"Despite overwhelming evidence that Israel attacked Iran’s consulate in Syria, including the New York Times reporting that several Israeli officials confirmed this to be accurate, the strike on the consulate is still described as 'a suspected Israeli strike'."
April 16, 2024
To:
Donovan Vincent, Toronto Star
Josef Federman, AP
Dear Donovan Vincent and Josef Federman,
I‘m writing to express concern about double standards in the framing of Iran’s recent attack on Israel in the recent Associated Press article that appeared in the Toronto Star, “Israel’s military chief says that Israel will respond to Iran’s weekend missile attack.”
After Israel responded to the October 7 Hamas attack, AP and virtually all Western media referred to the attack as “retaliatory.” The qualification of Israel’s attacks on Gaza being a response was present not only in headlines but outlets added this qualification to almost every mention of Israel’s attacks. Even as Israel’s actions in Gaza have continued for about six months and led to widespread accusations of genocide, Israel’s military operations are still frequently described as a “reaction” to October 7.
In the Associated Press article I am concerned about, the difference in the treatment of Iran is stark. Israel’s planned actions are described by AP as a “response,” but Iran’s actions being retaliatory are described with skepticism. Despite overwhelming evidence that Israel attacked Iran’s consulate in Syria, including the New York Times reporting that several Israeli officials confirmed this to be accurate, the strike on the consulate is still described as “a suspected Israeli strike.” The word “suspected” unnecessarily introduces uncertainty in the reader’s mind. There is no meaningful debate about whether or not Israel attacked Iran’s consulate. The words “retaliation” or “response” appear frequently in the article, but always to describe Israel’s intentions, never to explain Iran’s attack.
There is also no mention of Israel’s attacks killing four Syrian civilians, which AP had previously reported.
Even though Iran had been suggesting a response for almost two weeks, it is confounding that such framing would quickly be obfuscated in your reporting once that attack occurred.
In the context of fair and balanced journalism, applying the same standards to different parties is critical.
Sincerely,
Jason Toney
Director of Media Advocacy, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East