Volume 7, Number 9

MEDIA VERSUS REALITY: WHERE'S THE DEBATE IN THE DEBATE ON SOCIAL REFORM POLICY

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN Resources Development is currently on the road hearing submissions from the public, interest groups, and research organizations on Human Resources Minister Lloyd Axworthy's Green Paper on social policy. The $742,500 hearings have received consistent radio and newspaper attention, but significantly less television coverage. The selective coverage provides a glimpse into the way public perception of political events is shaped.

If one were to take media reports of the hearings at face value, one might infer that Lloyd Axworthy's intention was that the Green Paper provide an opportunity for consultation with the public and not special interest groups. As he said in an interview on October 5, 1994 with Pamela Wallin, "People have a right to speak out on, they have a right to participate . . . . We want to make sure that there's a full opportunity to present options for people to get into a real debate. I think the debate in fact has started, and other than that, we hope they can really help to define this country in a new and more progressive way by making sure that Canadians are involved in this . . . . We are going to sort of bring them in as part of the decision makers."

Committee set quotas

While the minister may have expressed a desire to hear from average Canadians, the committee in charge of the debate primarily focused on the opinions of interest groups. According to Eugene Morawski, who is with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, individuals and groups were invited to submit briefs to the committee through various methods. Once submitted, the committee then decided which groups and individuals could make presentations to the hearings. While this was decided in-camera, selection of the witnesses was conducted by a quota system. Therefore, the hearings were not based on public opinion, but on representation. For example, the Liberal party chose 60 percent of the witnesses, the Reform party 20 percent, and the Bloc Quebecois 20 percent.

As a result of this design, the hearings were politically biased from the outset. Examination of the proposed schedule for the committee hearings in Vancouver bears this out. Only 27 percent of the confirmed witnesses for the Vancouver hearings were business people or free-market oriented groups. The remaining two-thirds of the scheduled participants were from social service agencies, student groups and anti-poverty organizations. By the political distribution of the committee members themselves, the process was slanted to favour social welfare special interest groups. This nuance was never reported by the media covering the hearings. In place of such a disclosure was a superficial recount of the proceedings. For instance, on November 16, 1994, CBC Radio News reported: "The parliamentary committee investigating reform to social programs is meeting in Vancouver."

What makes the news

Coverage of the second two cities on the tour focused on the anger of some groups and individuals. It should be noted that our analysis focuses on 3 CBC Radio stories and 1 CBC Prime Time News story. CTV News did not report on the hearings in Victoria or Vancouver. In Victoria, Lisa Cordasco introduced a story for CBC radio on the hearings by relaying the claims made by participants at the hearings: "They point to Statistics Canada figures that say social programs are responsible for only two percent of the debt. Critics . . . told the committee it should go after the 50 percent caused by tax breaks by the wealthy." Cordasco not only accepted this figure unreservedly, but additionally, she inflated the tax break figure by 6 percent. As was reported in last month's On Balance, Statistics Canada denies that these are their figures. A more correct estimate is that social spending since 1966 is 34 percent of the debt. This two percent figure, so often uncritically quoted, is actually the contribution that social spending makes to the debt in one year alone. In other words, these groups have taken one year of social spending, and divided it into the nation's accumulated debt, which has been building over decades. Typically, one year of social spending comprises 40 percent of the deficit, a figure substantially smaller than the debt. These facts were never explained in the news stories about social spending. In its place was the authoritative (and erroneous) attribution to Statistics Canada.

Protestors rewarded by committee and media

The story that made the CBC radio News and CBC Prime Time on November 16th was that a group of students protesting outside the proceedings broke in, and effectively disrupted the hearings to the extent that scheduled witnesses had to wait so that the students could be heard. What the reporters failed to relay was that student groups will be heard and will comprise about 25 percent of witness representations in other cities. Moreover, the students were organ-

"We want to make sure that there's a full opportunity to present options for people to get into a real debate."

ized by Action Canada, a group affiliated with the Council of Canadians. The Council of Canadians are the same group responsible for disseminating the two percent figure mentioned above. This information was not presented. Instead, CBC television microphones captured the students' colourful language and outrage, which the network repeated, including the protestors chanting, "Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!"

The students not only supplanted the legitimate groups chosen to speak to the committee that day, but their childish antics and aggressive actions ensured that they would be the story on the news. By doing so, the students subverted the democratic process by commandeering the hearings by imposing their views on the committee, and then by appealing to the journalist's sense of drama in making the nightly news. Their outrageous behaviour was rewarded. The committee gave into their demands and CBC radio and television news accorded them exclusive coverage.

