My presentation to PSAC Prairies Region

I was invited to be a guest speaker during a training week for members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. Here are the remarks I shared today.

Let me know if you want me to speak to your organization or at your conference.

---

Hey, fellow workers. My name is Kim Siever. I’m a labour journalist with The Alberta Worker, an independent startup media outlet focused on publishing content related to the working class, particularly in Alberta but also in Canada.

Today, I want to talk about why it’s essential to analyze news from a worker’s perspective and what it means to prioritize issues that matter to workers. In our current media landscape, mainstream outlets often gloss over, or even omit, the realities of labour struggles, typically focusing on corporate or governmental perspectives. This creates a skewed understanding of labour issues, leaving workers’ voices unheard and, often, their struggles unacknowledged. In this presentation, I’ll walk you through how independent, worker-centered journalism is filling this gap by offering a critical look at labour issues—from collective bargaining agreements to wage disparities and employment conditions—and providing the context that traditional media fails to deliver. By understanding how media bias works and why a worker’s perspective is vital, we can reclaim the narrative around labour news and create a platform for meaningful change.

I thought I’d start out by talking a little bit about The Alberta Worker and how it got to where it is today, as I think this journey is directly related to this presentation topic.

What became The Alberta Worker got its start almost 5 years ago, in March 2020. We were just days into the COVID-19 pandemic, and many of the public spaces had been ordered shut down by the provincial government. At the time, I was a freelancer working in social media management and copy editing. Most of my clients had physical spaces, which means they lost customers. With their own loss in revenue, every one of them eventually cancelled their contracts with me. For the first time in 7 years, I had no work.

I was applying for jobs and trying to find new clients somehow, but in the meantime, I seemed to have had a little time on my hands. One day during this period, I noticed a Twitter conversation about a land deal regarding Crown land in Southern Alberta, and it piqued my interest. I spent a few hours doing some digging and discovered that the land was sold to a family that had collectively donated over $100,000 to the governing United Conservative Party. I compiled waht I found into a story and published it on my blog. It went viral. In fact, it crashed my website, so I was forced to spend several hundred dollars on a new domain and third-party hosting. About a week later, I wrote another article that was also pretty popular in which I dispelled some myths the UCP kept using to discredit Alberta doctors.

Prior to this, I was writing a few articles from time to time on harm reduction related to the drug crisis. People had signed up as Patreon supporters over the previous few months because they appreciated the work I had been doing in that area, and I was making about $75 a month as a result. Well, this newfound traffic boosted my Patreon subscribers to the point that I realized if I stopped looking for a job and stopped looking for clients and redirected all my time and energy into this, I could get enough subscribers to do it full-time. So that’s what I did. And The Alberta Worker was born. Well, not quite.

When I switched to doing journalism full-time, I actually branded it as Kim Siever News, and I focused on covering politics. The UCP had been in power for about a year, and there seemed to be a lot to write about, with debunking claims they made or providing context to cherry-picked media releases. However, after a couple of years in, I noticed that I started to do more labour focused articles. For example, I would report on the monthly national labour force survey results published by Statistics Canada. It was the most comprehensive coverage offered by any media outlet, especially regarding Alberta’s labour market. Some public sector collective bargaining agreements had expired, so I was covering the bargaining process on some of them. Lethbridge Starbucks workers were trying to organize, and I provided the most comprehensive coverage of those collectivization efforts.

It seemed to me that I was moving away from primarily writing about politics to now specializing in labour news. As a result, I rebranded again in the spring of 2022 to emphasize this emerging focus. And that’s how The Alberta Worker was born. That summer, I also launched the Alberta Worker Podcast, where I interview members of the working class about their life stories and their personal labour journeys.

The Alberta Worker isn’t like mainstream media outlets.

First, it’s just me. I’m the one researching the stories, writing the stories, and editing the stories. I’m the one booking podcast guests, interviewing those guests, editing those interviews, and publishing them on podcast feeds and YouTube. I’m the one researching, writing, and editing editorials on a variety of economic and social issues and turning them into videos.

Second, most mainstream media outlets, at least in Alberta, don’t have a labour beat. There are no mainstream reporters specifically dedicated to covering labour issues. Not only do I cover labour issues, but it’s most of what I do.

Finally, and more directly to the point of the theme of my presentation, is that, unlike mainstream media outlets, I write my labour articles from a working class perspective. Mainstream media hides behind a façade of so-called objective, bias-free journalism. Objective journalism is a myth. Media outlets come to each story with biases. They’re biased in which stories they accept and pursue, they’re biased in who they interview for their stories, they’re biased in which facts they include in their stories, they’re biased in which  parts of the interviews they include in their story, and they’re biased in the titles they choose for those stories.

