This raises an important editorial question: what objective standard determines when a state is described as a “government” versus a “regime”? If the distinction is not applied consistently across states regardless of alliance or geopolitical positioning, then the terminology ceases to function as responsible reporting and instead becomes selective language that falls outside the realm of fair journalistic practice.
To the Canadian Press editors,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East to express concern regarding the language used in the May 7 article titled: “Do more for Iran activists and Canada diaspora threatened by regime, groups urge.”
My concern specifically relates to the article’s repeated use of the term “regime” to refer to the Iranian government.
To be clear, my comments should not be interpreted as a defense of the Iranian government. Rather, my concern is with the selective language choices used in Canadian reporting on states viewed as adversaries of the West.
Multiple dictionaries, including the Oxford Dictionary, identify the word “regime” as associated with oppressive or authoritarian rule. Yet Canadian media outlets rarely, if ever, refer to allied states in similar terms. For example, I have not seen reporters refer to the “Israeli regime” in news reporting outside of quotations attributed to critics.
This double standard is difficult to ignore. Canadian media outlets routinely refer to the “Israeli government” even while reporting on policies widely concluded by international human rights organizations and legal experts as constituting apartheid, unlawful occupation, and genocide. Yet states such as Iran are regularly described as “regimes.”
Referring to one state as a “government” and another as a “regime” subtly communicates which states are to be viewed with inherent suspicion or hostility, and which ones are not.
This raises an important editorial question: what objective standard determines when a state is described as a “government” versus a “regime”? If the distinction is not applied consistently across states regardless of alliance or geopolitical positioning, then the terminology ceases to function as responsible reporting and instead becomes selective language that falls outside the realm of fair journalistic practice.
In fact, CBC’s independent ombudsman tackled this exact question. Their review concluded that using the word “regime” repeatedly in your articles reads like a “wink to readers, signaling that the government in question lacks legitimacy.” While CP is not CBC, we urge CP editors to take heed of this advice and revise its language guidelines to end this practice that represents a clear double-standard and a violation of basic journalistic standards.
The term’s selective application is incompatible with principles of balanced and fair reporting.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East