Media

Media Leading Polls by the Nose?

Melanee Thomas — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:23:23 -0600

Today, I went to a talk given by Dr. Stuart Soroka entitled, "I know what's going to happen five days from now." Soroka, one of the founding members of the Media Observatory at the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada and his research team investigate how news media affects poll results. He argues that there's about a four to six day lag between when a story breaks in the news and when it shows up in public opinion polls. Based on data from the current election campaign, Soroka's willing to bet that both the Liberals' and Conservatives' polling numbers go up over the weekend.
Of course, the five days he can't predict are at the end of the campaign, where it appears as though all bets are off.
One of the main elements the team focuses on is the tone of media coverage (whether parties and leaders are covered positively or negatively). They started the week before the writ was dropped and continue to track coverage for each day of the campaign. The Conservatives and the Liberals seem garner roughly the same amount of news coverage (26% of all articles) save for the first week where the Conservatives were the first party mentioned in nearly 35% of election articles.
The NDP appears to be the party with the momentum, steadily increasing the number of stories where they are the first party mentioned, and increasing the number of stories where Layton is the first leader mentioned. Dion is on a bit of a first-mention upswing as well, while Harper is trailing off a bit.
News articles, unlike opinion or editorial pieces, are rarely cast in a negative or positive tone. As a result, the positive-negative treatment of the parties and leaders don't differ much from each other except for a few important exceptions. The Bloc's net tone yo-yos (though the newspapers examined are primarily English-language), and the Greens are getting glowing coverage.
Of the leaders, Harper's coverage has been getting more positive as the campaign progresses while Dion's coverage yo-yos. Last week was quite positive for Layton, and Duceppe's been on a downward slide as his coverage becomes more and more negative. May too appears to be slipping: her coverage, at first positive, is slipping into neutral territory.
I can't help but wonder, though, how much of poll results rise from a self-fulfilling prophesy: if they're (not) covered, they're (ir)relevant. If a party is covered as slipping in the polls, the slide will likely continue, and vice versa. If a leader is positively covered, their numbers will go up. There's a chicken-and-egg problem that needs to be resolved here that isn't quite addressed by this data.
That said, it sure is interesting.

On Airplanes, Footballs and Tanks

Jonathan Rose — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:51:56 -0600

Yesterday the Liberal party campaign plane made an unscheduled stop in Montreal. We are told that there was a problem in the Liberal's aging Boeing 737. Thankfully the malfunction was minor and no one was hurt.This should have been the end of it but for the media it was a great stand-in for the entire campaign. The Globe and Mail story said alluded to the 1974 election campaign when Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield was photographed fumbling a football. Never mind that Stanfield successfully caught the ball several times before, the photo that ran on the front pages was that of a leader who literally fumbled the ball. In the 1988 American election, Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was perceived as being soft on defense. His response was to create a photo-op of him riding in tank. The photo that ran of him taking a tank for a spin just reinforced his weakness.

All these episodes demonstrate the power of symbols to shape modern election campaigns. This should not surprise us. Elections with their onslaught competing economic forecasts and promises that often rely on shaky economics can strain even the most devoted election junkie. The media with their 24 hours news cycle need simple frames to encapsulate the complexities and subtleties of an election dynamic. The most common,of course, is the horse race metaphor where media rely on polls to tell us who is ahead. Sometimes this portrayal can actually look like a horse race complete with win-place-show graphics.

Does this mean, as some argue, that the media are not fulfilling their responsibility to inform? After all, how can voters make decisions if the media are more interested in covering fumbled footballs or malfunctioning airplanes? Because so much of politics is about our affective orientation to leaders and parties, it makes sense for the media to focus on these things. Some scholars argue that these short hand cues are essential for voters to make rational choices in an environment where information is overwhelming. These brief moments - while seemingly unrelated to the issues of a campaign -- are important condensations of the narrative we create about parties and leaders. What remains to be seen is how compelling they are in the long run.

Why we should be skeptical of how the media reports polls.

