More on gender gap

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy, Election 2008 Media commentary

Paul Adams

David Akin sent this after my earlier blogs on gender gap:

Ipsos Reid, as you may know, is the pollster retained (hired) by Canwest News Service, which is my employer. More than 1.5 million Canadians subscribe to a Canwest daily paper. The day before you posted this, those 1.5 million subscribers read a poll, taken by a competitor of the firm you work for, which addressed gender issues. I wrote the story. I don’t get paid by Ipsos or have any financial in any polling company but I thought you’d like to know that at least one other pollster has been surveying on this issue.

Here’s the Victoria Times-Colonist’s pick-up of the Ipsos gender poll.

Paul Adams is a former political reporter with CBC and the Globe and Mail, and is now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty, and executive director of EKOS Research Associates.

Canada’s most eminent political blogger

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Media commentary

Paul Adams

The discerning Paul Wells plugs our site. A snappy dresser too. 

Paul Adams is a former political reporter with CBC and the Globe and Mail, and is now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty, and executive director of EKOS Research Associates.

Our website…way ahead of the MSM

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Media commentary

Paul Adams

The Globe and Mail is carrying this story on the timing of the Canadian leaders’ debate coinciding with the American vice-presidential debate.

This is very old news to readers of the Campaign Perspectives 2008 blog, who were informed of this conflict/coincidence on Tuesday.

I think we also scooped the MSM on May’s inclusion in the debate earlier this week. We were about 6 minutes ahead of CP, I think. This is important.

Paul Adams is a former political reporter with the CBC and the Globe and Mail, now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty and executive director of EKOS Research Associates.

CTV and the power of three

Posted by jsallot under Election 2008, Election 2008 Media commentary

Jeff Sallot

The big story in the first week of the campaign is the way Green Leader Elizabeth May’s plea for simple fairness ignited a firestorm of a reaction from voters in cyberspace and in talk radio land, forcing the other leaders and the TV news network execs to back down and allow her to participate in the upcoming TV debates.

But you’ve got to wonder if the producers of two of CTV’s major news and current affairs programs, Mike Duffy Live and Canada AM, have missed this point. The Duffy show on prime time last night  had two separate political panels featuring activists or candidates from the Conservative, New Democratic and Liberal parties.

This morning Canada AM had a panel of talking heads with reps from the three same political parties.

What happened to the Greens? Or the Bloc, for that matter?

You can argue that these CTV programs are national and the Bloc is not a national party. I’m not even sure if I were a BQ candidate in Quebec if I would think an appearance on Canada AM or Mike Duffy Live would help me get my message out where it counts for my campaign. But I would be very surprised if the Greens wouldn’t have put somebody up to appear on these panels.

A panel with three guests works on TV. Four is awkward. Five is a real crowd. Photojournalists sometimes talk about the power of three, meaning three people in a picture gives you better opportunities to find interesting compositions. Four or five faces is tough to work with. Nevertheless,  during an election campaign journalists have to do more than worry about a crowded frame.

CTV has had Green Party reps on its programs in the past. And CTV no doubt will have many other opportunities to cover the point of view of the Greens as the campaign runs its course.

But the very week that the Greens were forcing themselves on to the political agenda seemed like an odd time to broadcast political panels with only the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats.

Something wasn’t quite right with this picture.

Libs losing Green Shift battle in the media

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy, Election 2008 Media commentary

Paul Adams

The Liberals are losing their battle to define their own Green Shift plan in the media. The plan aims at cutting greenhouse gas emissions through carbon taxes, but a critical element in the architecture of the plan is the offsetting tax cuts to individuals and businesses. The Liberals even promise the Auditor-General will be brought in to certify that the Green Shift is “revenue neutral” — i.e., gives every cent it takes in carbon taxes back in tax relief of some kind.

On CBC’s World Report this morning, the Green Shift was twice described as a “carbon tax” — once in the intro and once more in the item. Although the story dealt with a “calculator” on the Liberals’ website that supposedly allows an individual to figure out how the tax and offsets would affect them, the plan was never clearly explained. If you didn’t already know about the offsets, this item would not have enlightened you.

