"Mr. Derfel describes the anonymous sources vaguely as 'sources close to Moss' and 'a source.' This description is vague or whether the sources have any personal, political, or institutional biases that might influence how they frame Dr. Moss's departure. As it stands, given the breaches of CAJ standards due to the use and framing of anonymous sources, this article does not meet the threshold of serious journalism."
To The Montreal Gazette and Aaron Derfel,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) about your article “Exclusive: Chief heart surgeon at Jewish General Hospital quits province amid rising antisemitism in Montreal” published on June 2, 2026.
This article is entirely based on hearsay and serves only to foment fear about anti-semitism in Montreal. It breaks with basic journalistic standards by being clearly factually inaccurate.
In the opening paragraph of the article, it states Mr. Moss is resigning “citing rising antisemitism in Montreal and worsening problems with the province’s health-care system”. This is completely undermined by a line in paragraph 5 which states, “Moss declined to give an interview or to explain his reasons for leaving Montreal.”
According to the Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ), Journalists must identify sources of information unless there is a clear and pressing reason to protect their identity, the material gained from the confidential source is of strong public interest, and there is no other reasonable way to obtain the information. If the reporter believes they need their source needs to be anonymized, then the outlet must explain the need for confidentiality.
The standards set by the CAJ also expect reporters who use unnamed sources to independently corroborate their assertions and identify the sources as accurately as possible by affiliation and status, in consultation with the sources. (For example, a “senior military source” must be both senior and in the military.) Any vested interest or potential bias on the part of a source should be revealed, while still protecting their identity.
The article identifies several high-profile sources by name, including Dr. Louis Perrault (President of the Association des chirurgiens cardio-vasculaires et thoraciques du Québec) and Dr. Lawrence Rosenberg (CEO of the local health authority).
However, the core claim that Dr. Moss is leaving specifically due to rising antisemitism that relies entirely on unnamed "sources close to Moss."
The article states that a key source "declined to have their name published so they could speak candidly about the issue." As outlined by the CAJ, “speaking candidly” is generally considered a weak or insufficient explanation for anonymity, as it does not demonstrate a "clear and pressing reason" (such as fear of retaliation, professional ruin, or physical harm).
Mr. Derfel describes the anonymous sources vaguely as "sources close to Moss" and "a source." This description is vague or whether the sources have any personal, political, or institutional biases that might influence how they frame Dr. Moss's departure.
As it stands, given the breaches of CAJ standards due to the use and framing of anonymous sources, this article does not meet the threshold of serious journalism.
This should be relegated to the gossip column.The article is not “exclusive” news. At best it is opinion and should be labeled as such in the heading. Otherwise it simply makes the Gazette look unprofessional and amateurish.
Will The Gazette give this article proper attribution as gossip or opinion?
Thank you for reading and I look forward to your response.
Jeff Winch