Volume 8, Number 6 - July, 1995

THE ONTARIO ELECTION: HOW DID THE MEDIA REPORT THE HARRIS VICTORY COMPARED TO RAE'S FIVE YEARS AGO?

ON JUNE 8, 1995 THE ONTARIO ELECTORATE voted in the Conservative party under leader Mike Harris Conservative with a solid majority. Not five years earlier the same populace voted in a socialist government headed by Bob Rae. Considering the flip-flop in public opinion from left to right, it is interesting to observe how media attention to these two antithetically-positioned parties compares. This issue of On Balance begins with an analysis of television's coverage of the Bob Rae and Mike Harris victories. It examines assessments of the two leaders as well as the pundit's predictions in the wake of the victories.

CTV provides balanced and more neutral coverage of Ontario elections

Click here to view Table 1: Positive and Negative Terms for Ontario Premiers

The most significant difference between CBC and CTV television news coverage of the Ontario election results was CTV's dispassionate presentation compared to the emotional, pejorative, and partisan language used by CBC. CTV's reporters and sources refrained from name-calling and endorsements of either party leader's victory. In contrast, on CBC, both Rae and Harris were personally profiled and described. CTV provided 6 descriptions of Bob Rae and 4 of Mike Harris. In contrast, CBC described Bob Rae 65 times and Mike Harris 39 times.

CBC plays favourites with Bob Rae

One noticeable feature of CBC's coverage was its more favourable description of Bob Rae compared to that of Mike Harris.

As figure A shows, positive descriptions of Bob Rae outweighed negative descriptions of him on CBC by two-to-one. In contrast, CBC provided 9 times as many negative as positive descriptions of Mike Harris. As Table 1 indicates, while Bob Rae was called, among other things, "experienced," "a golden boy," and "bright," Mike Harris' favourable commentary was limited to "constructive." Where Bob Rae was criticized for being "inexperienced," "lacking an agenda" and "radical," Mike Harris was called "inexperienced," "a nobody," and a "faceless Tory backbencher," to name a few.

CBC did, however, assign more ideological labels to Bob Rae than to Mike Harris. It called Bob Rae "left-wing" or "socialist" in 31 percent of the labels. His socialism was also soft-pedalled by CBC sources as evidenced by their also labelling him "moderate," an "activist," and "progressive." In contrast, Mike Harris was labelled "right-wing" or "extreme right-wing" in 18 percent of CBC's references. The label "populist" was another favourite media description for Harris.

CTV called Harris "right-wing" and "populist" once each in its coverage on the first day of his victory. It called Bob Rae "left-wing" once and "socialist" four times during his election victory coverage.

Criticisms of Rae centre on economics

While CBC's pundits and journalists described Rae in positive terms, their predictions of the future of Ontario under an NDP government were less optimistic. As figure B illustrates, both CBC and CTV provided twice as many negative as positive outcomes emerging from an NDP government in Ontario. These centred on predictions of the negative economic impact. For example, on September 6, 1990, Barbara Frum and William Thorsell, the editor-in-chief of the Globe and Mail, had this exchange on the possible impact of a NDP government:

Barbara Frum: Are you concerned that he inherits a recession that's already on in Canada? He's promised deficit spending. He's promised some pretty radical moves on the corporate community, for example. I know tonight, he says he wants to be premier of everybody.

William Thorsell: Sure.

Barbara Frum: Uh, he's got some problems. How does he keep everybody happy?

William Thorsell: Well, he isn't going to keep everybody happy. He has to keep about 43 percent of the people happy, and that's what he's gonna set out to do, whatever else he says, and I think that's possible. Uh, certainly, he's going to . . . .

Lloyd Robertson and Mike Duffy had a more specific exchange on the negative effects of a Rae government during the September 6 edition of CTV News:

Lloyd Robertson: Ah, Mike, a lot of people on Bay Street in Toronto are gonna be saying: my goodness, the socialist hordes are at the gates, what do we do? What do you think the reaction's going to be in the economic community tomorrow?

Mike Duffy: No question there's a real concern here, Lloyd. The bank rate came down 10 basis points today. The question tonight is: What does the Governor of the Bank of Canada think about an NDP Government with billions of dollars in promises to keep? And will that mean that the reduction in interest that we've seen over the last few weeks, will that continue?

Effects of Harris victory not emphasized

Neither network placed much emphasis on the effects of a Harris victory. Only 14 statements on CBC and 4 on CTV discussed the implications of a Harris government.

