The Media Accountability Project  

"The National Post published an egregious piece parroting Israeli propaganda—dismissing the well-substantiated charge of genocide, the gravest crime under international law. This denial comes despite leading international organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, having characterized Israel’s post-October 7 military campaign as genocidal."

On October 8, 2024, CJPME sent a letter to the Hill Times to address serious concerns over the misleading and harmful language used in their article titled: “So much pain, and there’s been no winners’: MPs mark Oct. 7 anniversary.”

The article referred to Israel’s year-long genocidal campaign in Gaza as a “counteroffensive” and claimed that this “counteroffensive” is expanding to Lebanon—an egregious euphemism that whitewashes the atrocities Israel has been committing in occupied Gaza for the past year.

CJPME argued that the term “counteroffensive” should be replaced with “genocide,” as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on January 31, 2024, that Israel’s military operations plausibly constitute genocide. In response to CJPME’s advocacy efforts, The Hill Times updated the article by removing the term “counteroffensive” and replacing it with more accurate language, alongside an editor’s note acknowledging the correction.

Additionally, The Hill Times invited CJPME to submit a letter to the editor challenging their use of B’nai Brith’s antisemitism report, which conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. In the letter, CJPME emphasized that B’nai Brith’s report is dangerous because it stifles legitimate advocacy for Palestinian liberation.

These changes represent a significant victory in our ongoing mission to ensure that media outlets uphold standards of journalistic integrity, fairness, and accuracy in their reporting on Palestine and Lebanon.

"Media outlets must recognize that supporting Palestinian liberation and opposing Israel's apartheid policies are not acts of antisemitism. Media must stop allowing B’nai Brith to blur this distinction, as antisemitism should not be weaponized to suppress the fight for Palestinian liberation."

"Tristin Hopper’s own article in the National Post from the very same day says that Samidoun “were also allegedly handing out pamphlets explicitly detailing terrorist strategies and how they could be employed” [emphasis added]. Why is that qualifier excluded in his talk radio segment?"

"Your article and headline should clarify that the stabbing attempt is, at this point in time, only an allegation made by the Israeli military, who claim without evidence that the Canadian tourist 'threatened the soldiers of the Netiv Ha’Asara’s standby squad with a knife.' However, this is mere hearsay as there has not been a formal investigation into the incident."

"Your article and headline should clarify that the stabbing attempt is, at this point in time, only an allegation made by the Israeli authorities, who claim without evidence that the Canadian tourist 'threatening Israeli security forces with a knife.' However, this is mere hearsay as there has not been a formal investigation into the incident."

Bernstein falsely accuses the speech of being hateful and based on lies, which is simply not true. Dr Gem Newman's speech was fact-based. This is concerning and hurtful coming from a Professor from the valedictorian’s own faculty. Bernstein should side with his students instead of smearing and dismissing them.

"During the hearing, lawyers pointed out that because McGill has already secured another venue the "seriousness or irreparable prejudice" criterion of the injunction should be dismissed. The judge agreed with this argument, nodding his head and saying “Bein oui” and McGill did not counter argue."

"This is such a bold and extraordinary claim, which Marie Woolf has editorialized in an even more sensationalist fashion, that readers deserve more information. While such a thing may have been said, and ought to be condemned if it was, to make this particularly hateful phrase seem like part of some pro-Hamas movement is a spectacular claim for a serious journalist to make."

"Your article presents several issues that contribute to unfair and unbalanced coverage of the Israeli violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. First, your headline, 'Two dead as violence in Jerusalem, West Bank simmers' should include the word Palestinian in it. Seeing as two Palestinians were killed it must be made clear in the headline."