Fraser Institute portrayed as "radical"

In contrast, on the second day of hearings in Vancouver, the story that made it on CBC radio news was the Fraser Institute's submission. CBC television did not report on the hearings that day. Surprisingly, the media's first use of the word radical was in a CBC radio report characterizing The Fraser Institute's presentation. The story began with the introduction: "A Conservative economic think tank is calling for radical cuts in spending on social programs." The report by Alvin Cater made it appear that The Fraser Institute was the only organization which suggested that social spending must be curtailed: "The Fraser Institute if nothing else, offered a stark contrast with just about everything the committee has heard so far. Most witnesses, individuals, and interest groups have argued that social programs are an investment--not a drain on the economy."

While the design of the proceedings meant that The Fraser Institute's proposals were clearly in the minority, the reporter covering the story failed to tell his audience of the structure of the hearings. Rather than explain how the committee selected witnesses, Alvin Cater labelled The Fraser Institute as having a "far right agenda." Nonetheless, there were at least four other free-market, pro-restraint submissions heard on the two days in Vancouver.

Students were not labelled

What was especially ironic about the coverage of the agitators and their positions, was that, despite the actions of the students, they were at the most called activists, and at the least were not categorized at all. In contrast, The Fraser Institute, whose views were in the minority, but who were nonetheless scheduled to appear, were pigeon-holed throughout the story for their testimony. It should be noted that on television news at least, far right-wing is a term usually reserved for racists, hard-line communists, and terrorist organizations.

George Bain in his recent book Gotcha! How the Media Distorts the News, provides the following explanation for this reporting practise: "In political journalism, a report on anything emanating from The Fraser Institute in Vancouver is routinely identified as from `a right-wing Vancouver think tank,' so as to warn readers to expect a conservative slant which may not be instantly apparent to the lay eye. A report from, say, the Canadian Labour Congress, the CLC, will not be identified as `left,' because left is Good, therefore no warning is warranted. Unions in themselves are inherently Good; business, whose interest the institute is said to reflect, is Bad."

Michael Coren, a freelance writer speaking to the Reform party convention in October, noted that lack of balanced coverage of the issues "is bad for Canada, it's bad for a healthy, evolving maturing democracy. It keeps Canada in the minor league." He adds that debate requires "no gagging from any side, right or left." Coverage of the social reform hearings has certainly failed to provide the debate that either Lloyd Axworthy called for, or that other journalists require.

Defendants of these reports may argue that there was balanced coverage because attention was paid to both the protestors and The Fraser Institute. Equal time does not mean equal treatment. As CBC's Journalist Policy Handbook charges: "CBC programs dealing with matters of public interest on which differing views are held must supplement the exposition of one point of view with an equitable treatment of other relevant points of view." Clearly in this case, the two opposing views were not treated in a fair and comprehensive manner.

Summary of Social Policy Reform

Journalists failed to explain that the process of the social policy reform hearings was slanted to favour social welfare special interest groups.

Student groups who commandeered the hearings were rewarded by the committee and by the media. The committee gave in to their demands and CBC radio and television news accorded them exclusive coverage.

The media's first reference to the word radical was in a CBC radio report characterizing The Fraser Institute's presentation. CBC television did not report on The Fraser Institute's submission.

Social Policy Reform Methodology

Results are based on 3 CBC Radio News stories , and 1 CBC Prime Time story from November 15 to November 17, 1994. CTV News did not report on the hearings that week.

Immigration Proposals: Were the Media Manipulated?

ON OCTOBER 29, 1994 THE TORONTO STAR RAN what they labelled an "exclusive" front page story entitled: "Clampdown on immigration: Families to risk houses or cars to bring in kin." On the same day, the Globe and Mail's front page headline read: "Canada to cut immigration in 1995: Marchi to announce emphasis will be on skills, not family connections." Similarly, the Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Herald and the Montreal Gazette ran stories by Southam reporter Joan Bryden on the immigration minister's proposed announcement for later in the week.

What do they mean by "exclusive?"

Mike Duffy, host of CTV's Sunday Edition alerted the National Media Archive to the coincidence. In a Baton Broadcasting Systems interview he commented, "Marchi's department had deliberately planted [the leaks] in the press." Duffy further argued that this "exclusive" subverted the role of the media to provide balance: "When the government gives selective reporters the story with the understanding that they won't print comments from the opposition--that they'll give the government line a free run for the weekend--then that's when the media abandons journalistic principle and becomes a propaganda tool for the government."

Obviously this "leaked" information was a calculated move by the government to ensure their material would be presented in the best possible light.

By leaking information to the major dailies the government deflected some initial criticism not just from its detractors, but, also it would appear, from the media itself. On that Saturday, the papers uncritically conveyed the message that this government takes its taxpayers' concerns seriously. It would appear that the dailies were playing to the growing Canadian concern that present immigration policy offers more risk than reward. [For example, on November 9, 1994, CTV News reported the findings of a poll they commissioned from Angus Reid: "Question: which is the bigger problem? Canadians exhibiting racism against recent immigrants, or recent immigrants not adapting to Canadian culture and values. Thirty-nine percent said Canadians exhibiting racism. Fifty-two percent said immigrants not adapting. In other words, many more Canadians blame the victims for the discrimination they face than blame those doing the discriminating." 1,500 people were surveyed by phone from October 26th to the 31st. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent. Fewer than ten percent of respondents were from a visible minority.]

