Media Bias

[mar]

I'd like to try to do this as fairly as possible. My premise is our media has a tendency to become a player in elections, rather than an observer. I agree with Conservative posters that at various times in the past they have chosen to focus on peripheral aspects of the Reform/Alliance/Conervative party and were quite happy to play the role of opinion shaper against the party. I also agree with Liberal posters that in this election they have decided to let the Conservative party and Mr. Harper slide by with virtually no criticism or even analysis.

My opinion is this is not really a sinister political plot. I think we all know that there are individuals within the media who have (unadmitted) party biases that are pretty clear from their comments. That's probably inevitable, if regrettable. I think there is also a tendency for the media to want to prove themselves correct. They have been saying for a long time the sponsorship issue would sink the Liberals so they went into this election with the pre-conceived idea that scandal would keep the Liberal message from getting out and have made this come true by not covering Liberal policy in favour of scandal (whether real or manufactured). Its even possible that ratings hungry execs at the networks - especially as regards the 24 hour news channels - have decided that if, as their experts predicted - the Conservative party will win the election they will get more viewers by giving Conservative viewers/voters what they want.

However, while not sinister in the sense of the media doing a particular party's bidding for financial or other gain, its hard to see it as reporting. The line between reporting and opinion has virtually been erased in the media. CTV newsnet is especially bad for this; people who are really nothing but news readers feel entirely free (and I presume are encouraged by CTV program execs) to mix their own comments with headlines. An example of this was the "income trust" announcement by CTV newsnet where Dan Matheson and his cohort (I forget her name) happily speculated that the RCMP would not make the announcement if there was not evidence of wrongdoing. This was totally unsupported by the RCMP's statement, did not stem - by the news readers' own words - from any inside information so was pure speculation masquerading as news. I am sure Conservative posters can offer examples of similar editorial chit chat that works agaunst their party.

Are we comfortable with a process where the media become an active participant in elections? Do we really want them using their power to manipulate public opinion in favour of one party or another for reasons we can only guess at?

[kimmy]

I'd like to try to do this as fairly as possible. My premise is our media has a tendency to become a player in elections, rather than an observer. I agree with Conservative posters that at various times in the past they have chosen to focus on peripheral aspects of the Reform/Alliance/Conervative party and were quite happy to play the role of opinion shaper against the party. I also agree with Liberal posters that in this election they have decided to let the Conservative party and Mr. Harper slide by with virtually no criticism or even analysis.

My opinion is this is not really a sinister political plot. I think we all know that there are individuals within the media who have (unadmitted) party biases that are pretty clear from their comments. That's probably inevitable, if regrettable.

I agree somewhat, and I expressed my own opinion on why this might be so in this message. To summarize, I believe that the media is hungry for news, and pursues what they sense is vulnerable prey. In this election that has been the Liberals, previously it has been the Conservatives.

The Liberals have produced badly-phrased press releases, poorly-thought out policy announcements (dropping the NWS Clause bomb during the debate grabbed headlines, but not in the way Martin might have hoped...), the Income Trust investigation, the disastrous ad that got pulled. And now the inept campaign itself is newsworthy, as juicy gossip and speculation about backroom warfare and a not-so secret race to succeed Martin begins to make news too.

By contrast, the Conservatives have done very little to pique the same sort of interest, with the goofy looking guy being charged with smuggling booze and a car being the only real misstep. Other than that, we've seen ads that were either predictable (Gomery, etc) or boring (Harper answering softball questions from a fake host on a fake talk show, etc) and a rather by the book approach to releasing policy announcements. A potential newsmaker-- same sex marriage-- was dealt with early on in what at the time seemed like a blunder, but has in fact worked out well for the Conservatives by getting it out of the way early and eliminating its news value now.

So, if you're a news editor, you cover all the stories, of course. But which one are you going to lead off with? Which one have you got a sense is going to keep the viewers on you station, and which one is going to have them reaching for their remotes? When your commentators and analysts come on, which is the topic that they just can't wait to talk about? If you're a columnist, what topic are you more likely to devote your precious 11"x2" of space to?

I think there is also a tendency for the media to want to prove themselves correct. They have been saying for a long time the sponsorship issue would sink the Liberals so they went into this election with the pre-conceived idea that scandal would keep the Liberal message from getting out and have made this come true by not covering Liberal policy in favour of scandal (whether real or manufactured). Its even possible that ratings hungry execs at the networks - especially as regards the 24 hour news channels - have decided that if, as their experts predicted - the Conservative party will win the election they will get more viewers by giving Conservative viewers/voters what they want.

