Both for the U.S. and Canadian election, televised debates had a great impact on voters – Just look at Elizabeth May. Though it didn’t translate into seats in the House of Commons, her participation contributed to the Green Party receiving the largest increase in national support, of all the political parties.

If the public’s view can be shaped through tone of coverage, what effect would a neutral tone of coverage have?

Well, from the election turn out, it’s safe to say: none whatsoever, at least not for the Bloc Quebecois.

Let’s look at the tone of the articles published about the Bloc, from when the election was announced to shortly after polling closed:

It’s easy to see at first glance that the tone is pretty neutral, though you can notice an increase to the positive around Oct. 1. This could be attributed to the French language leaders debate that was held in Ottawa on that day. It’s also around the time polling suggested the chances of a Harper majority slipping amid falling support in Quebec. It’s no surprise, then, that the coverage would be more positive, at least not to me.

It’s also important to note that the majority of the articles were published in the Montreal Gazette. We’re talking bias in the media, so it’s good to know, right?

So what then? After analyzing the media and looking back on the election – how nothing changed from 2006 to 2008, I think it’s safe to say, well, nothing. So there!

It’s also very interesting to see how the news covers candidates and events. They seem to offer off-handed comments about politician’s ideas or behaviours, then, in a second wave of coverage, try and measure the political impact of what they’ve reported.

Overall, I must say that when it comes to media coverage of the election, and the tone of what is said, I’ll have to say: I’m quite neutral as well.

For more detailed information on the Canadian election, click here
For a more radical opinion, read this
For a look at how the issue affects the U.S., click here