(Photo by Matt Hrkac via Flickr/CC BY 2.0)
The genocide in Gaza has been a testament to the Canadian media’s lack of integrity and failure to report the truth. While Canadian news outlets have widely covered the genocide, such coverage was, except for a few of them, unfair, misleading, and biased in favour of Israel. The coverage repeatedly featured false and unverified Israeli claims as facts, dehumanized Palestinians, and sidelined their voices. It also reported on war crimes and massacres in Gaza without identifying Israel as the perpetrator.
An analysis by The Breach of thousands of sentences in Canada’s top newspapers found that “[t]he largest Canadian newspapers have given disproportionate attention to the deaths of Israelis, portrayed Israelis in more humanized ways, characterized their deaths as more worthy of indignation, and more often identified who was responsible for killing them.” While terms such as “massacre” or “slaughter” were used to describe the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, writers did not use such emotional language when reporting on the atrocities that Israel committed in Gaza for 15 months. This anti-Palestinian bias has “[sanitized] political violence against Palestinians and unequally [stirred] emotions about Israeli deaths.
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) has played an active and effective role in challenging media bias about the situation in Gaza. Through its advocacy efforts, CJPME has often pushed major newsrooms to make corrections and changes to their reporting on Palestine.
I spoke with Lynn Naji, a media analyst at CJPME, to discuss the organization’s advocacy efforts, the push for fair coverage, and the challenges ahead.
Understanding Media Bias & Accountability
What are some of the most common patterns of bias you have observed in coverage of Palestine, particularly the genocide in Gaza?
Naji: One of the most common patterns of bias I’ve observed is the uncritical repetition of Israeli claims by media outlets, often without skepticism or independent verification. This practice risks amplifying unsubstantiated narratives that have historically been used to justify attacks on Palestinian civilians.
For example, in May 2021, Israel destroyed the Al-Jalaa building in Gaza, which housed Al Jazeera and the Associated Press (AP), claiming armed Palestinian groups used it. However, AP stated they had no indication of such activity and did not provide credible evidence to substantiate Israel’s claim. The media, therefore, has a responsibility to approach Israeli claims with skepticism and independently verify these allegations, particularly when they are not verified by independent third parties. Failing to do so risks amplifying an Israeli narrative that justifies war crimes, specifically those outlined in article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute (1998), which criminalizes intentionally targeting civilian objects, including homes, schools, and hospitals.
Although Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories since Palestine acceded in 2015, making it a state party to the ICC. As a result, Israeli officials can still be prosecuted for war crimes under Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the Rome Statute, which prohibits intentionally directing attacks against civilians not taking part in hostilities.
Given this, media outlets have a duty to critically assess Israeli allegations and ensure their reporting does not normalize violations of international law. At a minimum, if independent verification is unavailable, this should be explicitly stated.
Palestinian voices are often sidelined in mainstream Canadian media. What systemic factors contribute to this, and how does CJPME work to challenge this exclusion?
Naji: Palestinian voices are systematically sidelined in mainstream Canadian media due to deep-rooted biases, corporate influence, and editorial control that overwhelmingly favour pro-Israel narratives. Many major outlets, such as The National Post, are owned and operated by individuals with deep political ties to Israel, shaping their coverage to align with Israeli interests while erasing or downplaying Palestinian perspectives.
Beyond ownership, many Canadian media outlets have editors with a clear pro-Israel stance. Palestinian voices are frequently buried at the end of articles or omitted altogether, while Israeli narratives dominate the reporting. Structural bias also manifests in the language and framing used to report on Palestine. Palestinian casualties are frequently dehumanized and described in passive terms. A common media trend is the use of phrases like “more than 48,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza,” which deliberately avoids attributing responsibility to Israel for waging an ongoing genocide in the occupied Gaza Strip.
At CJPME, we challenge the erasure of Palestinian voices by actively engaging with editors and journalists. My colleagues Jason Toney and Anthony Issa monitor Canadian media daily, identifying gaps and biases in coverage. I am assigned articles to address these systemic issues by writing letters to editors and journalists, holding them accountable for their unbalanced, unfair, and dehumanizing reporting. It is through this media ethic that we apply pressure to ensure Palestinian perspectives are included in the name of fair and accurate journalism.