The difference between me and mainstream media, however, is that I don’t try to deny these truths. I am clear in the about page on my website that I come from a leftist perspective in the work I do. I openly admit and embrace my biases. It’s also clear in the articles I write. I don’t present a balanced story; I don’t even try to. My labour stories are designed to bring attention to the issues faced by the working class. I have no desire to spread propaganda from the owning class on how, for example, higher wages will sink their company. It’s not my job to make the public feel sorry for someone whose business plan centered around paying people as little as possible.

I’m pretty confident that I write more than any other journalist in Alberta on recently ratified collective bargaining agreements. I am the only journalist in Alberta who writes a news story for every collective agreement listed in the Bargaining Update, a monthly report published by the Mediation Services department of the Government of Alberta. In fact, I probably write more collective agreement stories than all the other journalists in Alberta put together.

When I write these stories, I don’t just report the facts at face value. Let’s take a story I wrote earlier this month, for example. In this story, I covered a recently ratified collective agreement for workers employed at St. Michael’s Health Centre, a continuing care centre in Lethbridge. I didn’t just mention that they got a new contract last month. I also mentioned that their last contract expired in March 2020, right at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. I mentioned that their contract was ratified after being in mediation for 6 months. I mentioned that since negotiations took over 4 years, this new 4-year contract had already expired when it was ratified. I mentioned that this was the first contract since at least 2005 where the collective agreement wasn’t ratified before expiring. I mentioned not only that they got 3.25% over 4 years but also how they got only another 8% over the previous 6 years, including 4 years of wage freezes. Finally, I mentioned that over the last 10 years, inflation was over 27%, which led to a real wage decrease of 17.58%. 

No mainstream media outlet covered this story, but I bet if they did, they would not have included a lot of that contextual information. A 3.25% increase might be decent for a single year, but not over 4 years, and not when inflation over the last 10 years dropped your purchasing power by over 17%, and not when you had to wait for over 4 years for a new contract, which itself had already expired. These workers got screwed, and they likely voted in favour of the contract because they were worn out and 3.25% is better than 0%. And that frustration comes through in my writing.

It seems to me that mainstream media are interested in covering labour issues only when there is a strike. Over the last month, there have been several strikes or potential strikes in Alberta, and they got attention from the media. But every month, there are dozens of new collective agreements published on the Government of Alberta’s website that no one but me touches. Labour issues aren’t only important when workers are fed up with years of crap wages. They’re important with every contract. The public must know about bad contracts even without a strike threat. If most contracts get no coverage, it empowers the owning class because whatever they give their workers remains a secret. 

Let’s say, for example, that a business gives their workers a 3% increase over 4 years. Then those workers find out some other employer is giving their workers 13% over 4 years. The workers at the first employer will be motivated to ask for more in their next round of bargaining. Publishing information from collective agreements, especially with additional context, empowers the workers. Keeping that information hidden, however, empowers the owners.

But writing about labour news isn’t the only way to increase communication about labour issues. Something else that is equally important is analyzing news from a worker’s perspective. As I touched on a few times earlier, the mainstream media (as well as other independent outlets) do cover labour stories, even if infrequently. Their coverage isn’t always comprehensive and what they do say will often be under the cloak of so-called “bias-free” journalism. Let me share an example of this.

In November 2022, Tiff Macklem, the governor of the Bank of Canada, was a speaker at the Public Policy forum in Toronto. In his remarks, he blamed workers for inflation, specifically low unemployment. He basically said that since more people were working, there was an increase in consumer spending, driving up demand, which, in turn, increased inflation. By driving up interest rates, they hoped to send more workers to the unemployment line in an effort to reduce the rate of inflation. Very few mainstream media outlets covered the remarks, and even fewer pushed back on those remarks. Certainly no one was talking about low unemployment being good for workers because it increases their bargaining leverage. After all, if there are fewer people wanting to take your job, it’ll be easier for you to demand better wages, better working conditions, and better benefits, with your employer more likely to give you those things. The reverse is also true: when unemployment is high, you have more competition, so your employer is less likely to concede to your demands.

It should be no surprise, then, that Alberta has the highest unemployment rate outside of Atlantic Canada while also being dethroned from having the highest wages in the country.

Economists, bankers, and other professionals who favour the positions of the owning class are going to frame anti-worker positions in ways that seem palatable, and it’s our job to read through the lines and find what’s missing, what they are and are not saying about workers. When we do read, listen to, or watch news stories about labour, we must be vigilant in noticing what’s missing from the stories. We must ask ourselves why the media parrots the Alberta government’s framing of a 35% wage increase proposal from the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees as exorbitant instead of drilling down through past wage increase performance to see what’s driving that proposal. We should question why no media outlets are covering the current negotiations between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which has gone through conciliation and is currently in meditation, but if there was a strike like there was in 2018, then everyone would be all over the story. On that note, CUPW published their strike vote results last Friday, and The Alberta Worker has been one of only a handful of media outlets to cover the results so far and the other outlets covering it have more or less parroted the CUPW media release that went out this morning..