CBC was pessimistic with respect to the social safety net as well as Harris' ability to deliver on his promises. Only one statement on CBC was positive about the future effects of the Conservative victory. In contrast, on CTV, three of the four predictions of the Harris government were favourable.

Summary of Bob Rae And Mike Harris

CTV gave a dispassionate presentation of the two election results compared to the emotional, pejorative, and partisan language used by CBC. CTV's reporters and sources refrained from name-calling or adulating either party leader or his victory.

One distinction separating the CBC's coverage of Bob Rae from that of Mike Harris was the favouritism it displayed towards Rae. Positive descriptions of Bob Rae were twice as many as negative descriptions of him. In contrast, CBC provided nine times as many negative as positive descriptions of Mike Harris.

Criticisms of Rae centred on economics. While pundits and journalists on CBC described Rae in positive terms, their predictions for the future of Ontario under a NDP government were less optimistic. Both CBC and CTV provided twice as many negative as positive outcomes following the election of the NDP government in Ontario.

Methodology for Bob Rae And Mike Harris

Results on Bob Rae are based on 4 "National," 5 "Journal," 1 "Sunday Report," and 2 "Venture" stories on CBC as well as 6 "CTV News" stories on the Bob Rae victory from September 6 to September 9, 1990. Results on Mike Harris are based on 4 "CBC Prime Time" and 4 "CTV News" stories from June 8 to June 11, 1995.

Does CBC'S Documentary on CARE Canada Live Up to its Journalistic Policies?

"Programs dealing with an issue of substantial controversy on a one-time basis should give adequate recognition to the range of opinion on the subject. Fairness must be the guiding principle in presentation, so that the audience is enabled to make a judgement on the matter in question based on the facts."
(CBC Journalistic Policy, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1988, p. 8).

ON JUNE 13, 1995, THE ONTARIO COURT OF Appeal ruled that while CBC's documentary, Valour and the Horror, was neither balanced nor fair, it didn't defame the Canadian airmen who bombed Nazi Germany. Just as this controversy seems to be resolved, CBC is in the midst of another possible lawsuit for its May 30, 1995 documentary on the relief organization, CARE Canada.

In this controversial new documentary, CBC repeated allegations by current unnamed and former named CARE Canada employees that "CARE Canada is out of control." In the ensuing response by CARE Canada, its lawyer, Julian Porter, returned the salvo by charging that it was the public broadcaster that was out of control.

This analysis will not try to defend or support the allegations made about CARE Canada in the CBC documentary, but rather will examine the structure of the documentary itself, and critique the journalistic methods used to make the charges. Specifically, it will judge whether CBC lived up to its own journalistic policy to "reflect equitably the relevant facts and significant points of view . . . [and] deal fairly and ethically with persons, institutions, issues and events." Indeed, Bob Culbert, CBC's own Executive Director of CBC TV News, Current Affairs, makes the case in a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail on June 14, 1995 that no agency should be excused from scrutiny. He writes: "At the same time, the very fact of having done good work (which we have fully reported) does not excuse CARE Canada, or any other agency, from appropriate scrutiny." In this vein we will scrutinize CBC's journalistic techniques in uncovering the CARE Canada allegations.

Repetition of charges

The documentary, co-produced by Trish Dyer and Peter Van Dusen, made serious allegations that no private donor money targeted for the Somali relief effort by CARE Canada ever made it to Somalia. This charge was repeated throughout the documentary and in the lead story of the night that highlighted the allegations. The charges were specifically made by David Melvil, a former employee of CARE Canada, who stated: "No private donor money was channelled to these projects in Somalia." No only was that specific quote repeated 5 times, but Peter Mansbridge emphasized it in the headlines for that night's news: "Donations for Somalia. The money never got there."

The CBC's repetition of these allegations, in conjunction with the lack of concrete evidence to support or refute the charges deserves serious attention. The fact that CBC built its documentary around innuendo and unsubstantiated "statements" of financial wrongdoing rather than objective fact needs to be addressed. For example, in the portion of Prime Time that promoted the story, Wendy Mesley asked: "Did CARE Canada's charity stay too close to home?" In the same promotion she ended with contrasting images of starving Somalis and a upscale hotel, saying: "The public responded to scenes like this. Are the donations squandered on lavish travelling like this?"

