LLOYD AXWORTHY released his social policy review on October 5, 1994, in order to allow Canadians to debate the proposals. Even before he formally released the document, interest groups such as the Canadian Institute of Child Health launched campaigns to lobby the government and public opinion. The following are some notes on how the media and interest groups have started the debate.

Council of Canadians launches campaign to fight social cuts

Since the release of the Axworthy discussion paper, its most visible detractor has been the Council of Canadians. On October 12, 1994, the Globe and Mail reported that the Council of Canadians will launch a "$250,000 fight against government proposals to overhaul Canada's social programs." The first salvo was the "What kind of Canada do you live in?" advertisement carried in the Globe and Mail on October 14, 1994, in which two blonde children are photographed with a sign that reads: "Will work for food."

Where did the picture come from?

The ad falsely implies that children in the U.S. are begging for food on the street and that free trade and the Axworthy plan will result in this happening in Canada. When the National Media Archive called the Council of Canadians for more information on who the children are, and when the picture was taken, the Council was unwilling to provide any information other than the photographer's name and that the picture was taken in Miami.

Where did the numbers come from?

That the ad was placed is not as troublesome as the media's uncritical acceptance of reports and information by groups such as the Council of Canadians. The ad contained several factual inaccuracies and was full of unsubstantiated claims. For example, when we asked the Council of Canadians to give us the reference for the copy that alleged "2% of the federal debt has come from spending on social programs, while more than 44% has come from tax breaks to upper income earners and corporations," they claimed it came from the June 1991 Canadian Economic Observer. When our researchers couldn't find the figures in that article, the Council of Canadians refused to provide the page number and exact citation. Instead they claimed that the figures came from a leaked Statistics Canada report that was obtained through the Access to Information Act. They were, however, unable to give the title, author, or date of the publication. When pressed, they admitted that they did not have a copy of the "leaked" report.

Statistics Canada has no knowledge of such a figure coming from their reports. The closest approximation they could come up with is that the money spent on social spending in 1990/91 alone comprised 1.5 percent of the total debt. Based on the Statistics Canada article the Council of Canadians originally cited, if we calculate social spending since 1966, it is 34 percent of the debt.

Despite this ad, and others placed by the Council of Canadians in the past, that organization continues to receive uncritical media attention. Alex Boston of the Council of Canadians in attempting to legitimize his figures noted that journalists such as Linda McQuaig from the Toronto Star have cited the figure, and so it is "in the public domain." It is precisely because journalists fail to ask for primary sources and to undertake critical investigative journalism that false information like this is repeated and eventually adopted as conventional wisdom.

Since 1988 the Council of Canadians received seven and nine percent of CBC and CTV mentions of the selected groups examined by the National Media Archive. Only four percent of that coverage on CBC, and 10 percent on CTV, labelled the group. Only one of those labels on CTV was overtly negative. Indeed, the Council of Canadians, because of their prominent ad campaigns and their ability to attract media attention, are considered to be authoritative sources on public policy issues. (See table 1.)

The social policy report given little attention

Almost lost in the sea of interest group campaigning was Lloyd Axworthy's report itself. During the week it was released, CBC provided 12 and CTV 3 stories on the plan. While Axworthy claimed that he released the document to hear from the Canadian public and not the special interest groups, the media went to the interest groups and politicians almost exclusively for comment. Of the sources interviewed about the social policy review in the week it was released, almost one-third of CBC and over one-third of CTV coverage originated with the government, namely, Lloyd Axworthy presenting his plan. On CTV, the provincial politicians and opposition members were given more time, representing 42 percent of the coverage. Social activists received one-fifth of CTV's sources statements.

Click here to view Figure A: Social Reform Sources October 3 to October 9, 1994

On CBC, statements by opposition members of parliament and provincial leaders were used as sources for comments in just 1 percent of the coverage. The largest group of sources were educators and students. They were represented in a full-length CBC Prime Time magazine segment where the education system was debated. Social activists were quoted in 3 percent of CBC's sources' statements.