The Ottawa Citizen ran a story today about Stephen Harper’s attack on the plan that, although sympathetic in tone to the Green Shift, refers to it as “Mr. Dion’s proposal for a carbon tax”. Nowhere in the story is there any mention of the tax offsets.

In its front page story today,Dion’s Green Plan Would “Wreak Havoc”, the Globe does a better job. The offsets are mentioned only in the last few graphs (after the turn), but there is a large graphic that clearly spells out the taxes as well as the offsets.

One supposes that the Liberals hoped the name “Green Shift” name itself would convey the message, but it doesn’t. A “tax” is a tax — everyone understands that. A “shift” can mean anything. The “Green Shift” name will only convey the full meaning of the plan once people already understand it, which most still do not do. 

There are, of course, examples of reporters struggling to be fair to a complex plan, but Green Shift is falling foul of three intersecting forces:

• The media’s desire for a “shorthand” reference to the plan 
• The Conservatives’ attempt to define the Green Shift as a tax pure and simple
• And the Liberals’ inability to communicate the features of the plan simply and clearly  

In a survey last week, EKOS found that 63% of Canadians supported the carbon-tax-plus-offsets plan when it was clearly explained to them. But so far it hasn’t been, by the Liberals — or by the media. 

Paul Adams is a former political reporter with CBC and the Globe and Mail, and is now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty, and executive director of EKOS Research Associates.

Calling all Philistines – the unnamed source/smear file

Posted by cwaddell under Election 2008, Election 2008 Media commentary

Christopher Waddell

Further to Paul Adams’ post earlier this week on unnamed sources and smears, here are the top two paragraphs of a page one story in today’s Globe and Mail written by James Bradshaw:

“TORONTO — In his first detailed defence of $45-million in controversial cuts to arts and culture funding, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper called his party’s decisions good governance and said the government must walk “a fine line” between providing financial stability and “funding things that people actually don’t want.”

In an exclusive telephone interview with The Globe and Mail during a campaign stop at a winery in St-Eustache, Que., Mr. Harper, who many have called a Philistine, also spoke at length about his life-long passion for music and the piano as he denied the cuts were ideologically motivated.”

Who are the “many” who called Mr Harper a Philistine? Readers are never told. If there are so many, it can’t be that hard to find someone who would say it, can it?

Such unnamed source smears are a prime example of the why the public increasingly dismisses the credibility of the mainstream media.  In the absence of any evidence to support the claim, it seems safe to assume the “many” is actually the reporter.

Christopher Waddell is associate director of the school and a former Globe and Mail Ottawa bureau chief, former CBC-TV parliamentary bureau chief and election night executive producer for CBC TV News.

Reality TV

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy, Election 2008 Media commentary

Actual puffin pooping

As the debate dust settles . . .

Posted by cwaddell under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy, Election 2008 Media commentary

Christopher Waddell

Following the comments of my colleague Ira Wagman, three observations from the “Greens in the debate” controversy.

For Canadians, it’s a little example of the impact of media concentration – what can happen when the same people own TV networks and newspapers. While enough Canadians were clearly sufficiently upset to force the NDP and Conservatives to back down in their stand against having the Greens in the televised debates, surprisingly the issue didn’t capture the imagination of the two national newspapers. The Globe and Mail (ctvglobemedia) walked an editorial tightrope to avoid criticizing the networks for agreeing to keep the Greens out while the National Post (CanWest Global) so far is missing in action on the issue. Wonder why?

For the NDP, it is a sign the party is feeling the pressure on the environment. That issue used to be the NDP’s preserve but the Layton campaign realized that it can’t afford to alienate environmentalists (and others for that matter) by keeping Elizabeth May out of the debates. That just gives more reasons for them to jump either to the Greens or the Liberals. It’s particularly important as the Liberals are the main rivals in many of the seats the NDP currently hold as well as the ones it wants to win.