Melanee Thomas — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:42:33 -0600

Many things irritate me about mainstream media, and their inaccurate reporting of public opinion polls is rather close to the top of the list. While this article by the CBC's online team is not bad (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/12/elxn-poll.html), there is crucial information that should be included but isn't.
Readers are asked to compare a poll by Harris/Decima to one by EKOS without knowing which questions were asked in both surveys. Invariably, if different questions were asked, people will respond differently. If this is the case, comparing the response categories (i.e. political parties) of the questions would be inappropriate. The Harris/Decima question wording is (sort of) included, but the EKOS is not. As a result, we don't know if the comparison that's a significant part of the article is appropriate.
This particular article does better than some, as does this article (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/full-poll.html). The second article is particularly interesting as it *actually* includes the margins of error for the regional breakdowns used in the analysis of the poll. These changes in regional accuracy matter: while this particular poll has a margin of error of +/- 2 percentage points nationally, the margin of error jumps to +/- 7.9 percentage points for the Prairies. Any analysis of differences, say, between parties on the Prairies that were not greater than 8 percentage points would be inaccurate. Most polls reported in the media DO NOT include these breakdowns nor does the analysis take the increased regional margins of error into account.
So when a Canada-wide poll of 1000 Canadians includes analysis of BC's lower mainland, we should be suspicious. Similarly, most analysis of the last Quebec provincial election was suspect as the differences between all three political parties was smaller than the margin of error. Technically, then, the parties were in a statistical dead heat, but the news media reported nothing but how one party was gaining or losing compared to the others. Such coverage is often inaccurate at best and grossly misleading at worst.
The bottom line is that the media needs to be more upfront about the national and regional margins of error for any given poll they report, and they (and the polling firms that produce the polls) need to own up when the differences between parties (or issues or whatever) are not satistically significant.

The Greens shouldn't have been in the debate anyway.

Melanee Thomas — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:41:10 -0600

I can't help but find the hew and cry about Elizabeth May's exclusion from the leaders' debates amusing. For example, over 1500 comments have been posted on the original story on the CBC website, which is more than I've ever seen on any other story. The cynical side of me wonders if the same number of people actually watch the debate from start to finish.
I've had a number of conversations with friends as to why they're disappointed May isn't included, and their reasons range from that one Member in Parliament (a former Liberal who only recently crossed over to the Greens) to sexism on the part of the other party leaders.
When presented with the idea that the one floor-crossing MP should be the magic word that gets the Greens in the debate, I'm reminded of the Bloc Quebecois. After all, Lucien Bouchard participated in the 1993 leaders' debate. Of course, at that point, the Bloc had a sizable caucus and had been sitting as that caucus for months.
Preston Manning also participated in the leaders' debates in 1993, as Reform had elected their first MP in 1988.
As for the sexist charge, while I am typically one of the first to call sexism in the political sphere when I see it, I don't really see it in this debate exclusion. Sure, May is a woman, and while the Conservatives are trying (and will likely fail miserably) to attract women voters, I suspect the exclusion is motivated by anything but May's gender. Instead, this feels more like power politics, and is about who has the power to grant access to it, and who's using that power to keep a new player out.
It's worth remembering that Elizabeth May likes to play this power game.
If the consortium's decision is about little else than access and power, then I must admit I think the network consortium should be chastised for deferring to the political parties already in the system so easily. Had a party leader said, "I won't participate if May's there," and the consortium said, "well, that's too bad. We're inviting her," I'm not sure the party leader who made the threat would dare not participate. He would unequivocally look like a child who didn't want to share the sandbox. If the media consortium had the guts to make such a decision, it would be much easier to call out the party leader(s) playing this game than it is now.
I think it's also worth taking a critical look at how the networks are covering the parties as well. The CBC has a reporter following each party, meaning there's likely going to be a spot on the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens in each election report the National does every night. CTV, on the other hand, does NOT have a reporter on the Green campaign (or at least they didn't on Sunday). Is this unfair? Absolutely, but you don't hear many calling out CTV for denying the Greens access, nor do you hear many praising the CBC for putting a reporter on the Green campaign.
And while the discussions about the media and this decision are interesting, I think it's important to back up and ask ourselves if the Green Party has earned a place at the debate table. My view is unpopular: I don't think they do.
IF the Greens elect and MP, THEN their leader should be part of the debate during the next election.
If the Greens don't elect an MP but somehow manage to form a parliamentary caucus, their leader should be in the debate the next time around. This does NOT include convincing an ex-Liberal sitting as an Independent to switch to the party a mere moment before the election call. The Greens can try to spin this is akin to electing an MP or having a caucus prior to the election like the Bloc in 1993, but it is certainly not the same and they know it. May can say she does politics differently, but that move alone indicates she's as prepared to cynically use the system in a disengenuous manner as any other party leader.
I might be more inclined to play the "it's not fair to exclude the Greens" card for "democracy's sake" if the Greens vote share increased significantly over the past two elections. However, the Green total increased from 4.3% in 2004 to 4.5% in 2006. If Quebec is taken out of the mix, the Green Party vote share didn't increase in 2006 over 2004. This vote share makes the Greens marginal by any standard, and until they demonstrate they're more than a single-issue fringe party, I'm not going to get too whipped up about their leader's exclusion from a debate that few Canadians watch.
There are more important and pressing inequalities and problems to address in our system, and I can't see how adding another talking head to a debate most Canadians avoid like the plague helps address those issues. Elizabeth May and the Green Party might do well to remember that.