News coverage of whether or not these fears are accurate went unanswered because the media acted as the government's mouthpiece rather that its critic on that particular day. Overall, the stories reported on October 29 focused exclusively on providing a generalized description of the new immigration plan to the detriment of disseminating a wide range of opinion.

Exclusives are uniformly uncritical

As figure A illustrates, the majority of statements in the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star on this issue were from reporters presenting information. This information was provided in an authoritative voice with journalists such as Hugh Windsor and Edward Greenspon writing: "The Liberal government will reduce immigration levels next year and begin a major long-term overhaul of the immigration program to place more emphasis on economic benefit to Canada and less on family reunification, the Globe and Mail has learned."

Click here to view Figure A: Sources Used for Exclusive Coverage October 29, 1994

In the Star's "exclusive," reporters Tim Harper and David Vienneau, refrained from negative commentary and stuck to outlining the details of the policy changes. Most of their article was based on unnamed government sources, although some non-governmental sources were used selectively to endorse the government's policy position. For example, immigration lawyer Mendal Green was quoted as saying, "There has been serious abuse of the family class and Marchi has to straighten that mess out."

Unnamed government sources dominated the Montreal Gazette and Ottawa Citizen sources' statements. The Southam News stories, written by Joan Bryden, relied almost exclusively on government sources.

What is truly ironic about the coverage is that those who were supporters of the proposals on October 29 later became its detractors. For example, while Green was quoted supporting the changes on Saturday, by Thursday, the same reporter used him to chastise the government's new emphasis on English and French speaking immigrants. Tim Harper from the Toronto Star quotes Green as saying that the new language policy "will be disastrous in places such as Hong Kong, Taiwan, China and Eastern Europe . . . . They will view this language policy as a disaster."

CBC provides more balance than newspapers

On CBC's Sunday Report the next day, the leak was noted in the coverage. As well, CBC pointed out that the immigration proposals were a broken promise from the Liberal party Red Book which stated that immigration would be targeted to one percent of the population. What differentiated Sunday Report's coverage from that of the daily newspapers' was that the panel discussion involving journalists Jeffrey Simpson, Jason Moscovitz, Patricia Graham, and host Wendy Mesley, balanced the pros and cons of the leaked announcement. CTV News did not cover the immigration story until November 1, 1994.

Official announcement criticized with emotionally charged language

Newspaper coverage of the immigration issue did not improve markedly after the government's official media release on November 1, 1994. Having been, it seems, duped by the government, the daily newspapers tipped to the other extreme and repeated any and all criticism of the plan, regardless of the appropriateness of the criticism--and much of it was extreme to the extent that sources used uncivil, confused, and nasty language.

Newspapers and CTV News gave a great deal of play to the negative, emotionally charged criticisms of immigration advocates, immigration lawyers, and immigrants. The views of immigrants supportive of the government policy, or of Canadians not personally involved in the outcome of the proposed legislation, did not figure prominently as journalists' sources.

One story which did demonstrate balance in its presentation of the views on the proposed changes was Lila Sarick's article for the Globe and Mail on November 2, 1994. Sarick, writing a human interest story on how immigrant families would be affected by the proposed legislation, quoted sources both supportive and critical of Marchi's initiative. It should be noted, however, that the story's headline was definitely negative: "Families See Unfairness in Limiting Reunification," and all remarks supportive of the government policy were buried at the end of the article.

Over one-third of the sources quoted came from immigration enthusiasts, most of whom characterized the plan as an anti-immigrant backlash.

Critics called policy racist

Immigration advocates not only invoked the age-old class warfare rhetoric, but also raised the spectre of racism and family break-up in their denunciations of the announced policy changes. For example, the government's new policy on giving preference to English and French speaking immigrants was assailed as racist. The Star's Phinjo Gombu quoted liberally from Kike Roach of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, who compared the new family reunification rules to "apartheid-type policies." A couple of sentences following that quotation reads "the message it sends is that our door is wide open, but it's open to rich white men. It's open to Europeans, but not to others." Similarly, in Peter Murphy's story on November 1, 1994 on CTV News, Sharmini Peries, the Director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants was quoted: "I think that is essentially a racist trend." Maria Shin, executive director of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council also played the race card: "the Liberals had given in to racists and right-wing groups." Her comments were also quoted by Bryden in the Montreal Gazette and in the story by Roger Smith on CTV News. Similarly, the Globe and Mail's Edward Greenspon quoted former Conservative Immigration Minister Bernard Valcourt saying: "the only difference between the Chinese head tax and the Liberal bond is about 100 years." None of these inflammatory statements were challenged or refuted in the stories in which they were quoted.

