The Media Accountability Project  

In fact, since October 2025, mainstream media language has increasingly relied on euphemisms that manufacture the appearance of a meaningful ceasefire in Gaza where none exists.

While the article is a factual report of Trump’s tit-for-tat, schoolyard-bully-style leadership and how he is responding to Carney’s latest words and actions, it provides very little context around the “Board of Peace” itself. The article reads more like a colonial gossip column or an American reality-TV show script than a serious political piece.

However, the article should have also noted that Iran’s economic crisis did not emerge suddenly. The current economic turmoil has been building since 1979 due to decades of UN, EU and US-led sanctions against Iran. The sanctions have affected nearly every aspect of the Iranian economy with the greatest impact on the middle class. Sanctions on Iran have also frozen Iranian assets and targeted trade, arms sales, and sectors such as energy, finance, aviation, shipping, construction, mining, textiles, automotive and manufacturing.

It is also important to point out that for Palestinians there is no “ceasefire”. This is part of the complacency that Mr. Khan speaks of and which the article feeds into somewhat by focussing on a mental health program while de-emphasizing the widespread carnage and the destruction of so much of Gaza's infrastructure.

"The article concludes by quoting an Israeli claim that says 4,200 aid trucks are being allowed per week. This is also a lie that should not be printed without being countered. The Israelis were supposed to let 4,200 trucks in per week (600 per day) as part of the ceasefire deal which they violate daily. We all know this never happened and it’s not happening now."

The first being that the attack on Sidon’s commercial area was part of a series of Israeli attacks on villages in southern Lebanon over a period of 24-48 hours. The attacks forced many civilians to flee their homes once again.

On October 26, 2025, CJPME media analyst Anthony Issa was published in the Globe and Mail in response to an op-ed titled "The dream of a better Lebanon remains afloat," by Dany H. Assaf. The response was published as a letter to the editor in The Globe and Mail, helping to challenge misleading “both-sides” framing and re-centre accountability in coverage of Israel’s war on Lebanon.

Issa challenged the article’s framing of Israel’s ongoing attacks on Lebanon as a “war between Israel and Hezbollah.” He argued that this language creates a false symmetry between a powerful state military and a non-state actor, obscuring Israel’s overwhelming responsibility for the scale of devastation in Lebanon.

He also challenged the article’s call for disarmament as a path to Lebanese "national renewal," arguing that such framing disregards Israel’s continued occupation of Lebanese territory and Lebanon’s right to sovereignty.

We thank the Globe and Mail for giving us the ability to challenge mainstream narratives that often overlook alternative perspectives on Lebanon. 

CJPME will continue to confront biased narratives and demand fair, fact-based reporting on Lebanon.

Beyond the lack of context, the announcer’s tone is dismissive and disturbingly jovial for a segment about a two-year genocidal siege. The whole thing is a masterclass in whitewashing crime. Shameful.

The organizations you name are, of course, well within their rights to advocate for whatever legislation they see fit, and we readily acknowledge that their stance on Israel is irrelevant when they comment on matters unconnected to Israel and Palestine. In this case, however, their support for Israel is clearly relevant to their advocacy of Bill C-9 and so to omit any mention of it deprives the reader of the context required to fully understand the perspective that informs key points of the joint statement to which you refer.

The Canadian Association of Journalists’ ethics guidelines state that “Any vested interest or potential bias on the part of a source” should be divulged. Nothing is said of potential bias of the unnamed source. What was their motivation? The authors do not ask this question in the article nor give an explanation. The examples given later in the article do not suggest there are any imminent threats to Canadian national security, therefore this aspect is unclear.