Taxpayer ignored

In all the stories that both CBC and CTV presented, the one voice that was not heard from, or indeed even acknowledged, was that of the taxpayer.

Outside of criticisms from the Reform party, no source argued that the social policy review did not go far enough.

Jason Moscovitz asks about seniors

There was one exception to the coverage and that was CBC's Jason Moscovitz. He provided an in depth story on the one social program that was not touched: the Canada Pension Plan. "The social policy discussion paper deals with many things, but for all its many pages, there is something missing. Seniors, their benefits, their pensions, despite all the warning signals and spiralling costs, the social policy paper ignores the subject. In his February budget, Paul Martin talked of an imminent study on old age benefits. It never happened. The Liberals are being cautious." Even in this story, Moscovitz failed to go to the tax paying public to see what their views were on the social policy reform.

Summary of social policy review

Despite Lloyd Axworthy's call to hear from the Canadian public on social policy reform, social activists received one-fifth of CTV and three percent of CBC sources' statements.

Outside of the criticisms from the Reform party, no source argued that the social policy review did not go far enough.

The Council of Canadians ad that claims that only "2 percent of the federal debt has come from spending on social programs" is false. This figure was not challenged by the media.

Methodology on social policy review

Results are based on 12 CBC and 3 CTV stories from October 3 to October 9, 1994.

Child Poverty Study: Lobbying and the Complicity of the Media

IN KEEPING WITH THE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP lobbying over the social policy review, one of the most blatant manipulations of public opinion was the timing of the release of the study by the Child Institute of Public Health. On September 27, 1994, the organization released a report that stated, among other things, that child poverty was growing in Canada. Peter Mansbridge introduced the story on CBC that day stating: "A major new report says too many Canadian children are living in poverty and killing themselves in despair." Similarly, Lloyd Robertson introduced the story on CTV News saying: "The Canadian Institute of Child Health says suicide rates among young children have soared, largely because of increasing poverty and loneliness." The same theme was carried in a report by Dave Pommer in the Calgary Herald who said: "The report also reveals an alarming link between growing poverty and mental health problems. Suicide rates for children aged 10 to 14 have doubled in the last 30 years, said the institute."

The impression that Canadian children are living in poverty and as a result killing themselves in despair was never made in the Institute's reports. According to the Institute of Child Health's fact sheet, stress, depression, and low self-esteem were risk factors for suicide, not poverty.

Reporters falsely claim study is "new"

Also revealing about the news reports was the notion that the study was new. Dennis Buechkert in a Canadian Press story subsequently reported in the Montreal Gazette, Winnipeg Free Press, and the Globe and Mail; along with Derek Ferguson, writing for the Toronto Star; the Ottawa Citizen's Elaine Medline and Peter Mansbridge on CBC Prime Time all reported that this was a "major new" report. According to the CICH nothing in the report was new. In fact, all statistics and information presented in the report had already been released by other organizations during the past few years. All the Canadian Institute of Child Health did was compile reports dating from as far back as 1983, up until 1992. The figure of 1.2 million Canadian children were living in poverty was released twice, most recently in February of this year by Campaign 2000.

As the National Media Archive noted at the time, the Campaign 2000 report's definition of what constitutes poor came from Statistic Canada's Low Income Cut-offs (LICO), which Statistics Canada itself does not recognize as the poverty line. Only CTV News accurately reported that the study was in fact re-released, and that it was purposefully timed to coordinate with Axworthy's social policy review. As Lloyd Robertson reported: "The figures used today by the institute are not new. In fact, they were first released in 1991 by Statistics Canada. But the child health organization brought them out in Ottawa again today to make a point, and timing is everything."

Neither the Calgary Herald's Dave Pommer nor Karina Bryne and Treen Khan, who write for the Winnipeg Free Press reported that the study was new. Instead, the Calgary Herald called it "a weighty book of statistics" and the Winnipeg Free Press labelled it "an exhaustive compendium of available statistics."

