Federal Election 2004 Media Watch

[maplesyrup]

McGill University's Observatory on Media and Public Policy

How are the papers covering the campaign?

Media is generally assumed to be an important factor in election campaigns. Journalists, academics, and politicians routinely cite coverage as influential in the rise and fall of leaders, the polling performance of parties, the emergence of particular issues during campaigns, even the outcomes on voting day.

Unfortunately, media influence is more often presumed than demonstrated. There has seldom been any systematic investigation of how Canadian news outlets cover campaigns.

To help fill this gap, McGill University's Observatory on Media and Public Policy will analyze the contents of seven major Canadian dailies for the duration of the 2004 federal race.

Each day, a team of coders will scrutinize the main news section of The Globe and Mail, National Post, Toronto Star, Calgary Herald, Vancouver Sun, La Press and Le Devoir. They will note all articles relating to federal politics, including reportage, analysis, opinion, and editorials. This content will be coded for mentions of issues, parties, and leaders, as well as positive or negative (or neutral) tone. The precedence of these mentions and their prominence within the paper will also be noted, along with other factors.

Good article.

[August1991]

The guy who works for minimum wage at my local dépanneur is paying taxes so the government can pay for such research. Ugh. According to Layton, the money would have saved lives of the homeless. Why does McGill have money to pay for this?

End of small rant

------

Should the CBC allocate news report time equally to the three parties when the NDP only gets 20% of the vote? How often should the Green Party be mentioned?

On Radio-Canada, how much time should be given to the Tories and the NDP?

If it's a private-for-profit news organization, then they should simply do whatever is most profitable. But what about a State organization.

I have the impression CBC gives more importance to the NDP than its electoral support implies. I think it underreports the Greens.

Radio-Canada definitely overreports the Tories and the NDP.

[maplesyrup]

My impressions of Canada's mainstream media is as follows:

Most balanced reporting:

Globe and Mail

Le Devoir

Liberal Rags:

La Presse

Toronto Star

CBC

Mcleans

Conservatives Rags:

CTV

CanWest Global which includes National Post & Global TV

Sun Media

NDP Rags:

None that I know of.

Of course there are the the exception such as right wing Rex Murphy pumping for the Conservatives on CBC.

[August1991]

Le Devoir is by far the most left wing newspaper in Canada now.

The CBC is also left wingish - you mention Rex Murphy because he is the only "normal" one reporting and I would hardly call him a Tory shill.

[maplesyrup]

Qui sont les propretaires du Le Devoir?

Is it some kind of collective?

Out here on in the Lower Mainland on Canada's left coast we have a weekly called the

"Georgia Straight":

http://www.straight.com/section.cfm?id=172

It is gratis, and has the best entertainment section in town. The reporting on news articles, (a lot of which CanWest supresses), is quite progressive with Charles Smith, and an New Dem called Bill Tieleman who writes about political events.

Recently there is also out of BC a 'net media outlet called

"The Tyee": http://www.thetyee.ca/index.htm

witch has a good cross-section of news articles that often don't get much, if any, coverage in the daily CanWst pap.

[Slavik44]

well obviously there is bias in the news, but it really hasn't rubbed me the wrong way. Next it is tough for me to anylize bias..look at MS...he basically has said that there are no news sources that are over the top NDP, but if you look at hsi non-biased ones...most of us woudl say they are over the top NDP. He lsits them as un-biased as the speak to what he says. It is easy to recognize what is biased agaisnt you but always hard to admit what is biased in your favour. You want a list, look at the T.V guide or a newspaper stand take down their names, they are biased.

[maplesyrup]

Now an interesting scenario that has been developing for some time now at the Toronto Star is Chantal Hebert's column.

Does anyone want to forcast what she will be writing about, which party will be publicized in a positive light, in her column, in tomorrow's paper ?

[August1991]

well obviously there is bias in the news, but it really hasn't rubbed me the wrong way.

I feel the same way. The CBC, for example, could broadcast Jack Layton speeches and commentary all day long and the NDP would still get around 20% of the vote. People just tune out. That's what happens in countries with controlled media.

Qui sont les propretaires du Le Devoir? Is it some kind of collective?

I believe so. Since Bernard Descôteaux took over, it took a sharp left turn. And very anti-Bush of course. It's a good newspaper though. I think Quebecor prints the paper and Peladeau lets them run a tab.

