MURDER DOWN FOR FOURTH                         YEAR IN A ROW-CTV COVERAGE UP

FOR THE FOURTH YEAR IN A ROW, STATISTICS Canada reported a decrease in Canada's murder rate. But during the same period, national television news reports have increased their attention to murder stories. In particular, over the past four years CTV has steadily increased its coverage of murder stories. While CBC also increased its attention to murder stories in three of the past four years, in 1995 its coverage decreased moderately (see figure A).

Click here to view Figure A: Stories on Murder from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1995

O.J. Simpson and Paul Bernardo trials dominate coverage

Part of the volume of murder stories in 1995 resulted from two highly publicized murder trials, one in Canada and one south of the border. The Paul Bernardo and O.J. Simpson trials comprised 18 percent each of CBC's murder stories. On CTV, the O.J. Simpson trial was reported more frequently than the Bernardo trial. As figure B shows, 24 percent of CTV's murder stories were about O.J. Simpson, while 21 percent were about the Paul Bernardo double-murder trial.

Click here to view Figure B: Murders Reported on Television in 1995

These trials consistently dominated television news reports throughout 1995. Canadian national television news reported some aspect of the O.J. Simpson trial every month except November. Similarly, the Bernardo trial was reported by CBC every month except May, while CTV had at least one story per month on the Bernardo/Homolka trial.

At the height of the Bernardo double-murder trial, reporters' coverage degenerated to something akin to that of sportscasters, with the star players and the strategies of the opposing teams described. For example, on July 3, 1995, CBC's Brian Stewart introduced the "Prime Time Magazine" with: "The trial of Paul Bernardo has been described as Canada's murder trial of the century. Tomorrow marks the beginning of a critical new stage. The cross-examination of the prosecution's star witness, Karla Homolka, who over two weeks consistently blamed Paul Bernardo for the killings. But now, as the defence prepares to challenge Karla's story, people are wondering what dramatic new direction the trial might take. To discuss some of the possible defence strategies, we're joined by . . . "

Despite the emphasis on the two high-profile murder trials in 1995, television consistently focused on another aspect of murder-random murders.


Television overstates random murder

According to Statistics Canada, just 16 percent of the murders in 1995 were committed by someone unknown to the victim. However, television news was most likely to focus on random murders. Of the murders that originated in Canada, 54 percent of CBC and 66 percent of CTV coverage focused on random murders. Only 18 percent of CBC and 11 percent of CTV news stories on Canadian murders focused on those committed by someone known to the victim. The distortion of television news is more evident when one considers that 83 percent of the murders in Canada are committed by a spouse or acquaintance of the victim.

These types of murders did not hold the attention of television news to any great extent. The stories that were told on television tended to be the most gruesome and senseless of the murders. For example, on April 5, 1995, CBC's Kevin Tibbles reported: "Over the weekend a 75-year-old retired Anglican priest and his 70-year-old wife were killed in the bedroom of their Beaconsfield home. The Reverend Frank Toope and his wife, Jocelyn, were apparently surprised by intruders who beat them to death with a baseball bat-all that to steal $100 in cash and jewellery."

With television reports consistently and graphically describing the most loathsome of violent acts, it does not come as a surprise when Gallup Canada reported that only 4 percent of Canadians believe violent crime to be decreasing. [R. Gary Edwards and Jon Hughes, "43% Believe Violent Crime is on the Rise," The Gallup Poll, June 13, 1996.] Television is a persuasive medium-and it has been indirectly telling Canadians that murder is becoming a greater problem when in fact the murder rate has been decreasing.


Journalists Mollycoddle the NDP During the B.C. Election

THE PREVIOUS EDITION OF ON BALANCE (vol. 9, no. 7) examined local CBC, BCTV, and U.TV coverage of the recent B.C. election campaign and found that all three stations' reports contained more statements criticizing the opposition Liberals than the incumbent NDP. One explanation of the unusually critical coverage of the opposition party was that the NDP's Glen Clark assailed the Liberals more often and more forcefully that Liberal leader Gordon Campbell attacked the NDP.

However, as the following analysis shows, local journalists were far from balanced in their reports. On both BCTV and U.TV, reporters were more critical of the Liberals than the NDP (see figure C).

