Source bias in environmental stories
Janet Ready
April 1997 (rev.)
This study tested the hypothesis that news media rely on the same recognizable "authoritative" spokespeople to define issues. A content analysis of news about logging and environmental issues in British Columbia in The Vancouver Sun, The Province, The Globe and Mail, Victoria Times Colonist, CBC TV National, and CTV National News was undertaken for a one-year period (July 1995 - July 1996). A key-word search yielded 183 stories (87 from the Vancouver Sun, 37 from the Victoria Times Colonist, 36 from the Province, 19 from the Globe and Mail, 3 from CBC TV and 1 from CTV). A quantitative analysis identified placement of story, type of story, author, length, definers of stories, responders in stories, and groups quoted in stories. A qualitative analysis was completed on a sample of 19 stories, looking at themes, context and the group initiating the story. Interviews with environmentalists and forest company representatives provided benchmarks and perspective for the study.
B.C. logging stories were split evenly between news and business sections. The Vancouver Sun showed the best overall representation of groups on these issues across the board. Environmental groups as a general category accounted for the largest number of quotes and were most often used as definers and responders. Government sources provided the second largest number of quotes and was second to environmental groups as story definers. Industry was last in terms of quoted sources and story definers but ahead of government as a definer.
Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment were most frequently used government spokespeople, MacMillan Bloedel and Interfor most frequently industry sources; and Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Western Canada Wilderness Committee most often used to speak on environmental issues. First Nations, community groups and organized labour were rarely used as sources in logging and environmental stories.
The results of this study show that, whether or not media intentionally restrict access to certain groups, logging issues in B.C. are framed by a limited number of groups. Within this range of groups, there is an obvious source bias that establishes which groups are regarded as "authoritative, credible" sources and used most frequently.