No critical assessment of study

As is shown in figure B, what is significant about the Child Health Survey was the complete lack of critical analysis of the study. There was absolutely no criticism of the study from either the reporters or the sources they selected to comment in the reports. The sources who were cited either corroborated the findings, because they worked for social agencies, or they were families with children who illustrated the statistics presented by the CICH. The media did not present a single critic to question the study in any manner.

Click here to view Figure B: Coverage of the Canadian Institute for Child Health Study September 27 to September 29, 1994

Canadian Institute of Child Health positively attributed

In terms of labelling, the CICH was given either positive or neutral labels. The Vancouver Sun called it "non-profit," and "promoting the health of children." The Globe and Mail also called it "non-profit" and "Ottawa-based." In the Winnipeg Free Press and in the Canadian Press stories it was also called "non-profit." Only CTV News labelled it a "child health lobbyist."

Fraser Institute study critically assessed

In stark contrast to its treatment of the study on child poverty is the way the national media reported a recent Fraser Institute study which measured the debt of an independent Quebec. In this instance, people outside of The Fraser Institute who supported the findings comprised 20 percent of sources' statements. Critics comprised 80 percent of the outside sources. (See figure C.)

Click here to view Figure C: Coverage of The Fraser Institute Quebec Debt Study August 25 to August 31, 1994

In addition, the Institute's motives were questioned. It was called "conservative," "chicken little," a "citadel of free-market economics," and accused of having an "ideology." For example, John Dafoe, writing in the Winnipeg Free Press stated: "The Fraser Institute clearly has an ideology. It believes that, in economic affairs, the market should reign supreme and that governments should keep their hands off. That ideology is highly debatable and, in some circles is enough to get any arguments the institute puts forward dismissed out of hand." Don McGillivray, writing in the Calgary Herald, went so far as to say that the Institute has an agenda, saying: "the objective of many economic studies is just to dress up an opinion or a partisan position so it looks like a fact."

What makes a study controversial

Journalists may want to defend this reporting practice by claiming that the critical scrutiny of the Quebec study was because it was released at a sensitive time, which made it controversial. The same could be said for the Canadian Institute for Child Health study. According to Institute for Child Health chairperson Graham Chance, in an interview with Mark Forsythe on the CBC radio program "The Afternoon Show," in Vancouver, the CICH timed the release of the study to coincide with Lloyd Axworthy's policy review. The explicit purpose of the study's release was to be used for the discussion of the social policy review. Indeed, the release was somewhat premature, since copies of the study were unavailable until three weeks after its release.

Why the media chose to label The Fraser Institute and not the Canadian Institute for Child Health can not be so easily explained by journalists. It could be argued that the media gives labels to organizations when they are relatively unknown; giving a group's geographical location tells the audience where to find it. This cannot be said for The Fraser Institute. It has received much more attention over the past seven years than the CICH. If any organization were in need of its geographical location being mentioned, it is surely the CICH.

"The Canadian Institute of Child Health says suicide rates among young children have soared, largely because of increasing poverty and loneliness"

Finally, there is no rationale for labelling The Fraser Institute as "ideologically motivated," and not the Canadian Institute of Child Health. The CICH's mission statement in fact acknowledges that it is an advocacy group. The Fraser Institute makes no such assertions. Why then, does the media not label advocacy groups for the public when they label themselves as such, but insists on casting aspersions on groups which explicitly claim to be non-partisan and independent?

Summary of child poverty study

Several media organizations falsely left the impression that Canadian children are living in poverty and as a result killing themselves in despair.

The Canadian Institute of Child Health was positively described. The CICH was given either positive or neutral labels in all media reports.

In contrast, the national media relayed critics' comments in 80 percent of sources' statements that commented on a recent Fraser Institute study which measured the debt of an independent Quebec.

Methodology on child poverty study

Results of the Canadian Institute of Child Health study are based on 1 Vancouver Sun, 1 Calgary Herald, 1 Winnipeg Free Press, 1 Toronto Star, 1 Globe and Mail, 1 Montreal Gazette, 1 CBC Prime Time and 1 CTV News story from September 27 to September 29, 1994.

