On Balance - Vol 8, Num 7

Volume 8, Number 7 - September, 1995

MURDER STATISTICS: MURDER
DOWN FOR THIRD YEAR IN A ROW,
MURDER COVERAGE UP FOR
THIRD YEAR IN A ROW

OVER THE YEARS, ON BALANCE HAS ARGUED that television news is a powerful force in influencing the attitude and sometimes the behaviour of those who watch it. Never has an issue so clearly demonstrated this point than that of crime reporting.

On August 2, 1995 Statistics Canada released its annual study on crime in Canada. Among its major findings was the result that the "homicide rate in Canada dropped by 8 percent in 1994 (to 2.02 per 100,000 population). The 592 reported homicides represented a decrease of 38 from 1993, and the third consecutive year-to-year decrease."

Public disbelieves crime statistics

This finding has been met with derision and disbelief in many corners. For example, on BCTV and "Canada Tonight," a woman responded to the news of the reduced murder rate with: "No, no, I don't believe that murder is down." Similarly, Reform Justice critic Diane Ablonczy simply refused to acknowledge the Statistics Canada report, saying, "I would tend to say, to put more belief, more credibility, more credence in what people are telling me than what Statistics Canada might come out with in a particular report." Columnists such as The Financial Post's David Frum and the Vancouver Province's Denny Boyd echo this sentiment by arguing that the statistics can be misleading, and cite cases of people reacting to their perceptions of crime by taking greater precautions, such as purchasing alarm systems for their homes. These columnists argue that because people are more fearful, this is evidence that crime is on the rise. And indeed, the public is concerned about violent crime. According to a Gallup poll released July 17, 1995, 47 percent of Canadians believe that violent crime is on the rise.

Reports of murders increase significantly from 1993

Why is it that the public and some opinion leaders reject the finding that murder has declined for the third year in a row? One reason is that television news has become very masterful at selling murder on its nightly reports. While the murder rate has been declining, reports of murder on television news have been increasing.

As figure A shows, while the homicide rate for 1994 had dropped 8 percent from the 1993 rate, reports of murder on both networks in 1994 were a third more frequent than in 1993. Further, extrapolating from the first half of 1995, reports of murder on television news this year are likely to surpass the number reported in 1994 on the nightly national newscasts of CBC and CTV. What makes the current reporting of murder even more powerful is that when the homicide rate was higher, there were actually fewer reports about murder on national television news. What people are reacting to is not an increase in real crime, but to the distorted reality presented by the media.

The perception that violent crime is increasing illustrates both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of television news. By showing viewers clips of the actual sights and sounds of the murder scene, people experience the event much more graphically than they do when they simply read or hear about it. This heightened experience has led to perceptions, and subsequent behaviours, that have made the Canadian public more afraid than ever before. Television news has been extremely successful in amplifying, in the minds of its viewers, a reality that in fact exists for only a very few people.

Random crime dominates television news

Some naysayers argue that murder might be down, but that the rate of random murders, or murders committed by strangers, is higher than in previous years. This view is also contradicted by the Statistics Canada report. Statistics Canada found that the proportion of random murders has remained "relatively stable over the past 10 years." The reports of murders on television have also remained stable. Unlike the actual random murder rate, which has ranged from 12 to 18 percent over the past seven years, in that same time, the rate of reporting of random murders on the nightly national newscasts has ranged from 75 percent to 98 percent.

Last year, which was the third consecutive year when the number of murders declined in Canada and when the random murder rate was 13 percent, reports of random murders comprised 85 percent of CBC's and 89 percent of CTV's stories devoted to Canadian murders. One statistic makes this point even more clearly. In 1981, 30 women in Canada were killed in random assaults; in 1994, just 8 women were the victims of random murderers. The networks presented an image that nowhere in Canada is safe. For example, Bill Cameron reported on April 7, 1994 CBC "Prime Time": "Not long ago in Canada, working in a corner store, going out for a cup of coffee, just walking down a city street would be considered safe things to do. But recently, crimes in three major Canadian cities have shattered that illusion of safety, and raise doubts about whether anyone can really be safe anywhere any more."

It is not surprising, then, that the public disbelieves statistics such as those from Statistics Canada when they are continually barraged with scenes of grieving families dealing with the random death of their loved one. The images and messages provided on the news night after night are simply more compelling than abstract numbers.

Summary on Murder Statistics

Statistics Canada released a study that indicates that the homicide rate declined by 8 percent in Canada. Despite the decline in the real murder rate, television news increased coverage of murders from 1993 to 1994 by about a third.

Random murders, or murders committed by strangers, constituted only 13 percent of actual murders in 1994, but received 85 percent of the murder coverage reported on television that year.