Parliamentary Press Gallery in Canada

Jay Makarenko — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:00:00 -0600

The Parliamentary Press Gallery serves as an important link between Canadians and the world of federal politics. In this role, however, the Press Gallery enjoys a complicated, and at times conflicted, relationship with the politicians and political parties they investigate and cover. This article provides an introduction to the Press Gallery: it discusses the nature of legislative press galleries, changes in press gallery reporting, press gallery membership, and well as the relationship between press gallery members and the politicians they cover.

What is the Parliamentary Press Gallery?

Legislatures, Press Galleries & Media Coverage of Politics in Canada

Changes in Parliamentary Press Gallery Reporting

From Exclusive & Partisan to Open & Impartial

Parliamentary Press Gallery Membership

Benefits & Oversight of Press Gallery Membership

Politicians & the Press Gallery: Interdependence & Conflict

The Complicated Relationship between Canadian Politicians & Press Gallery

Sources & Links to Further Information

List of Article Sources & Links on the Press Gallery, Media & Politics

What is the Parliamentary Press Gallery?

Legislatures, Press Galleries & Media Coverage of Politics

Press Galleries & Canada’s Legislatures

Every day television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the internet provide Canadians with updates and analyses of the personalities, events, and issues relating to politics and governance in Canada. In covering Canadian politics, the media pay particular attention to the federal Parliament and its provincial and territorial counterparts.

The term “Press Gallery” is used to refer to the group of journalists assigned by media organizations to cover the personalities and events of these federal, provincial and territorial legislatures. These journalists will observe legislative debates and votes, interview political actors, and attend press conferences and media scrums, in addition to undertaking their own independent investigations and research.

Each legislature in Canada has its own Press Gallery. There is, for example, the Ontario Legislative Assembly Press Gallery at Queen's Park in Toronto, home of the Ontario provincial legislature, the New Brunswick legislative Press Gallery in Fredericton, and the Alberta Legislative Press Gallery in Edmonton, to name a few. These are separate groups of journalists assigned to cover the personalities and events at their respective legislatures.

Parliamentary Press Gallery & the Federal Parliament

The Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery includes journalists and media organizations that cover the federal Parliament and government. These journalists investigate and report on matters including the policies and priorities of the federal government, legislative debates and votes in the House of Commons, decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, visits by foreign dignitaries, and the activities of important federal political personalities, including the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Opposition Parties, and the Governor General of Canada. The Parliamentary Press Gallery serves as a cornerstone of the national political media, and is an important link between Canadians and federal politics.

Parliamentary Press Gallery as an Association

That said, the Parliamentary Press Gallery is not simply a group a journalists; it is also a formal association with established rules and responsibilities. As an association, the Press Gallery is tasked with the job of overseeing and assisting journalists in their work on Parliament Hill. This includes providing accreditation to journalists and granting them access to the Parliamentary precinct, administering Parliamentary Press Gallery services and facilities, and acting as a representative unit for journalists in their dealings with politicians, political parties, and the officials that oversee the operation of Parliament.

Changes in Parliamentary Press Gallery Reporting

From Exclusive & Partisan to Open & Impartial

Early Parliamentary Press Gallery Reporting

Press coverage of Canadian legislatures began in Canada’s colonial period, with newspaper journalists reporting on the activities of the various colonial legislatures in British North America. When the Canadian Parliament was first formed in 1867 at the time of Confederation, Parliamentary administrators provided space and services for journalists. These first Parliamentary reporters played an important role in Canada’s early years. As official verbatim accounts of Parliamentary proceedings were not introduced until 1878, press reports at the time were considered the best unofficial records of debate and discussion in the new Canadian Parliament.

The Press Gallery of the early Parliaments, however, was a very exclusive club. Press Gallery journalists were usually newspaper reporters (due to the fact that newsprint was the common form of mass communication at the time), and only the wealthiest, or most politically interested, newspapers assigned representatives to cover the federal Parliament. As a result, the Press Gallery usually consisted of a close-knit group of select newspaper publishers, editors, and their favourite reporters, all who enjoyed close ties with one another, both professionally and socially.