The story not only alleged that private money did not go to Somalia, but at times insinuated that public money didn't go to Somalia either. For example, early in the documentary the reporter and co-producer, Peter Van Dusen, stated: "In fact, the Canadian government and the United Nations gave CARE Canada a lot of money to feed starving Somalis. Ordinary Canadians gave CARE a lot of money, too--money that never made it to Somalia."

Where did the money go?

One of the charges raised in the documentary was that funds earmarked for the relief effort were spent on extravagant offices and lavish travel. For example, Van Dusen narrates: "In November of 1992, as human suffering in Somalia reached nightmare proportions, and donations from compassionate Canadians continued to pour in, CARE Canada quietly announced it was moving up. From cramped offices in an industrial park, CARE became the only tenant in a brand-new building, and celebrated the grand opening a few months later with a private open house for 200 invited guests." Van Dusen continued his allegations with the criticism: "These are the people CARE Canada pledges to save with public money. People who've lost everything. People barely clinging to life. People whose only hope rests with the kindness of strangers who can deliver their next meal or their next pan of clean water. And this is one of the places CARE managers went to weigh those life and death decisions in 1993. The Observatory Hotel in Sydney, Australia, is billed as one of the city's most prestigious hotels."

Extravagant spending based on estimates

The allegations are interesting because they were uncorroborated by evidence. This, despite having the documentary boast that: "Over the past three months, we've been pouring over thousands of pages of confidential CARE Canada documents investigating shocking allegations from current and former CARE employees." Even with these documents, the evidence for the copious spending are based on estimates only.

The hotel costs were based on published room rates. The documentary made no attempt to discern whether CARE Canada paid full price, nor did it even acknowledge that there are corporate and government rates for hotel accommodation. As a result, Van Dusen claims: "CARE's executive director, John Watson, and four other CARE employees stayed at the Observatory Hotel for several days in November of 1993" where the "published room rates start at over $225 a night Canadian."

CARE Canada's travel costs were also scrutinized by CBC News. Again, while the CBC supposedly had access to confidential CARE documents, all the costs were estimates. For the Australia trip Van Dusen claims: "estimated costs of airfare alone: over $20,000." He continues: "And there were other trips. Days after moving into their new headquarters, eight CARE employees flew to Harari, Zimbabwe, to discuss proposed changes in Canadian government funding policies. Estimated cost of the airfare alone for that trip, $35,000."

Other charges of lavish spending included a video called "Tools for Development." As Van Dusen explains: "The video was shot on location in Peru. Estimated Cost: $100,000." The documentary never explained how these costs were derived. Were they gleaned from the confidential CARE documents, or were they deduced from full price costs, as was the case with the hotel room prices?

No balance here

". . . the report must give both sides of the argument or issue if both sides were spoken on. For instance, it would be `unfair' to report the testimony of one witness in which grave accusations were made against another person but did not report other evidence which refuted these accusations."
(CBC Journalistic Policy Guide, p. 88).

It is difficult to demonstrate that the CBC employees responsible for the story can live up to their claim that they provided balanced coverage. No sources outside those making the allegations were used to challenge the allegations. The most damning claims came from David Melvil and Hector Almondrotti, former employees, as well as Dr. Charles Godfrey, a former director of CARE Canada. The other accusors were not identified in the story and hid in the shadows and with altered voices. No government officials were contacted to discuss CARE's track record, or indeed any official agency that monitors charities. Nor was CARE Canada's track record compared with that of other relief agencies.

The one source that could have shed light on the allegations was dismissed out of hand and never referred to again. As Van Dusen stated: "When we contacted CARE's Executive Director, John Watson, about the Somali allegations, he sent us this report. It was prepared for the board of directors of CARE Canada by a consultant hired to investigate the allegations. The consultant says the allegations are false. But right away we spotted a contradiction. When it came to counting up exactly how much money the Canadian public donated to Somalia, CARE's own numbers didn't add up. Remember CARE officials telling reporters that Canadians had already donated $400,000 to help Somalia in the first month of the crisis alone? Well, the consultant's report claims CARE actually received less than that. Less than $400,000 in donations for Somalia, during the entire three years of the crisis."

Not only was the consultant's report discredited, but the reason for the contradiction was based on one of the least objective sources the CBC could have offered: a media report. It is ironic that this documentary, which made such damning allegations, placed more weight on a media report than a report commissioned by the agency's board. In fact, while the $400,000 is attributed to Angela MacKay in a Canadian Press report in August 1992, a Toronto Star story attributes her stating that $1 million dollars were donated. Interestingly, in neither of the reports is there a direct quote by MacKay providing these figures.