Methodology on Murder Statistics

Using the National Media Archive's database, a text search was conducted to find the number of stories on murder. Results are based on 1,917 CBC and 1,593 CTV national news stories newscasts from January 1989 to June 30, 1995. Results on the real murder rate are based on Homicide Survey, Policing Services Program, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, August 1995.

Bomb Scares: Targets Right-Wing, Bombers not Labelled

DURING THE MIDDLE OF JULY 1995 THERE WAS a flurry of reports on a mail-bomb campaign being conducted by the "little known Anti-Fascist Militia." The organization was believed to be located in Vancouver, but their actions received national attention. Fortunately, their actions to date have not resulted in any injuries or death. However, they have caused collateral damage to one of their targets, as well as damaging the reputation of others whom the media linked with their targets.

The media coverage of the bombers was interesting in its lack of expressed outrage or condemnation of their activities. An examination of the newspaper and television coverage indicates that the bombers received quite favourable, or at worst neutral play in their bombing campaign. For example, as table 1 shows, very few aspersions were made against the bombers. Their targets, however, were not only attacked by the bombers, but by the way the media described them.

A total of 12 negative labels were used to describe the bombers in all the media we examined. In contrast, the targets of the bombing received 47 negative labels. Some of these were from the bombers themselves, such as the letter they wrote, subsequently reported by Kim Bolan and Kim Pemberton in the Vancouver Sun and the Edmonton Journal, which indicated that there were 10 targets in the U.S. and Canada that have "shown in their actions over the

. . . very few aspersions were made against the bombers. Their targets, however, were not only attacked by the bombers, but by the way the media described them.

years to be totally committed to violent racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia." Aside from that quote, all the references and descriptions of the groups came from the media themselves.

Click here to view Table 1

Did the media tacitly approve of the actions of the bombers?

The significance of this coverage, especially in light of the coverage of the Oklahoma City bombing, is manifest in the media's blase attitude towards the bombers. In debating public policy issues, it is reasonable to expect the media to present both sides. However, because terrorist attacks are by nature cowardly and violent, the media have an obligation to avoid giving the terrorists a platform by downplaying or ignoring their viewpoints. The parroting of the bomber's language and the lack of analysis and criticism the media showed in covering the bombers leaves the impression that the targets were somehow asking for it. This is made clear by the media's definition of who the possible "innocent victims" were who might have been harmed. It included couriers and postal workers. No mention was made, for example, of clerical workers at these establishments, or indeed, of their intended targets.

The coverage of these bombers illustrates one of two things: either the media over-reacted and created a backlash against the right in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, or they under-reacted against the bombers who attacked these groups in Canada. The groups mentioned in the media reports as targets were given no opportunity to defend themselves, nor were they given a forum to deny the labels placed on them by the bombers and the media.

Further, by repeating the aspersions and the inflammatory rhetoric expressed by the bombers, the media provided free and virtually uncritical coverage of the organization. Those newspapers and television reports that carried the bombers' claims simply helped further the bombers' agenda. The reports emanating from these threats and bombs clearly illustrate that using violence is an effective method to get publicity for your cause.

In debating public policy issues, it is reasonable to expect the media to present both sides. However, because terrorist attacks are by nature cowardly and violent, the media have an obligation to avoid giving the terrorists a platform by downplaying or ignoring their viewpoints.

In complete contrast to the coverage of the Oklahoma City bombers, the media did not react negatively to the Canadian bombers. In all, there were 12 negative labels in all the media we examined pertaining to the bombers. In contrast, the targets of the bombing combined received 47 negative labels.

The labelling of the targets and the references to "innocent victims" leaves the impression that the targets, rather than the bombers, were somehow responsible for the bombs.

There was no backlash against the bombers, nor were their actions explicitly denounced by the Canadian media.

Methodology on Bomb Scares

Results are based on stories reported in the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the Calgary Herald, the Regina Leader Post, the Edmonton Journal, the Globe and Mail, and CBC "Prime Time" on the bomb threats on July 20, 1995. CTV News did not report on the bombers' campaign.

The Confusion over Traditional Rights versus Social/Welfare Rights or Entitlements on TV News

Click here to view Figure B: Types of Rights Presented on Television News

CERTAIN WORDS IN THE POLITICAL AND SOCIO-economic lexicon wield great power. One of them is "rights." The word has an almost divine status in our culture. It commands respect because of its association with all the things that civil society values--freedom from slavery, female emancipation, free speech, and the right to vote. Such traditional civil and political rights, or negative rights, are immunities. They are there to protect us "from" government. These "original rights were [the] rights to live by one's personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government." Steven Yates, "Rights versus Entitlements," The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, September 1994.