In addition to being an exclusive club, the Press Gallery was highly partisan and divided along party lines. Most newspapers of the day were either owned or directed by political parties or politicians, or controlled by publishers or editors with strong biases in favour of a particular political party. Moreover, Press Gallery journalists often had close personal and professional relationships with many of the leaders and politicians in Parliament; in some cases, these relationships were so close that journalists found themselves being appointed to senior government positions.

This exclusiveness and partisanship in the early Press Gallery greatly influenced the reporting behaviours of journalists. Those with close ties to the governing political party of the day were highly restricted in what they could say about the government, and were often relegated to the role of government ‘boosters’ instead of ‘watchdogs.’ In contrast, journalists with ties to opposition politicians or parties were free to criticize and attack government leaders and policies (although, much less so in regard to the opposition party with which they were affiliated).

Modern Changes to the Parliamentary Press Gallery

The exclusiveness and partisanship of the early Press Gallery began to break down in the 1900s as changes in its membership and reporting techniques were introduced. One of the most important changes came in 1917 when the Canadian Press News Service joined the Press Gallery. The Canadian Press differed from traditional media organizations in that it is was a strictly news gathering service; it would collect news and information not for publishing in its own newspaper, but to sell to multiple newspapers that could not gather it themselves. As such, the Canadian Press did not affiliate itself with a particular political leader or party, and its reporters were expected to produce unbiased reports on parliamentary events.

Membership in the Press Gallery was further expanded in the mid-1900s to include magazine publishers, television and radio broadcasters, and freelance journalists. Today, the Parliamentary Press Gallery is no longer a close-knit group of newspaper publishers, editors, and reporters. It is a much more open and loose association, consisting of a wide variety of journalists and media organizations. This, in turn, has brought greater political neutrality and diversity to the news and information content that Canadians receive about the federal Parliament.

For a full list of Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery Members:

Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery Website: Members List

While overt partisanship is, for the most part, a thing of the past, one should not assume that the modern Press Gallery is a completely neutral provider of political news and information. Press Gallery journalists are not immune to their own political views when interpreting and/or analyzing federal political actors and events. Press Gallery journalists, and their media organizations, also make important decisions about which stories to publish or broadcast, and how to frame those stories. These choices can have important impacts on how the public perceives a given issue or political news item.

Moreover, it is important to remember that Press Gallery journalists work in close quarters with one another. As such, there is the possibility of “pack journalism” or “group think,” in which Press Gallery coverage becomes highly homogeneous in its content and analysis. Furthermore, Press Gallery journalists often spend large amounts of time with the political actors they are covering. This can, in turn, result in the development of close personal relationships that may colour a journalist’s interpretation of Parliamentary events.

Parliamentary Press Gallery Membership

Benefits & Oversight of Press Gallery Membership

Benefits of Press Gallery Membership

Membership in the Press Gallery is important in that it includes press accreditation as well as the ability to access the Parliamentary buildings and grounds. Other benefits include access to media facilities and services provided by the government or by the Press Gallery itself, as well as regular updates and schedules of Parliamentary events.

Furthermore, journalists also have the benefit of member solidarity. While Press Gallery journalists work for different media organizations, and are typically competitors within the media industry, they do share similar interests and concerns as Parliamentary reporters. Such commonalities would include, for example, having open access to the political actors and events they are covering, as well as being able to gather relevant information from government departments and agencies. As a collective association, Press Gallery members can more effectively exert pressure on government officials to ensure these interests are being met.

It is important to note, however, that membership in the Press Gallery, while highly beneficial, is not necessary to cover the Canadian Parliament. Journalists may apply directly to Parliament to gain access to the grounds and buildings, simply as members of the general public. Furthermore, many Parliamentary proceedings, such as House of Commons debates and Parliamentary committee meetings, are broadcast live for the public to view.

Press Gallery Membership & the Speaker of the House

In order to gain membership, journalists apply directly to the Parliamentary Press Gallery itself. This represents one of the Parliamentary Press Gallery's most important administrative responsibilities as an association: deciding which journalists may receive parliamentary press accreditation and the benefits of Press Gallery membership. It is important to note, however, that the Parliamentary Press Gallery is not the final authority on who may gain access to Parliament buildings and facilities; this is the responsibility of the Speaker of the House.

The Speaker of the House is an elected Member of Parliament chosen by fellow MPs to be the administrative head of the House of Commons. The Speaker is not a political leader (like the Prime Minister or Cabinet Ministers), but is simply an administrator. S/he moderates discussion and debate between MPs within the House chamber, in addition to overseeing the general administration of the House, including its staff and operating budget, as well as public and press access to facilities and grounds.