Click here to view Figure C: All TV Reporters on the Liberals; All TV Reports on the NDP

Similar to the 1991 B.C. election when the National Media Archive criticized local T.V. journalists for their flagrant favouritism of the New Democrats at the expense of the incumbent Social Credit Party (On Balance, vol. 4, no. 7), in 1996 the NDP again received preferential treatment. Journalists defended their coverage of the '91 campaign, claiming that it is a standard journalistic practise to be more critical of the incumbent party. However, although the NDP was the incumbent party in the 1996, they received fewer criticisms than did the Liberals.

Reporters' commentaries on the Liberals were four times more negative than positive on BCTV, and five times more negative than positive on U.TV. CBC journalists were the least critical of the Liberals, offering them twice as many criticisms as accolades.

Reporters were also critical of the NDP platform and prospects, but to a lesser extent than they were of the Liberals. BCTV reporters' statements about the NDP were twice as critical as complimentary, while U.TV reporters' commentaries were three times as negative as positive. CBC reporters were the most critical of the New Democrats, providing three times as many negative as positive assessments. In contrast to the journalists at BCTV and U.TV, CBC reporters focused the balance of their criticisms on the NDP.


Keith Baldrey: reporter or pundit?

One reporter, BCTV's Keith Baldrey, dominated the television coverage. Over the 29-day campaign, Baldrey made 410 statements, more than double the number of statements of any other reporter with the exception of U.TV's Russ Froese (259 statements).

Not only did Baldrey surpass his colleagues in the number of statements, but he was also one of the most outspoken journalists (see figure D). Fully one-third of his commentary provided an opinion on party policies and campaign strategies. While BCTV reporters as a group were critical of both the Liberals and the NDP, Baldrey singled out the Liberals for his criticism. For example, he provided 45 critical assessments of the Liberal campaign compared to just 8 negative assessments of the NDP campaign. Overall, Baldrey was slightly more positive than negative towards the New Democrats, but five times more critical than complimentary of the Liberals.

Click here to view Figure D: Top Ten Reporters Talking About the Liberals; Top Ten Reporters Talking About the NDP

Balance in T.V. Reports Goes Up in Smoke

IN 1993 THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Agency (EPA) produced a study which found that 3,000 Americans died each year as the direct consequence of second hand smoke. Since that time, governments throughout Canada and the United States have banned smoking from shopping malls to public parks on the grounds that smoking poses a public health risk. Most recently, Toronto announced a ban on smoking in all bars and restaurants.

Similar to most scientific studies that examine controversial issues, the validity of the EPA study has been questioned on numerous grounds. The Globe and Mail's interpretation of the scientific literature, outlined in an editorial the day after Toronto announced its ban, was "Smoking is an absurd and foolish activity, highly hazardous to those who practice it regularly; possibly dangerous (though the science on this is fuzzy and dubious) but certainly annoying to those close to the practitioner, inhaling it second hand." ["Toronto, up in smoke," Globe and Mail, July 4, 1996, p. A18.]

No doubt second hand smoke poses certain risks to non-smokers, but is that risk so great as to warrant a total ban on smoking in all public places? While science is the best forum for determining the level of risk, it is almost irrelevant in the contest for public opinion-what really counts is how the science is reported by the media. How has television news, arguably the most influential media, reported the evidence on the risks associated with second hand smoke?


Smoking debate heats up

The National Media Archive examined the past 8 years of CBC and CTV national news reports that discussed the risks associated with second hand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke or ETS. Unlike the Globe and Mail's stance, the television reports unambiguously presented the view that second hand smoke is dangerous and often deadly (see figure E). Ninety percent of CBC and 86 percent of CTV coverage discussed the health risks associated with second hand smoke as well-established, scientifically valid findings. Only 10 percent of CBC and 14 percent of CTV coverage questioned the severity of the risks posed by second hand smoke or the validity of the science.

Click here to view Figure E: Health Risks of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) as Reprted by CTV, 1990-1996

For example, on June 7, 1994, CTV's Jim O'Connell reported that the American Medical Association had found that non-smoking women who lived with a smoking spouse had a 30 percent greater chance of developing lung cancer than women whose spouses did not smoke. What O'Connell did not report was that when the duration of exposure to second hand smoke was less than two decades, the effect, according to the lead author of the study, Elizabeth Fontham, was "very small." [AP, Winnipeg Free Press, June 8, 1994, p. A6.]