Despite insistence from mainstream media that it doesn’t exist, media bias can significantly shape how labour issues are presented. This then influences public perception of workers and their struggles. To analyze news from a worker’s perspective, we must be aware of different types of bias and how they manifest.

One type of media bias is influence from the ownership of the media outlet. Corporate-owned media can reflect the interests of their owners and even advertisers, many of whom may have direct stakes in business and industry. For example, stories might emphasize corporate profitability, market competition, and management perspectives over worker welfare. Strikes, protests, and union activities might receive less coverage or be framed negatively, portraying workers as disruptive, unreasonable, or harmful to economic growth. Finally, mainstream media outlets might frame government policies as good for the economy while downplaying the negative impacts on workers. So-called “red tape reduction” is a good example of this. Also known as deregulation, this is nothing more than the removal of regulations. Most regulations fall into 3 camps: protect workers, protect the public, and protect the environment. Removing these regulations means increasing risk for workers, increasing risk for the public, and increasing risk for the environment. Framing red tape reduction as good for business while ignoring the increased risk on workers is a form of media bias.

By comparison, independent or publicly-funded media may provide more diverse or critical perspectives. They are less beholden to corporate sponsors and may give more weight to workers’ voices and social justice issues.

Another form of media bias is framing and language. The language used in news stories can subtly shape how readers view workers and their actions. For example, compare the phrases “workers demand better pay” and “workers make unreasonable demands”. One is more negative than the other. Language that implies entitlement, aggression, or unreasonableness can subtly shift public opinion against workers. Likewise, a news story that focuses on the “challenges businesses face” rather than “workers struggling with unfair conditions” is prioritizing the perspective of owners over that of workers. Lastly, using euphemisms or corporate jargon can obscure the harsh realities that workers face, such as using “downsizing,” “rightsizing,” or “streamlining” instead of “layoffs”, “job loss”, or “job cuts”. By making layoffs sound like a rational business strategy, the media outlet softens the negative impact on workers.

A third form of media bias is source selection. Media outlets often quote corporate executives, economists, or politicians more frequently than workers, union leaders, or labour advocates. This can skew the narrative in favour of those in power. Business executives, for example, may focus on profits, competition, and shareholder value, framing these priorities as essential to economic health, casting workers’ concerns as secondary. Likewise, economists and analysts may align with pro-business ideologies, which can lead to an emphasis on economic indicators (e.g., stock markets, GDP) rather than more relatable metrics, such as living wages or job quality. Even when workers are quoted, they may only be given space to voice individual concerns rather than structural or systemic issues. Rarely are workers allowed to offer a broader critique of how corporate decisions impact the working class.

Actually, I have a perfect example of this. Back in the spring, a journalist at the CBC contacted me about a story they were working on regarding increases to grocery prices. They saw a tweet of mine in connection to a broader discussion on Twitter. This reporter set up an interview, actually two interviews. They interviewed me first virtually, then had me meet their cameraperson, who filmed me in the Superstore here in Lethbridge and interviewed me. Not only did I talk about recent increases in grocery prices, with some products nearly doubling in price, but I centred many of my comments around Superstore workers—and the working class more broadly—pointing out that increasing prices on goods and services harm workers. Not a single thing I said about workers made it into the final segment. The decision the editorial team made regarding which of my words to keep and which to cut was not a decision free from bias, nor was it objective.

I have another example. Back in August, when the CN and CPKC railworkers went on strike, one of CBC’s news shows called “Power & Politics” ran a pretty lengthy segment on the strike. Their guests were a representative from one of the employers, a representative from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and Alberta’s minister of transportation—although I have no idea why they picked Alberta given that it was a country-wide strike. Not a single labour representative: no one from the Teamsters, who represented the workers; no one from the bargaining team; not a single worker; even though there were several picket lines at cities around the country. The picket line I participated at here in Lethbridge had a couple of dozen people. Surely there was someone somewhere they could interview. The following day, they did decide to have a labour representative on their programme, but it was the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, not one of the striking workers or a union rep. Don’t get me wrong—I think Gil McGowan did a fantastic job—but there was no one there representing the railworkers. Also, they had another representative from one of the employers on to counter points raised by McGowan. Their entire coverage was framed around the employer, not the workers. Any pro-labour coverage they did provide was superficial.