I dispute 2 of your premises, highlighted above.

First off, I don't think the media has ever said that sponsorship would sink the Liberals. They've predicted at times that testimony coming out of the Inquiry would badly hurt the Liberals at the polls, and it did but only briefly. The media for the most part has been critical of Harper's failure to turn sponsorship and the Gomery inquiry into anything more than short-lived gains in the polls. As summer arrived and the Liberals regained their comfortable lead in the polls, the conventional wisdom was *not* that sponsorship would sink the Liberals, it was that Canadians would not reject the Liberals if Harper was the only alternative. As summer became fall, the media view was *not* that sponsorship would sink the Liberals, it was that sponsorship was becoming a dead issue to most voters, and that Harper had missed his opportunity. As fall became winter, the prevailing mood in the media was that an opposition move to force a winter election would backfire as voters would punish the opposition for an early election.

So overall I think it is somewhat silly to claim the media wants to see Harper win to prove themselves right. If anything, a Harper win would prove much of the media wrong in their belief that Canadians would never accept Harper as PM. I think it's revisionism to say that the media has been predicting sponsorship would sink the Liberals. I think prevailing wisdom in the media was that sponsorship was a golden opportunity that Harper wasted by mishandling it.

And secondly, to the belief that news editors have predicted a Conservative win and are tailoring their coverage to fit a perceived appetite for positive coverage of the Conservatives and negative coverage of the Liberals, I disagree on two fronts. I don't think anybody body in the media was confident of a Conservative win prior to the election. Polls prior to the election showed a Liberal win was likely, and it is only in the past week or so have all the pollsters come to agree that the Conservatives are solidly in front. And, I don't think news editors believe that the public has an appetite for positive coverage of one party or negative coverage of the other. I think that news editors believe that the public has an appetite for scandal, for flashy headlines, for cutting soundbites... basically, for the sort of stuff that the Liberals have provided plenty of during this campaign.

-k

[mar]

I dispute 2 of your premises, highlighted above.

First off, I don't think the media has ever said that sponsorship would sink the Liberals. They've predicted at times that testimony coming out of the Inquiry would badly hurt the Liberals at the polls, and it did but only briefly. The media for the most part has been critical of Harper's failure to turn sponsorship and the Gomery inquiry into anything more than short-lived gains in the polls. As summer arrived and the Liberals regained their comfortable lead in the polls, the conventional wisdom was *not* that sponsorship would sink the Liberals, it was that Canadians would not reject the Liberals if Harper was the only alternative. As summer became fall, the media view was *not* that sponsorship would sink the Liberals, it was that sponsorship was becoming a dead issue to most voters, and that Harper had missed his opportunity. As fall became winter, the prevailing mood in the media was that an opposition move to force a winter election would backfire as voters would punish the opposition for an early election.

So overall I think it is somewhat silly to claim the media wants to see Harper win to prove themselves right. If anything, a Harper win would prove much of the media wrong in their belief that Canadians would never accept Harper as PM. I think it's revisionism to say that the media has been predicting sponsorship would sink the Liberals. I think prevailing wisdom in the media was that sponsorship was a golden opportunity that Harper wasted by mishandling it.

And secondly, to the belief that news editors have predicted a Conservative win and are tailoring their coverage to fit a perceived appetite for positive coverage of the Conservatives and negative coverage of the Liberals, I disagree on two fronts. I don't think anybody body in the media was confident of a Conservative win prior to the election. Polls prior to the election showed a Liberal win was likely, and it is only in the past week or so have all the pollsters come to agree that the Conservatives are solidly in front. And, I don't think news editors believe that the public has an appetite for positive coverage of one party or negative coverage of the other. I think that news editors believe that the public has an appetite for scandal, for flashy headlines, for cutting soundbites... basically, for the sort of stuff that the Liberals have provided plenty of during this campaign.

-k

You make some very good points. In response to the above, I would say that the media's ability to do 180 degree turns is legendary so that if you brought up their opinion in summer to their opinion now they'd accuse you of bringing up ancient history.

I also agree that the martin campaign has been one of the most inept I can recall, but I do remember distinctly news readers expressing surprise tht the Liberals were ahead from the moment they started presenting pre-election polls so I am not so sure they were as sure of a Liberal victory as you suggest.