"Georgia Straight":

I remember reading that paper in Vancouver! I think it was the first city weekly in Canada. It has been copied now elsewhere. We have Voir in French and Mirror in English.

[maplesyrup]

Asper's Blindingly White Election Team

Every member of CanWest's election reporting team is white. CEO Leonard Asper was in B.C. speechifying to newspaper execs, so we asked why.

Do you think that impacts on the kind of reporting we get?

Of course it does.

[Argus]

Well, on the same day, two candidates, one a lowly nobody hardly anyone had ever heard of, the other the Prime Minister of Canada, both mused aloud about perhaps it being a good idea for women to get councililng before they get abortions. Neither comment was new for either man.

No one in the media seemed to care much what the prime Minister said. Instead they all swooped down on bumfuck saskatchewan, or wherever the Conservative guy was, and then zoomed back to accuse Harper of having a secret agenda to execute women who sought abortions. They've been howling and shouting at him at every campaign stop since, demanding to know more information about his secret agenda on abortion. To my knowledge not one reporter has asked Paul Martin to clarify his own comments.

I'd kind of call that biased reporting.

[maplesyrup]

Forget the Toronto Star, and the CBC - they don't what else to do but shovel 99% Liberal pablum all day long. Chantal Hebert, and a few other columnists, are pleasant exceptions.

I am finding the Globe and Mail coverage the least biased of the major media. Of course, certain columnists, like Jeffery Simpson, have their own personal political axe to grind, but overall the Globe is OK.

If you haven't, try reading outside the box a bit - you might be pleasantly surprised.

Imagine how difficult it must be for the Ottawa press gallery to consider a PM coming from outside the current corridors of power (Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor) in Canada.

[August1991]

Many journalists have been caught by this fall in Liberal and rise in Tory support. Journalists are supposed to be smart analysts and be able to make smart predictions.

They are irritated that people seem to be choosing differently.

In Quebec, Harper is a frightening unknown. Before he was just some name, now he might be PM. Journalists here are struggling to find out who is this guy exactly.

Harper seems capable to go over the heads of journalists and get his message to ordinary people.

[maplesyrup]

Gotta love Duceppe. The Bloc is probably the one thing preventing either right wing party, the Liberals or Conservatives from forming a majority government. Canadians could grow to like these guys a lot!

[maplesyrup]

The Usual Standard

Good to see my old friend Ezra Levant continues to studiously ignore the facts. Here he is arguing that press coverage is as biased against Stephen Harper is it was against Stock Day in 2000.

Two things about that. First, Stock's a doofus, and the only shame reporters have to bear is that it took an extraordinarily long time for some of us to figure that out.

Second, here's a content analysis by the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada which demonstrates that the overwhelming victim of negative coverage to date has been Paul Martin. It also demonstrates that the overwhelming beneficiary of tolerant coverage so far has been Stephen Harper.

But of course, McGill University is a notorious den of communists. Just consider who organized the content analysis in question: Ken Whyte, founding editor of the National Post.

Kind of sad to see Ken go soft in his old age. Fortunately we can turn to the Stockaholic for the real news.

[Argus]

Good to see my old friend Ezra Levant continues to studiously ignore the facts. Here he is arguing that press coverage is as biased against Stephen Harper is it was against Stock Day in 2000.

Nifty. But he never actually addresses anything that Levant said. If Levant's portrayal of what inspired the big Globe headlines is true then the Globe has about as much journalistic integrity as the National Enquirer.

[maplesyrup]

The Usual Standard

Second, here's a content analysis by the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada which demonstrates that the overwhelming victim of negative coverage to date has been Paul Martin. It also demonstrates that the overwhelming beneficiary of tolerant coverage so far has been Stephen Harper.

.

Argus....you must have missed this.

[Argus]

Second, here's a content analysis by the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada which demonstrates that the overwhelming victim of negative coverage to date has been Paul Martin. It also demonstrates that the overwhelming beneficiary of tolerant coverage so far has been Stephen Harper.

Argus....you must have missed this.

I am speaking to the point, which he is not, the point being the accusation Levant made that the Globe basically made up its story about abortion. That is what I am interested in hearing about.

[August1991]

Here's the Ezra Levant aricle that provoked, I surmise, Wells' comment. I think he has a point (Levant, not Wells - and to be honest, I know Levant not at all, Wells barely.)

I think Argus in a post on 5 June in this thread argued presciently much the same as Levant did in his article. One reason I like this forum is that I get better analysis (and sooner) than the professional columnists.