Similarly, CBC reporters rarely questioned the severity of the risks or the government's claim that smoking must be banned in order to protect public health. On January 6, 1993, CBC's Pamela Wallin stated: "Tonight second hand smoke has been convicted. The crime is killing people. That is the conclusion of a sweeping report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency."

The EPA report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, has subsequently been attacked on various fronts for its lack of scientific rigour. Yale University epidemiologist Alvan Feinstein wrote in Toxicological Pathology that a colleague had commented that the EPA study was ". . . rotten science, but it's a worthy cause. It will help us to get rid of cigarettes and to become a smoke-free society." John C. Luik, "Pandora's Box: the Dangers of Politically Corrupted Science for Democratic Public Policy," Bostonia, Winter 1993-94, p. 57.> Similarly, in the book Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research, Steven Milloy cites the EPA study as an example of some of the very worst science being practised today.[Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research, The Cato Institute, p. 30.]

While The Globe and Mail has acknowledged that science has failed to prove the risks of second hand smoke, CBC and CTV have consistently reported that second hand smoke kills.

The only CBC reporter to question whether or not second hand smoke posed a risk was Anne Petrie. The government had announced a smoking ban in all federal prisons. On the July 27, 1995 CBC "Prime Time News" Petrie asked whether the ban was due to health concerns or whether it was intended as a further punishment for prisoners. She asked: "Do you buy the corrections policy [that] it's a health issue?" It would seem that the media's concern with political correctness placed the protection of prisoners' rights ahead of the campaign for a smoke-free Canada.


Recent ban causes T.V. reporters to consider smokers' rights

Since Toronto's announcement of a smoking ban in all bars and restaurants, television journalists have begun to question whether the regulations are "going too far." On the July 3, 1996 CBC's "National Magazine," host Brian Stewart commented, "There is a concern not only among smokers, but some non-smokers as well, that maybe municipalities are simply going too far in this general trend. I mean, no political party or movement came to power in the local municipal elections on a platform of banning cigarette smoking in bars . . ."

Toronto Councillor Peter Tabuns replied, "I think that we have a responsibility to look after public health in this city. If there was an outbreak of any other disease, like we're seeing with cancer death, with lung cancer death, people would be saying, "Where are the public authorities?" We're responding to a public health situation, and, I think, quite rightly responding to that."

At no time during the interview did Stewart question Councillor Tabuns assertions regarding the severity of the risks.


Conclusion

National television news has, through its selective reporting on the evidence about the dangers of second hand smoke, been a proponent of government and non-smokers' rights groups. Journalists have sought out the scientists and doctors who are willing to publicly state that second hand smoke is an extreme hazard from which the public must be protected. Reporters have ignored doctors with the more moderate but prevalent view that second hand smoke is a minor risk unless one is exposed to it for a significant duration. Studies have been reported without qualifications, thereby exaggerating and often distorting the true findings. Even scientists involved in the studies that examinine the risks associated with second hand smoke state publicly that the risks from it are "very small" unless one is exposed to it on a daily basis for 10 or 20 years. Television news has simply said that second hand smoke is a killer.

By presenting a unified front on the dangers of second hand smoke, television news has become the proponent of a politically correct cause instead of a non-partisan observer. Rather than presenting the public with all the relevant facts and letting them decide for themselves whether the risks posed warrant the ban, television has distorted the facts in overt support of the non-smoking campaign.

The television reports give credence to the government's line that the issue is the protection of the non-smoker. What is forgotten is that adults must constantly decide what risks are acceptable, both for themselves and for their children. No Canadian citizen is being coerced to frequent or work in a particular restaurant or pub.

Government has the ability to dictate public conduct, but the unanswered question is whether they have received the mandate to do so. The standard response given by officials-the need to protect public health-is weak because the science is suspect. However, television has legitimized this response and thereby assisted government in further limiting the activities of Canadians. At the same time, television reports have failed to provide the public with the information needed to rationally appraise the benefits and limits of the new laws.

Methodology on the "Balance in TV Reports Goes Up in Smoke"

Results are based on the following CBC programs: 5 "National," 3 "National Magazine," 3 "Journal," 7 "Prime Time News" and 1 ""Sunday Report" as well as 14 CTV "Evening News" from January 1, 1988 to July 15, 1996.

All stories appearing during that time were analyzed, representing a total population rather than a random sample of stories.

Further information or details on the coding design and methodology may be obtained by contacting the National Media Archive.

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.