A fourth media bias is false equivalency reporting, otherwise known as both-sides reporting. The problem with this approach is that it assumes that both sides are in an equal relationship. However, the relationship between the working class and the owning class is quite unequal. Giving equal weight to both sides perpetuates the idea that workplace dynamics are nothing more than a simple contract between a boss and an employee, where each party “agrees” to the terms of the employment contract. It obfuscates the fact that in the workplace, the relationship between those who own the means of production and those who don’t highly favours the owners. They get to dictate pay; they get to dictate the work environment; they get to dictate company policies; and so on. The workplace relationship is not an equitable contractual relationship between two individuals, where the employer comes to the table with their proposals and the employee comes to the table with their proposals and the two parties negotiate between the proposals. For most workers, they’re told the terms of employment and they’re expected to accept them. If they refuse, the employer will simply hire someone else from their pile of resumes. There is no choice, only an illusion of choice. Unless you want to count choosing between having a job or being homeless.

Another type of media bias is focusing on individualism instead of collective action. Media narratives can emphasize individual success stories or personal responsibility, downplaying the need for collective action or structural change. For example, media might highlight the stories of individuals who “worked their way up” from low-wage jobs to higher positions, suggesting that workers can advance through sheer determination, rather than addressing systemic barriers like income inequality or lack of social safety nets. This can be seen more obviously in such rhetoric as “If you think you’re being exploited, just get another job”, even though the person who takes my job when I leave would still be exploited. The point is the thing that is happening, not that it is happening to me. By focusing on individual achievement or failure, media outlets may avoid critiquing larger economic systems that perpetuate poor working conditions, low wages, and worker exploitation.

The final example of media bias is a lack of in-depth reporting. News stories that mention labour issues but don’t dig into the causes and implications can leave audiences with an incomplete understanding of the challenges workers face.

Take the recent strike votes by Edmonton education support workers, for example. In my coverage, I focused on the perspectives of the workers themselves and the effects of chronic underfunding on education quality and worker well-being. I also highlighted the frustration around wage stagnation, arguing that it severely impacts workers’ livelihoods and compromises educational support for students. Finally, I pointed out that the Alberta government’s funding policies exacerbated these issues, specifically critiquing the wage cap imposed by the province, which doesn’t match inflation increases.

In contrast, mainstream outlets, such as Global News and CityNews, maintained a more neutral stance, including statements from both the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Edmonton Public School Board. They noted that the school board expressed disappointment about the impact of a potential strike on students and stressed their commitment to resolving the situation with minimal disruption, yet downplaying their own role in nurturing the conditions that led to the strike, including refusing to help these workers afford cost-of-living increases. These outlets often referenced contingency plans the board had in place and included viewpoints from concerned parents who worried about the educational impact on students if education support workers strike.

Overall, mainstream media provided a broad overview of the situation, with a slight focus on the administrative and community impacts, whereas I concentrated on worker conditions and the labour power dynamics at play, highlighting deeper systemic issues in Alberta’s education funding policies​.

Now what can we do to counter media bias?

Well, one thing we can do is get our news from multiple media outlets. When they cover the same labour issue, they may take different perspectives or mention different details, which can give you a fuller picture. Watch how each outlet frames the issues, what language they use, and whose voices they prioritize.

Another thing you can do is to check out union sources. Often the locals or unions involved in the labour issue will have published updates on their website or social media accounts. They will offer details that the employer will forget or even purposefully leave out of their own media releases. They can also be a good source for why these workers are fighting for that particular issue.

You can also tune in to alternative media, such as independent, non-profit, and worker-owned outlets. I’m not too familiar with outlets in other provinces but here in Alberta, Progress Alberta is a good source, particularly for Edmonton labour. Of course, everyone should follow The Alberta Worker.

When you read media coverage of labour issues, be critical of what you read. Ask yourself whose interests are being served by this particular narrative, whose voices are missing, and is the article providing enough context for you to understand the broader impact on workers.

Finally, research ownership and funding for the media outlets publishing the content you’re reading. Understanding who owns the media outlet or who funds it can reveal underlying biases. Corporate-owned outlets or those with heavy reliance on advertising may shape their content to favour business interests.

In conclusion, analyzing news from a worker’s perspective reveals the often-overlooked realities and challenges faced by the working class. By recognizing and questioning media biases, we can better understand how framing, language, and source selection shape public perceptions of labour issues. Traditional media frequently presents labour topics through a lens that favours business interests or presents a “balanced” view that obscures the underlying power dynamics between workers and employers. In contrast, a worker-focused perspective sheds light on the systemic issues behind collective bargaining, wage stagnation, and workplace conditions, providing the critical context that is often missing. Empowering workers with accurate, detailed information fosters solidarity and strengthens the movement for fairer conditions. Ultimately, approaching labour news with a critical eye and seeking diverse perspectives enables the working class to reclaim the narrative, amplify their voices, and advocate effectively for their rights.

Solidarity.