Angry in the Great White North

Alberta has announced a change in the labour laws of the province. Going forward, businesses can hire children from the age of 12 and older without first getting government approval. The lower limit was 15 years old prior to the change.

The story was reported in the Globe & Mail and in the Edmonton Journal (the Edmonton Journal is a CanWest publication as is the National Post). In reading the two reports, I was struck by the difference in tone between the two articles, but also in one glaring omission by the Globe & Mail.

The debate in Alberta is whether this labour code change constitutes an exploitation of children or the expansion of opportunities for young people. And though the debate should be between Alberta Human Resources and Employment and the Alberta Federation of Labour, with the Globe and the Journal reporting the facts for their readership, the reader is instead treated to a fight by proxy, with the Globe representing the labour federation, and the Journal in the corner of the Alberta provincial government, at least by default.

First to the tone of the articles. The Globe & Mail's Terry Webber has reservations about the new policy. First, he notes that "children as young as 12" can be hired. On the other hand, Sarah O'Donnell at the Journal describes them as "tweens and teens from 12 to 14 years of age". It's the difference between children and young adults, and this point-of-view carries forward in both articles.

The Globe piece uses "children" seven times (outside of quoted sources). The Edmonton Journal refers to the age groups "12-, 13-, and 14-year-olds" or "young workers" exclusively. The Journal uses the word "children" only in the quoted statements of critics.

The structure of the articles is also very different. The Globe has quotes from critics from the second paragraph on, until the eighth paragraph when the Alberta government official finally gets a say. The Journal starts with two paragraphs of exposition, then a paragraph in which a critic of the policy is quoted, then the Alberta government in fourth paragraph.

All and all, I'd say the Edmonton Journal is definitely trying to achieve a better balance in the report, while the Globe & Mail is trying very hard to promote and protect the position of the labour federation.

But the final point worth noting is the glaring omission I alluded to at the beginning.

In the Edmonton Journal, after the government and the labour federation have their say, the article quotes a 15-year-old young woman and her opinion about working as a teenager (for the record, she appreciates the opportunity to earn money with which to buy her own clothes).

I'd like to describe how the Globe reported the opinions of a working Alberta teenager, but I can't, because the Globe & Mail never prints any.

I'm guessing the Globe & Mail simply submitted a piece of long-distance journalism, with interviews being held by phone from an office in Toronto. The Globe reporter probably doesn't have any phone numbers for Alberta teenagers in his Rolodex.

But given the tone of the article, I'd guess that the Globe & Mail doesn't think the opinion of a teenager matters anyway.