You may be right: that we have simply caught up (or regressed) with britain, the U.S. and other countries and now and forever more will get tabloid journalism where the biggest story is always who did what to whom behind closed doors.

[August1991]

It seems to me that there is an assumption here that there's this guy, Joe Media, who lives in a studio in Toronto and he is carefully deciding what next move to make.

In fact, the media is composed of thousands if not tens of thousands of individuals, each expressing their own particular view of the situation. (Heck, think of this forum.)

I have always been surprised by the Anglo-Saxon tendancy to make such a big distinction between the editorial page and the news page of a newspaper (and then not to sign the editorials either). Elsewhere in the world, all pages of a newspaper are recognized for being subjective. When it comes to human affairs, the truth is a moving object. It is pretentious to believe one can be "objective".

Probably the only way to arrive at the truth is to let many people describe what they see and then hope some conclusion can be drawn.

But I think it's actually the media that are the school of pirhanas, and the Liberals are thrashing around in the water, and the Conservatives are cautiously on the shore relieved that it's not them feeding the pirhanas this time. The media? They're hungry and they just want to kill something.

In previous elections, reporters sensed that it was the Conservatives (or their predecessors) that were going to yield a big story. Ask the right question, press the right button, and you might get a scoop. This time around, reporters sense that from the Liberals.

Kimmy, I have copied this from the other thread to which you linked.

Are journalists like piranhas in a feeding frenzy? Maybe, but you would have us believe that the piranhas are attacking a skinny kitten when an obese St Bernard is floating in the water nearby. I suspect piranhas, when hungry, attack whatever is edible and there would likely be more around a big animal than a small one.

It's tempting for Liberal supporters to blame Joe Media who, from his computer paneled Toronto studio, has decided that this time, the Liberals are going down. The reality is more, uh, prosaic. The Liberals are a big chunk of meat floating in the Amazon. The Liberal Party's open civil war and its current "death spiral" make for good newspaper stories.

The intriguing question in my mind, is why the Liberal vulnerability now and not in 2004. I think Harper's ability to learn and the Tory convention made all the difference.

----

My premise is our media has a tendency to become a player in elections, rather than an observer.

I would hope journalists are players in this election. And I would hope you are a player too. Whether you drop into a pub and discuss the news, or you do the same here, I would hope you take part. (I also recommend being a scrutineer.)

I don't think anybody body in the media was confident of a Conservative win prior to the election.

Ages ago, someone started a thread asking "what is democracy". I think I answered by saying that the ultimate test of democracy is that there's a way to throw the buggers out.

Anyone who has lived in a dictatorship knows that there is a certainty to life. The idea of an unpredictable future seems bizarre, strange. Thinking back, in 2000 and in 2004, no one knew who would be president of the US. I'm sure Americans had confidence their republic would survive whoever won.

[I miss Reagan]

In fact, the media is composed of thousands if not tens of thousands of individuals, each expressing their own particular view of the situation. (Heck, think of this forum.)

I disagree August. I think quite often one news organization, manager, or reporter will lead off on something and the rest of them jump on the band wagon so as to not miss out on a potential story. I also believe the media has a tendency to spin the the leftist view into a more positive light. That being said for whatever reason, the media, (aside from the CBC) seems to be completely favouring the Conservatives. I feel like the the huge turn around point in this campaign was caused by the media. Although I agree with Kimmy's points, to some extent I think the media is handing this win to Harper. One might think I'd be happy about that being a big Harper fan but I'm not at all comfortable with the media deciding who runs the country. I think we should put more restrictions on the press around election time and perhaps limit the publicity of polls.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I have only this to say:

I believe media tend to lean in one direction or another. Canada's key problem is that most of the media we hear about NATIONALLY comes out of Toronto.

As a result, many national stories about Health Care or social programs tend to begin with the assumption that our social programs are all good and to be cherished and protected. This is the prevailing attitude in Toronto and accepted as a truism.

This is why the Libs have such a stronghold in Toronto and therefore Canada. The Liberals identify themselves with Canada's social programs more so than any other party (Trudeau anyone?).

[BubberMiley]

Then why does Harper flip-flop like a fish and say he'll not get rid of *any* social programs?

[I miss Reagan]

I have only this to say:

I believe media tend to lean in one direction or another. Canada's key problem is that most of the media we hear about NATIONALLY comes out of Toronto.

