"I recall complaining to numerous Canadian media outlets that Israel’s repeated 2023 attacks on the Jenin refugee camp were not described as “offensive.” But here, in a single article, Iran’s response to Israel’s assassinations in Syria is described as an “offensive” four different times. Again, there is hardly any debate around the world that Iran’s attack was retaliatory, and yet you describe it as an 'offensive'."
April 15, 2024
To:
Hina Alam, Canadian Press
Andrea Baillie, Canadian Press
Gerry Arnold, Canadian Press
Tim Cook, Canadian Press
Dear Hina Alam, Andrea Baillie, Gerry Arnold, and Tim Cook,
I‘m writing to express serious concern about questionable statements a recent article by Hina Alam, “'Fire in the sky:' Canadian family in Israel says it's business as usual after attack.”
First, the article provides a reductive and inaccurate description of Israel’s attack on Iran’s consulate in Syria. You write that “The offensive came less than two weeks after an airstrike blamed on Israel destroyed Iran's consulate in Syria and killed two Iranian generals.” The New York Times reported that multiple Israeli officials confirmed that Israel had carried out the attack. Israel has never denied the attack. Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari told CNN they carried out the attack, but claimed the consulate didn’t have diplomatic status. To write that the attack was “blamed on Israel” unnecessarily introduces skepticism about this incident where none is necessary. It creates the false impression that there is a controversy about who attacked Iran’s consulate in Syria when none exists.
Second, you write that the attack killed two Iranian generals. This is false and incomplete. The New York Times reported that 3 generals were killed. Further, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports that 16 people were killed in total, 2 of them civilians.
Finally, you wrote that “Despite the speedy resolution, Moshe Appel said the onslaught from Iran was the most intense incident the family has witnessed since emigrating from Canada nearly three months ago.” After an exhaustive search of a media monitoring database, the Canadian Press website, Google Advanced Search, and the search functions of Toronto Star and CTV News (who both publish Canadian Press content), I could not find a single example of Canadian Press using the term “onslaught” to describe Israel’s attacks on Gaza, which are described even by the International Court of Justice as a plausible genocide. The double standard at play is difficult to ignore. The difference in tone used to describe Iran’s actions and Israel’s is stark, if not dramatic. I recall complaining to numerous Canadian media outlets that Israel’s repeated 2023 attacks on the Jenin refugee camp were not described as “offensive.” But here, in a single article, Iran’s response to Israel’s assassinations in Syria is described as an “offensive” four different times. Again, there is hardly any debate around the world that Iran’s attack was retaliatory, and yet you describe it as an “offensive.”
I insist that if Canadian Press is going to use strong, active language to describe Iran’s military actions, it should apply the same standards to articles about Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Sincerely,
Jason Toney
Director of Media Advocacy, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East