Hidden cameras

"As a general rule, hidden cameras and microphones must not be employed in the gathering of information."
(CBC Journalistic Policy, p. 35.)

"There may be occasions when the use of devices such as hidden cameras and microphones does not infringe the law and when such use could be regarded as being in the public interest. The information to be gained must serve an important purpose, must be indispensable to that purpose and must be unobtainable by more open means."
(CBC Journalistic Policy, p. 60.)

Other questionable aspects of the report were the CBC's use of hidden cameras and ambush interviews. In the segment discussing the use of one travel agent, who CBC claimed charged exorbitant fees, the video of the person in question appears to come from a hidden camera. Interestingly, later in the same week, CBC aired a documentary on the medical profession also using hidden cameras. In this instance, however, Wendy Mesley remarked at the end of the segment: "The CBC has a general policy against hidden cameras, but exceptions are made for concealed cameras when senior management considers the tape would serve the public interest." Ironically, no similar disclaimer was made with respect to the use of hidden cameras in the CARE Canada documentary.

Ambush journalism

"It must be accepted that a person has the right to refuse to participate in such a program [investigative reports].
(CBC Journalistic Policy, p. 60.)

"The interviewer must inform the interviewee before the interview about the purpose for which it will be used. The interviewee must also be given some intuition of the probable length of the interview to be included in the program."
(CBC Journalistic Policy, p. 53.)

The ambush interview is commonly seen in American public affairs and tabloid programs. It occurred in this instance when CARE Canada's executive director, John Watson, was accosted by the interviewer and camera crew in the CARE Canada parking lot. In that segment, Van Dusen questioned Watson on the dismissal of a previous employee and asked about the money going to Somalia. Not surprisingly, John Watson did not look composed or able to adequately respond to the questions.

Despite the documentary noting that the executive director refused their requests for an interview, CBC did not indicate why CARE Canada was uncooperative. In the press conference that CARE Canada called the next day, the reason became evident. CARE Canada wanted to know in advance what the allegations were and who made them. By not providing the details requested by CARE Canada, CBC ensured that the interview would show a flustered executive trying to respond to serious allegations.

This is certainly not the first time a news organization has refused to provide the source of the interview with details before the cameras rolled. But to blame the organization for not wanting to appear on camera is not an adequate response in a democratic society. In a court of law, the accused have the right not testify against themselves--even when they know the charges and who made them. Why does the media have the right to demand interviews and then imply that the person is guilty if they don't accept the terms of the interview?

Repetition of story and allegations

In the aftermath of the interview, CBC seemed to be more concerned with presenting its point of view than CARE Canada's response. On Newsworld the next day, CARE Canada provided a press conference on the documentary. However, immediately preceding it, Newsworld reran the entire documentary. The stories on the press conference focused more on CBC's version of events than on CARE Canada's. Probably the most serious question arising from this is how can CBC maintain its objectivity when it initiates a story? On May 31, 1995, CBC Prime Time Magazine ran a full edition on the controversy beginning with an interview with the documentary's producer. Not only did CBC endlessly repeat the allegations throughout the day on Newsworld, but the producer was able to withstand an easy interview by Wendy Mesley. CARE Canada officials did not appear that night due to a scheduling difficulty, nor have they appeared any night since to provide their side of the story.

Conclusion

CBC's story on CARE Canada focused on the allegations of disguised employees and former employees of the organization. Without regard for balance, the story presented only one side of the issue. CBC News did not follow its own guidelines with respect to conducting documentaries or investigative reports. In the end, both the reputation of CARE Canada and CBC have been placed in disrepute.

What is most troublesome is that third world emergency funding is an issue that Canadians should know more about. However, by singling out one organization instead of providing a debate on the nature of third world emergency funding, the story became CBC versus CARE Canada, rather than an interesting and informative discussion on relief work. Graham Hancock, in his 1989 book, Lords of Poverty notes that international aid continues to increase: "In all Western countries, irrespective of their wealth, and irrespective also of their ideological stance, `overseas development' has been elevated above political debate to become the `least questioned form of state spending.' Perhaps this lack of examination explains why foreign-aid budgets always increase." [Graham Hancock, Lords of Poverty: The power, prestige, and corruption of the international aid business (New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1989), introduction.] What viewers really need is an investigation into all the aid work funded by the Canadian taxpayer.

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.