As a result, many national stories about Health Care or social programs tend to begin with the assumption that our social programs are all good and to be cherished and protected. This is the prevailing attitude in Toronto and accepted as a truism.

This is why the Libs have such a stronghold in Toronto and therefore Canada. The Liberals identify themselves with Canada's social programs more so than any other party (Trudeau anyone?).

Good point and very well put Jerry.

[mowich]

Interesting comment by a caller on CPAC's Prime Time Politics tonight. The question concerned media coverage during the campaign. The caller stated that she felt there was a definite media bias towards the CPC as they 'let' Mr. Harper talk about policy, whereas they 'always' went after Mr. Martin about the scandals, etc. Peter Van Duesen came back with the reply that unlike Dithers Mr. Harper always stated he would take questions first, about policy then questions about other issues. Peter went onto to say he was surprised that Martin hadn't picked up on this and decided to do likewise. Maybe just another example of the implosion of the libs, don't stay on message, just open mouth and respond.

[Canuck E Stan]

What has happened in this election is we have a "new" media.

The bloggers.

They have filled the void of reporters who have virtually given up on "investigative" reporting and have taken the easy route to their stories.

Whether this is from budget cuts or laziness I don't know,but they seem to have lost their interest in going the one step further in a story.

They have basically just fed of each other for information.

Any story of relevance is usually found by columnists that do go a little further in the presentation.

I'm amazed at the information that the bloggers have come up with in their own investigations.

These bloggers have now become a source even for the media.

They have also become the watchdog of the media disputing or correcting misinformation.

[mar]

Gee, "I miss Reagan",

Hard to believe someone who writts such a reasonable and objective post as you would use a tagline from Karl Rove, a man so slimey he leaves a foetid, oily, reeking trail when he moves.

August:

"I would hope journalists are players in this election. And I would hope you are a player too. Whether you drop into a pub and discuss the news, or you do the same here, I would hope you take part. (I also recommend being a scrutineer.)"

Perhaps its semantics. I do not see the mainstream media as having any role as "players" in the sense of manipulating public opinion to achieve a desired result. So far, we don't have the proliferation of single party allignedl media outlets like Faux News in the U.S. so both CBC and CTV at least claim objectivity. If they are going to simply be mounthpieces for one party or another, then we should simply get rid of them and let each political party operate its own 24 hour spin channel.

[Harare]

I wonder how many Professors at Ryerson College are conservatives ?

[kimmy]

It seems to me that there is an assumption here that there's this guy, Joe Media, who lives in a studio in Toronto and he is carefully deciding what next move to make.

In fact, the media is composed of thousands if not tens of thousands of individuals, each expressing their own particular view of the situation. (Heck, think of this forum.)

My view of the media has been evolving over the time I've spent on this forum, in some measure due to ideas and comments from thoughtful people like yourself and Sparhawk.

And my current view-- the pirhanas-- is, I think, representative of the cumulative actions of a large number of individuals all motivated by self-interest and advancement in their chosen field, which comes through competition with each other but with similar objectives that can make it seem almost like there's a single guy named Joe Media carefully planning his next move.

But I think it's actually the media that are the school of pirhanas, and the Liberals are thrashing around in the water, and the Conservatives are cautiously on the shore relieved that it's not them feeding the pirhanas this time. The media? They're hungry and they just want to kill something.

In previous elections, reporters sensed that it was the Conservatives (or their predecessors) that were going to yield a big story. Ask the right question, press the right button, and you might get a scoop. This time around, reporters sense that from the Liberals.

Kimmy, I have copied this from the other thread to which you linked.

Are journalists like piranhas in a feeding frenzy? Maybe, but you would have us believe that the piranhas are attacking a skinny kitten when an obese St Bernard is floating in the water nearby. I suspect piranhas, when hungry, attack whatever is edible and there would likely be more around a big animal than a small one.

I would not you believe that at all. The Liberals have clearly made themselves the more tempting target, as I think I have expressed in my messages. For columnists, the Liberals have provided more attention grabbing antics; for news editors, the Liberals have provided the more interesting material, stuff that leads off shows and attracts viewers to their programs. For analysts and bloggers and so on, the Liberals have provided endless fodder for discussion.

Back in the Amazon, the Conservatives have stayed safely on shore, while the Liberals have fallen in... thrashing wildly... with bleeding wounds... and a sign that says "Buffet!" around their necks.