Successes & Ongoing Challenges
CJPME has successfully pushed major outlets like The Globe and Mail and CBC to correct misleading headlines or statements, particularly in coverage of the genocide in Gaza and, more broadly, Palestine over time.
Have these efforts led to any noticeable shifts in how Canadian media covers Palestine?
Naji: Unfortunately, overall, no. Canadian media coverage remains heavily biased against Palestinians. While CBC has shown some willingness to engage with us, other major outlets, such as The Globe and Mail, continue to sideline Palestinian voices despite our persistent efforts to push for more balanced reporting.
Although CJPME has successfully pressured these outlets to correct misleading headlines or statements, these changes are often situational and do not reflect a broader shift in how Canadian media covers Palestine. The dominant narratives still overwhelmingly favour Israeli perspectives, omitting crucial context about Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity. While there have been many small victories, without a fundamental change in editorial policies and a commitment to journalistic integrity, meaningful real change remains distant.
Despite these successes, what are some challenges you still face when advocating for fair coverage?
Naji: A major challenge we encounter is the omission of critical context. For instance, I recently wrote to The Toronto Star on Wednesday, February 26, regarding their framing of the hostage-prisoner exchange. Their coverage failed to highlight the stark asymmetry—33 Israeli hostages released in exchange for 2,000 Palestinian detainees—while also neglecting crucial context on Israel’s use of administrative detention. This system allows Israel to imprison Palestinians indefinitely without charge or trial, often based on undisclosed evidence. Many detainees have been held for years without ever knowing the accusations against them or receiving a fair trial. This practice violates international law, particularly Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a legally binding treaty ratified by Israel in 1991. By omitting all of this context, media outlets contribute to the normalization of Israel’s illegal imprisonment, torture, and human rights abuses against Palestinians.
The Role of Public Pressure
How effective is public pressure in influencing media narratives? What strategies have been most successful in challenging bias?
Naji: I’d say one of the most effective strategies in challenging media bias is publicly calling out misleading coverage. Media outlets are sensitive to public scrutiny, and when their reporting is exposed as biased or inaccurate, they are more likely to issue corrections or adjust their framing to uphold their credibility as public broadcasters.
My coworker Anthony leads our efforts in creating TikTok videos and reels by breaking down instances of media bias and misinformation, making these issues accessible to a wider audience. These videos often gain significant engagement, helping to mobilize public outrage and push media outlets to respond. Additionally, another successful strategy in challenging bias is launching email campaigns; for example, alerts asking our media responders to take issue with egregious news segments or articles that flood journalists with demands for fair and accurate reporting.
While media bias remains deeply entrenched, public pressure has, at times, forced corrections and even shifts in framing. I’d say the more visible and sustained public pressure is, the harder it becomes for media outlets to ignore. However, true change requires continuous effort, as isolated corrections do not address the structural biases that shape such biased coverage in the first place.
Fair Representation of Palestinian Voices
What advice do you have for journalists who want to report fairly on Palestine but face editorial restrictions or institutional pushback?
Naji: I have to say, it is truly unfortunate to see reporters face editorial restrictions or institutional pushback. How can one continue working in an institution that is biased against their own people?
Perhaps I’d suggest one way to navigate these challenges while maintaining journalistic integrity is by grounding reporting in established human rights frameworks and international law. Citing sources such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or the United Nations can help circumvent accusations of bias, lending credibility and providing a foundation that is harder for editors to dismiss.
My advice for journalists is to keep on talking, don’t give up, and continue resisting within the system. The only way to challenge systemic bias is through persistence. Journalists must expose editorial restrictions, push back in every way possible, and demand accountability. The more resistance there is from within, the harder it becomes for these institutions to maintain their biases unchecked.
That said, journalists who recognize the bias in their institutions but continue complying with editorial restrictions must ask themselves difficult questions. If a newsroom actively silences Palestinian voices, at what point does self-preservation become complicity? The harsh reality is that choosing to remain in a space that suppresses Palestinian perspectives without resistance inevitably makes one complicit in the problem.
Edited by Light Naing