But Canadians, as is evidenced by media reports, seem to be more preoccupied with social and welfare rights, or positive rights. These positive rights, unlike the former, come with a price tag. They require that the state compel others to provide for the well-being or material comfort of their fellow citizens. This well-being consists of providing such material goods and services as socialized medicine, education, government-mandated daycare, even, in some cases, employment. Politicians and special interest groups use the word "right" to effectively demand goods and services, and even preferential treatment. These are entitlements. The definition of entitlements or positive rights is constantly being redefined and expanded to meet what the political elite think voters want. As history and human nature has shown, there is no limit to what people want.

Certainly one of the most interesting questions regarding the proliferation of rights in this culture is how demands are packaged in the language of rights to achieve certain goals. Another is what role the media has played in entrenching the notion of entitlements as synonymous with human rights. To determine the interplay between rights and the media, the National Media Archive conducted a content analysis of CBC and CTV for 1994 on the usage of the word "right."

TV news confuses entitlements with rights

Only two percent of CBC references to rights explicitly mentioned entitlements. CTV did not mention entitlements in the context of rights at all during 1994. In place of accurately portraying many of the issues raised as entitlements issues, social and welfare rights were packaged under the rubric of political and civil rights. Furthermore, demands were not packaged as entitlements, they were presented as collective rights. Nearly one third of CBC and one quarter of CTV attention to rights emphasized group rights.

. . . positive rights . . . require that the state compel others to provide for the well-being or material comfort of their fellow citizens.

No doubt couching demands as rights is more effective than claiming an entitlement. However, on television news in 1994, advocates for such benefits did not lobby for true civil rights, for example, the right to vote or to enter contracts, but for minority quotas, affirmative action, and other things that benefit specific groups financially. For example, CTV anchor Lloyd Robertson reported on this phenomenon in an October 24, 1994 news report in which he stated: "And the Chretien government fulfilled another election promise today. It reinstated the court challenges program. That's the scheme that helps minority groups fight for equality rights in the courts. The former Tory government scrapped the program two years ago despite protest from women's groups, language minorities, and homosexual activists."

Human rights dominate coverage

Civil and political rights, or human rights, received 57 percent of CBC and 67 percent of CTV attention to rights. This category dominated the news because it encompassed international human rights abuses. Three quarters of CBC and over three quarters of CTV attention to human rights focused on true human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, Haiti, Mexico, and South Africa.

However, in the Canadian context, many group issues, such as "gay rights," were also labelled as "human rights" or an "equal right," by the advocates of these rights. One of the sexual orientation rights that was being promoted on television news as a human right was a call for spousal benefits. For instance, on June 2, 1994 CTV's Peter Murphy stated: "Meanwhile, another human rights issue is dividing Ontario. The provincial legislature is debating whether or not to extend spousal benefits to gay and lesbian couples." Simply because heterosexuals receive spousal benefits does not mean that these benefits are negative rights. Spousal benefits, regardless of the sexual orientation of the recipients remain an entitlement, despite the description given by Peter Murphy that it is a human right.

The difference between what "rights" mean in an international context--specifically in the developing world, where the concept of liberal democracy is still relatively alien--and what the very same word means in Canada can be thrown into sharp relief when one considers the following two statements. The first was made by Lloyd Robertson on April 27, 1994: "And in black townships like Soweto, some people had to put their grief-filled memories behind them as they voted. For them, the new South Africa began in rivers of blood and anger, the right to vote is their solemn reward. Their struggle was literally a matter of life and death." Compare that powerful passage to the question posed by Pamela Wallin October 6, 1994, which, to give her credit, does distinguish between rights and entitlements: "Okay. Let me put the question this way to you, David [Bercuson], and I guess maybe it will help us decide who should pay and how much each person should pay in the system. Is education a right or a privilege? If it's a right, maybe society should be paying for it. If it's a privilege, maybe the individual should. How do we see it?" The juxtaposition of these two statements show how "rights" can be perceived in North America compared to the developing world.

The media, in reporting on minorities, women's issues, homosexuals, and health-care, fail to distinguish between traditional civil-political rights and entitlements. As a result, the vocabulary of our political dialogue resonates with talk not only of civil and political rights, but also of rights to a decent standard of living, education, employment, race and gender representation in the workplace, health care, and the right to be free from homelessness and hunger. The fact that society is more wealthy and advanced doesn't alter the basic distinction between rights that respect basic freedoms and those that compel state intervention to produce a positive social outcome. The media's presentation of these issues--for example, its habit of equating lack of equity in the workplace in Canada with human rights violations is confusing and anti-democratic.

Summary on Rights

Only two percent of CBC references to rights explicitly mentioned entitlements. CTV did not mention entitlements in the context of rights at all during 1994.

In place of accurately portraying many issues as entitlements, social and welfare issues were packaged under the rubric of political and civil rights.

Methodology on Rights

Results are based on 306 CBC "Prime Time," 8 "Saturday Report," 25 "Sunday Report," as well as 235 CTV news stories on rights from January 1, to December 31, 1994.