"Conflict or arguments between races, different groups, may be disagreeable, or uncomfortable, but that does not add up to racism . . ."

There appears to be a lack of professional responsibility in covering such controversial issues. If a "source" calls someone "racist" then the label is repeated without question. However, Rex Murphy in a CBC Prime Time editorial on September 27, 1994 cautions people to be careful when they cast aspersions: "Racists are the scum of the earth. I find myself more and more these days distressed and not a little annoyed hearing behaviour described `racist' that is clearly not, and people or institutions accused of racism on the slightest provocation and on the slimmest grounds. Conflict or arguments between races, different groups, may be disagreeable, or uncomfortable, but that does not add up to racism either. To argue for a cut in immigration, for example, is not racist." This type of analysis or circumspection was lacking in the reports that labelled the government's policy racist.

Marchi's heritage assailed

Journalists were not above personal attacks either. Sergio Marchi's personal immigration history was dredged up by his critics to discredit the new proposals. Edward Greenspon's November 2 article in The Globe came under the headline "Marchi Denies Betrayal of his Roots." Greenspon paraphrased non-governmental officials saying, "Marchi introduced policy changes in immigration policy that are retrograde, pander to the right, and betray his roots." Greenspon then quotes one of Marchi's colleagues as saying "it was almost unfair to give him the immigration portfolio, given his background."

Apart from allowing name-calling to permeate the debate, journalists failed to question the veracity of critic's complaints. For example, on November 2, Edward Greenspon writing for the Globe and Mail uncritically quoted Maria Shin saying "what we got from the Liberal party was a regressive policy formulated by people who have succumbed to the prevailing winds of anti-refugee and anti-immigrant sentiments generated by right-wing groups and individuals." In fact, as reported by Richard Gwyn in the November 2, 1994 Toronto Star, Marchi's proposal increased refugee quotas from 18,000 this year to somewhere between 24,000 and 32,000 next year. Furthermore, within the refugee category, special emphasis will be given to women.

Changing facts

The media did, however, contrast the government's position that immigration policy must be changed to deal with the growing number of immigrants now reliant on social entitlements with the historical record that immigrants have been net contributors to the country. The information that immigrants contribute to society is based on research conducted in the late 1980s prior to the liberalization of restrictions by the former Conservative government. The media reported the facts; Andrew Coyne in an October 31, 1994 editorial in the Globe and Mail is representative: "According to a 1989 study by economist Ather Akbari of Saint Mary's University in Halifax, immigrants earn more than native-born Canadians (so much for systemic discrimination) and pay more in taxes." These facts were repeated in the Gazette, the Calgary Herald and the Toronto Star, without indicating when the research was conducted. None of these newspapers provided the most current research from a C.D. Howe study released over the summer which found that "the traditionally strong economic performance of immigrants began its decline in the 1980s because of the shift away from a skills-based immigration strategy."

CBC receives high marks for comprehensive and balanced coverage

The only news organization to break away from the pack on the immigration issue was CBC Prime Time. Following the Sunday Report panel, CBC Prime Time ran three stories on November 1, and ended the program with a panel discussion that focused on the issues raised by the proposals. More importantly, charges of racism and personal attacks were kept to a minimum. In its place was a thoughtful, informative debate with former immigration minister Barbara McDougall, journalist Daniel Stoffman, Sharmini Peries of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, and Don DeVoretz, an economist.

What is noteworthy in this discussion was that Peries was given the least attention. More significant was her admission that the group she represents has a vested interest in having more immigrants without language skills enter the country. "We are in the business of settling immigrants by equipping them with linguistic skills and language skills and settling them to Canada. And the programs are good programs and we want to protect them and maintain them and we want to make sure that the immigration system supports those programs."

IMMIGRATION SUMMARY

Initial immigration stories were leaked by the government and not given critical attention by the media.

The official immigration policy announcement was criticized with emotionally charged language. Journalists failed to question immigration advocates' charges that the government was racist and elitist.

The only news organization to offer a balanced assessment of the immigration issue was CBC Prime Time. CBC kept charges of racism to a minimum, and showcased groups and individuals who were both supportive and critical of the new immigration policy.

METHODOLOGY ON IMMIGRATION

Results are based on 10 Globe and Mail, 8 Toronto Star, 2 Ottawa Citizen, 5 Montreal Gazette, 2 Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 6 Winnipeg Free Press and 5 Calgary Herald stories and editorials as well as 5 CBC Prime Time, 2 CBC Sunday Report, and 3 CTV News stories from October 29 to November 4, 1994.

It should be noted that the Vancouver Sun did not publish that week due to a labour dispute.

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.