For more information on the Speaker of the House:

Parliament of Canada: About the Speaker of the House of Commons

In practice, however, the Speaker usually grants the Parliamentary Press Gallery independence over its own membership and which journalists may access the Parliamentary grounds and media facilities. This independence is generally observed on the grounds of freedom of the press, and the notion that members of the media must have independence from government officials if they are to investigate and report on political actors and events in a full and impartial manner. If the Speaker were to oversee Press Gallery membership, he or she could, for example, exclude members of the media that were critical of House administrators, the government, or the political party to which the Speaker belonged.

Politicians & Press Gallery: Interdependence & Conflict

The Complicated Relationship Between Politicians & the Press Gallery

Canadian federal politicians and the Parliamentary Press Gallery have a very complicated relationship. On the one hand, each depends greatly on the other for their livelihood. Press Gallery journalists need access to politicians in order to gather the information they need for their news stories. At the same time, politicians need Press Gallery journalists in order to communicate with Canadians.

Despite the symbiotic relationship that exists between these two entities, there is also great potential for conflict. While politicians will pursue Parliamentary press coverage, they prefer to control the image and messages presented in order to maximize positive coverage. Conflict often occurs when a politician feels (rightly or wrongly) that Press Gallery journalists are exercising bias, or are being unfairly critical of his/her actions and views, or those of the political party to which s/he belongs.

In order to control their media image, politicians and political parties will often develop sophisticated communication strategies. These include developing specific sorts of messages that they will communicate to Press Gallery journalists; for example, simple and memorable catch phrases that newspapers quote or for television or radio sound bites. They may also develop “talking points” that party members and officials can use when speaking with Press gallery journalists, which keep the focus on the positive aspects of a given issue. In extreme cases, political actors will even limit Press Gallery access to them, and will even look for ways to bypass the Press Gallery and communicate directly to Canadians themselves.

There have been several instances of this sort of conflict between politicians and the Parliamentary Press Gallery. During his tenure as Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, a Liberal, often had strong disagreements with the Parliamentary Press Gallery about the stories its members reported. As a result, Trudeau attempted to control media questions during press conferences, granted preferential access to particular journalists and media organizations, and often had heated exchanges with Press Gallery members. Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also had conflicts with the Parliamentary Press Gallery; in 2006 he alleged an anti-Conservative bias on the part of some Press Gallery members and attempted to manage press conferences by dictating which journalists would be allowed to ask questions. The Press Gallery, as a group, staged a protest by walking out of a Harper press event.

Sources & Links to Further Information

List of Article Sources & Links for More on the Press Gallery, Media & Politics

Sources Used for this Article

Book & Periodical Sources

Siegal, A. Politics and the Media in Canada (2nd Edition). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1996.

Electronic Sources

Cummin, C. “Parliamentary Press Gallery.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. 14 July 2006
<http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006105>.
“About the Speaker.” Parliament of Canada. 14 July 2006.
<http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/House/Speaker/role_duties/index_e.html>.
“Gauthier v. Canada.” United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 22 March 1999. 14 July 2006.
<http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/65d8b4f465596f1b80256782004b16f8?Opendocument>.

Media

Media Leading Polls by the Nose?

On Airplanes, Footballs and Tanks

Why we should be skeptical of how the media reports polls.

The Greens shouldn't have been in the debate anyway.

Parliamentary Press Gallery in Canada

What is the Parliamentary Press Gallery?

Legislatures, Press Galleries & Media Coverage of Politics in Canada

Changes in Parliamentary Press Gallery Reporting

From Exclusive & Partisan to Open & Impartial

Parliamentary Press Gallery Membership

Benefits & Oversight of Press Gallery Membership

Politicians & the Press Gallery: Interdependence & Conflict

The Complicated Relationship between Canadian Politicians & Press Gallery

Sources & Links to Further Information

List of Article Sources & Links on the Press Gallery, Media & Politics

What is the Parliamentary Press Gallery?

Press Galleries & Canada’s Legislatures

Parliamentary Press Gallery & the Federal Parliament

Parliamentary Press Gallery as an Association

Changes in Parliamentary Press Gallery Reporting

Early Parliamentary Press Gallery Reporting

Modern Changes to the Parliamentary Press Gallery

Parliamentary Press Gallery Membership

Benefits of Press Gallery Membership

Press Gallery Membership & the Speaker of the House

Politicians & Press Gallery: Interdependence & Conflict

Sources & Links to Further Information

Sources Used for this Article

Book & Periodical Sources

Electronic Sources

Links for More Information