For the Conservatives, while they are running a campaign designed to highlight Mr. Harper as a family man, even they get concerned when he starts to look too much like Father Knows Best.

Christopher Waddell is associate director of the school and a former Globe and Mail Ottawa bureau chief, former CBC-TV parliamentary bureau chief and election night executive producer for CBC TV News.

The networks, the parties, and the debate, continued

Posted by cwaddell under Election 2008, Election 2008 Media commentary

Ira Wagman

One of the benefits of sharing the same building with current and former journalists is their ability to mine their sources for information.  Paul Adams’ post on the piece by former CBC head Tony Burman on the Globe and Mail web site in regards to my earlier entry on this blog is an excellent case in point.  However Paul’s posting and the comments of “Final Spin”, the first person to comment on the blog (do we have any cool gear we can send to this person for being the first one to comment?), miss the point of what I was getting at there.  

The point is not whether the nets wanted Elizabeth May to participate in the debates.  This is of little consequence to my argument and frankly, since it doesn’t look like we’re going to find out how the discussions were actually undertaken, who was involved, and how the decision was rendered, we are shadow boxing on this one for the time being.   

The point is not what the broadcasters didn’t do or didn’t want to do.  These are questions of motivation which are great for speculators but offer little analytical value.  It is was they did do that is important.  By citing party participation as a factor in the decision-making process, the consortium effectively took the parties at their word.  Even if broadcasters adopted the party’s arguments for their own interests—and maybe they did think 5 people on the podium would be difficult to manage — it doesn’t change the optics that the political parties are telling the media what to do.  Even the idea that one person would have “veto power”, as Mr. Burman suggests places the power where it shouldn’t be.  

The Consortium’s position should have been as follows :

1. The debates are an excellent opportunity to gain national exposure for your party and to engage with the other party leaders.  

2. The debates take place on October 1 and October 2. 

3. The decision about participation at the event rests with each political party.

4. The debate will take place with those who choose to participate.

In other words, the question of participation should not be related to the question of whether the debate should take place.  If only one of the parties chose to participate, then it’s an hour of free advertising for them.  Once someone learned that there was only one horse in the race, another would enter the fray.  And if none of the parties participated, then the broadcasters could run a 2-hour special, one using the investigative staff of CTV News, The National, and Le Telejournal which would focus their efforts on the decline of real debate in the deliberative process of elections. That would be fine with me.   

I’m obviously guilty of overstatement here, but the fact remains that it is not the broadcasters responsibility to get in the middle of things.  And this is precisely what they have done and it is highly problematic, whether Elizabeth May is in or out of the debate.  

That’s because for me the issue is not about Elizabeth May, but rather about the position Canada’s media needs to occupy in the election.  If it’s true that 24 Sussex really had veto power over this (or that any political party would hold that kind of influence over the networks) then this says something very serious — and indeed, very troubling — about the relationship between Canada’s media outlets and the political parties they cover.  

Ira Wagman is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Carleton University’s School of Journalism and Communication 

Tories on the brink of majority…really on the brink

Posted by padams under Election 2008, Election 2008 Campaign strategy, Election 2008 Media commentary

Paul Adams

Doing seat projections from polling data can be a bit risky. Polls are estimates of public opinion, even if usually quite accurate ones. Figuring out how these figures will translate into the distribution of seats in our first-past-the-post system is a tricky and imprecise business.

However, pollsters and journalists have spent the last two weeks implicitly making seat projections every time they have spoken of the Conservatives “being in majority territory” or “on the brink of a majority”. They just never show their work.

So here is what they are talking about. Taking EKOS’ national sample of over 2000 Canadians from Monday and Tuesday, and running them through a model that takes into account both the special arithmetic of our first-past-the-post system, and the parties’ historical patterns of support, when we say the Tories are “on the brink” we really mean it.

A majority is 155 seats.

The model gives the Tories 156 seats, Liberals 82, NDP 37, BQ 33.

Paul Adams is a former political reporter with the CBC and Globe and Mail, now a member of Carleton’s journalism faculty and executive director of EKOS Research Associates.