Results on The Fraser Institute study of an independent Quebec are based on 1 Vancouver Sun, 2 Calgary Herald, 2 Winnipeg Free Press, 1 Ottawa Citizen, 2 Toronto Star, 4 Globe and Mail, 3 Montreal Gazette, 2 Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 1 Saint John Telegraph-Journal, 1 CBC Prime Time, 1 Sunday Report and 1 CTV News stories and commentaries from August 25 to August 31, 1994. Statements were coded as to who was quoted, and whether they were critics or proponents of either study.

Television Coverage of the Economy in September

TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE ECONOMY dwindled in September from that in August. Although CBC reported on the economic indicators to the same extent they had in August, CTV's coverage declined.

For the CBC, coverage of economic indicators was more diverse than in the previous month. Interest rates, the rise and fall of the dollar, consumer prices, employment and unemployment were all reported by the network (figure D). In contrast, CTV gave scant attention to the economy, briefly touching on the interest rates and unemployment rates (see figure E).

Click here to view Figure D: Indicators Reported in September on CBC

Click here to view Figure E: Indicators Reported in September on CTV

The good news in September: employment up

Both networks reported on unemployment figures. CBC chose the spin on the story that unemployment was up, but as Peter Mansbridge reported on 9 September: "more people had jobs; 22,000 more in August than the month before. Now, that may sound contradictory, but Statistics Canada says it shows more people are out there actively looking for work now that the economy is growing again." On CTV, the employment story focused on the decline in people collecting unemployment insurance. That story was reported on 28 September 1994: "There is yet another indication today that the recession is behind us. Statistics Canada says the number of people collecting unemployment insurance dropped in July to its lowest level since early 1990. Stats Can says 889,000 people collected jobless benefits in July. In dollar terms, the government paid out $10.2 billion in U.I. benefits in the first seven months of this year. That is $1.5 billion less than the same period in 1993. That's fuelled speculation Ottawa may be able to cut unemployment insurance premiums paid by workers and employers."

The networks did not overlap in their stories of unemployment. Only the CBC examined the unemployment rate, and only CTV reported on the U.I. recipients. However, while CBC's story on unemployment was uniformly positive, CTV's story focused on the down-side of the skills gap, the phenomenon that thousands of jobs go unfilled every day because there is a lack of skilled workers.

In all, CBC's assessments of the economic indicators in September were more positive than on CTV. On CBC, assessments of the economy were twice as likely to be positive as negative. On CTV, the assessments were almost twice as likely to be negative as positive.

CBC reports GDP increasing

The most positive economic news reported on CBC in September was that the economy was growing. Kevin Newman introduced a September 1, 1994, a story with: "Economic writers are using words like `whopping' and `spect-acular' to describe the growth in Canada's economy. Statistics Canada reported yesterday that the economy surged 6.4 percent in the period of April to June, and that's the biggest quarterly growth in nearly seven years." What was interesting about the report was the relative value CBC placed on the Statistics Canada findings. First, it was reported a full day after the results were in, and after CTV reported it as the fourth story of the previous day. On CBC it was buried at the end of the newscast, having been reported just before a general human interest story on summer camp.

Aside from the lack of importance CBC placed on the story, in the interview by Kevin Newman, the focus was on the downside of the figures: "Exports are expanding, business investment is up, but if you're looking for a job or a change in job, all that good news may not mean good news for you." The interview with Lori Van Opstal from an employment agency focused exclusively on the changing market for jobs.

Summary of September economic figures

The CBC chose a more diverse approach in its coverage of economic indicators than in the previous month. In contrast, CTV paid scant attention to the economy, briefly touching on the interest and unemployment rates.

The good news in September was the unemployment figures. CBC reported that employment was up, while CTV focused on the decline in people collecting unemployment insurance.

The most positive economic news reported on CBC in September was the growing economy. However, the story was placed late in the broadcast and reported a day after CTV covered the story.

Methodology on September economic figures

Results are based on CBC and CTV stories economic indicators from August 1 to 31, 1994. All stories appearing during that time were coded, representing a total population rather than a random sample of stories.

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.