The intriguing question in my mind, is why the Liberal vulnerability now and not in 2004. I think Harper's ability to learn and the Tory convention made all the difference.

What has happened in this election is we have a "new" media.

The bloggers.

An excellent point. I think that in the aftermath of this election, there'll probably be a lot of scholarly speculation as to what role blogs have played. Both the "professional" types-- Wells, Coyne, so on-- and the hobbiests-- Angry GWN, smalldeadanimals, etc... (I am unsure as to which heading to file Kinsella under; he could be argued to be both or either...) have played a role in this, but to what extent, I am unsure.

-k

[Guest eureka]

I am doubtful that blogs play much of a role. I don't know of anyone who looks at them except for some of the political junkies here. Many people don't even know what a blog is.

I know I never look at them. Don't have the time and I can get a much better feeling for what the interested think from things like these forums. A lot of opinionated opinions in one place rather than scattered.

Journalists and reporters are no different than participants here. They are simply doing a job of writing as they see things. Some do not have the independence to fully say what they do think.

During this campaign, though, there has been a definite swing from a somewhat centrist balance - slightly to the Right - to a Rightist preponderance. That simply reflects the mood of people as journalists are just as susceptible as the rest of us.

Media does affect things very strongly but it feeds from the same table and it goes both ways.

[Canuck E Stan]

Eureka

I am doubtful that blogs play much of a role. I don't know of anyone who looks at them except for some of the political junkies here. Many people don't even know what a blog is.

Kimmy

I think that in the aftermath of this election, there'll probably be a lot of scholarly speculation as to what role blogs have played. Both the "professional" types-- Wells, Coyne, so on-- and the hobbiests-- Angry GWN, smalldeadanimals, etc... (I am unsure as to which heading to file Kinsella under; he could be argued to be both or either...) have played a role in this, but to what extent, I am unsure.

I think your right Kimmy,there will be much written on the blogs that have affected the election.

The soldiers in the street ad that was pulled but made its rounds in the blogs for all to see before MSM did.

Jounalist are now quoting Bloggers and using them for source information.

Look what Dan Rather went through with his expose a few years back and the bloggers burned his story. Bloggers have played an important part of this election and have become a source of checking the MSM stories that are presented in limited space or limited time.

Blogs don't have editors cutting parts of the whole story, and don't worry about what their audience thinks.

In Klander's case, should have.

Bloggers will be important for the next government to watch because blogs will be our eyes and ears on how they perform.

[Riverwind]

I also believe the media has a tendency to spin the the leftist view into a more positive light. That being said for whatever reason, the media, (aside from the CBC) seems to be completely favouring the Conservatives.

The media is a business (even the CBC) that must attract viewers/listeners/readers or die. Any apparent bias in coverage is there solely because the editors believe that is what their audience wants to hear. In other words, the bias helps sell product to their market. If you think a lot of media does not reflect your views then that probably means that your views are not shared by the market segment targeted by most media.

This point was really illustrated to me this week on CBC radio which ran a quite balanced piece on Harper's personal background which included an interview with his fan/biographer William Johnson. The talk-back calls they played the next day castigated the CBC for broadcasting what they called conservative propaganda. I had a lot of sympathy for the CBC programmers that are trying to put out a balanced message but are faced with a large segment in their audience that absolutely despises the conservatives.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear mar,

I think we all know that there are individuals within the media who have (unadmitted) party biases that are pretty clear from their comments.

There are some newspapers, and columnists, that have an overt and unabashed message that is unmistakable. The Calgary Sun, for example, is staunchly pro-conservative, and pro-harper. Anti-liberal editorials are run almost daily.

Admittedly, Der Calgary Sun has been called 'fish-wrapper', even here on this forum, but it is a widely read paper, especially among the 'working stiffs'. Also, it is easier to read on the bus or c-train.

The point is, the Sun (and also the Herald, which had seen 'righty' Peter Stockland move from the Sun to the Herald as editor, to bring the Herald 'back from the left') promotes the right-wing as the only sensible course, and makes no bones about whom they think everyone should support federally. They are trying to influence the electorate as much as they can.

[sharkman]

For every Calgary Sun, there were several left of center papers trying to scare people with the Tories at the start of this election campaign, and most TV based media doing the same. I have been surprised to find that the balance has shifted to a more center point of view. That, and the weight of all the latest Liberal scandals have made it tough for the Liberals in the various media. There are still, of course, media people on both sides trying to get their favourite party elected.