"You did not give voice to any Palestinian groups or individuals in Canada. There are many, and if you need help reaching them, my organization would be happy to connect you with some. As a senior journalist, I should not need to remind you of the importance of seeking the reaction of those most affected by a political development."
March 21, 2024
To:
John Paul Tasker, Senior writer for CBC's Parliamentary Bureau
Nancy Waugh, CBC News, Senior Manager
Jack Nagler, CBC Ombudsman
Dear Mr. Tasker and Ms. Waugh,
I am writing to express a number of concerns about the lack of balance in Mr. Taskers article (“Government's endorsement of amended Palestinian statehood motion wins praise, draws outrage.”) While none of them alone is a huge issue, taken together they create a overall skewed presentation of reactions to Monday night’s “Palestine Motion” in Parliament.
I think the overall summary of the political maneuvering around motion was fair, but the article started to become unbalanced when talking about reactions.
- You start by giving the reaction of one pro-Israel Liberal MP, devoting 10 paragraphs to his viewpoint. You did not mention that Housefather was one of only three Liberal MPs from the entire caucus of 156 members. That’s a lot of ink to spill for such an extreme minority position.
- You follow that by two paragraphs from the reaction of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, who opposed the motion like Housefather.
- You then given two paragraphs of reaction from the National Council of Canadian Muslims.
- You then given five paragraphs to Salma Zahid, a Liberal MP who supported the motion. You do not mention how Zahid voted along with the vast majority of Liberals.
Several obvious shortcomings with such coverage are:
- You did not give voice to any Palestinian groups or individuals in Canada. There are many, and if you need help reaching them, my organization would be happy to connect you with some. As a senior journalist, I should not need to remind you of the importance of seeking the reaction of those most affected by a political development.
- All of the voices in support of the motion were placed underneath the voices of those who opposed the motion. As you well know, given typical reader habits, placing the pro-Israel/anti-motion voices at the top guarantees that they get better visibility.
- The pro-Israel/anti-motion voices get far more space than the voices supporting the motion: roughly two-to-one. While such imbalance is already improper, it is even more jarring when the actual vote result – both in Parliament at large (204-117), and in the Liberal caucus (153-3) – is extremely skewed in the opposition direction.
While Mr. Tasker and the CBC may consider themselves to be balanced and impartial, the presentation in this article was far from it. Good journalism requires the Mr. Tasker and the CBC take diversity in their reporting far more seriously. Should you wish to discuss further, you can reach me at 438-380-5410.
Sincerely,
Thomas Woodley, MPA
President, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East