November 14, 2024 – for immediate release

The National NewsMedia Council (NNC) has considered and dismissed one portion of a complaint and upheld another portion of a complaint about a June 21, 2024 opinion article published by the National Post.

The opinion article, “The evidence is clear — there is no famine in Gaza,” argued that earlier claims warning of an imminent famine in Gaza were largely unsupported and unquestioned. The opinion piece cited a follow-up report by the review committee for the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a UN organization that had predicted a famine was imminent, and stated that the organization had “backed away” from these earlier claims.

The piece also cited other research to support the view that sufficient food supply and available agricultural land in the region indicate that “there was never a famine, nor anything close to it.”

Martyn Williams filed a complaint with the NNC stating the arguments made disregarded “widely available evidence…relating to the threat of famine and food shortages, especially in Northern Gaza.”

The complainant stated, “The fact that a senior UN official with the UN World Food Program recently confirmed there is a ‘full-blown famine’ in North Gaza is ignored, along with the widely documented reports on difficulties with moving food within Gaza once it has entered the territory.”

The complainant also objected to the use of the featured photo in the opinion piece, which shows a food vendor selling a number of food items at a market in Gaza. The complainant alleged that the opinion piece was “clearly designed to sway public opinion against Palestinian people and supporters.”

In the submission, the complainant also argued that the news organization had a duty to provide “objective perspectives” on sensitive humanitarian matters.

The news organization responded to the complainant’s concerns by noting, “The objective of the column was to point to data that challenges the assertion that there is/was widespread famine in Gaza. That does not mean there is no hardship, only that certain specific claims are exaggerated or false.”

The news organization explained that the column’s argument is supported by citations and links provided in the article.

In response to the complainant’s concern about the use of the photo, the news organization noted that the image originated with another news organization and that details, including the date the photo was taken, the location, the photographer’s name, and their affiliation, are clearly indicated for readers.

In reviewing the complaint, the NNC considered journalistic standards around the use of images and sources in the context of opinion writing.

The NNC agreed with the news organization that the image and caption included appropriate information for readers, including the date and location of the photo. For this reason, Council found no grounds to indicate a breach of journalistic standards in the use of the image in question.

On the matter of the column’s argument, the NNC has consistently supported the wide latitude afforded to opinion writers to present provocative, strongly stated, and unpopular opinions. Journalistic standards allow for opinion writers to also use strong language in presenting their views, so long as the opinion is grounded in fact.

The NNC has often emphasized the importance of best practices when presenting readers with opinions about sensitive or complex matters, namely, to use care and precision in language and to present readers with a range of views. That said, news organizations have the prerogative to select the content, including opinion content, that they deem best serves their readers.

The NNC has frequently noted that best practice is to present a range of perspectives, and that op-eds and letters to the editor may serve a valuable way to provide nuance or opposing views on matters subject to public debate. That said, news organizations are not required to counter every opinion column with an opposing view.

For this reason, the NNC does not support the complainant’s allegation that the news organization is required to provide countering views or “objective perspectives” on matters in its opinion section. On the contrary, the opinion section is precisely where readers should expect to encounter subjective arguments and strong viewpoints.

The NNC would note that it is standard practice to include information about the author of submitted opinion pieces, such as an organization they may represent, or other indications of expertise, so that readers may be aware of the perspective and context from which an author writes.

In this case, the NNC noted that the headline clearly identifies the writer of the opinion piece and that information about the organization for which the opinion writer works is included at the end of the article, which aligns with standard practice.

The NNC agrees with the news organization that the ability to challenge assertions is an important part of opinion writing. In this case, the NNC recognizes that the column makes an argument that challenges the extent to which one government is responsible for food insecurity in the region.

The NNC has long-held the view that opinion writers have the prerogative to select credible sources relevant to their argument. At the same time, arguments must accurately reflect sources cited. In reviewing the article in question, the NNC observed that the column cites a number of sources to support the opinion writer’s view that there is a sufficient volume of food entering the region.

In particular, the column cited a report by the review committee for the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), an organization that aids in the assessment and classification of widespread hunger, to justify its argument.

The NNC observed that the column includes the caveat, “gleaning accurate information from a war zone is admittedly difficult, as noted in the March IPC report.”

At the same time, the NNC observed that the column overlooked limitations and distinctions highlighted in the report. For example, the report provided a detailed analysis of additional factors, such as the effective distribution of food products, that needed to be evaluated to declare or rule out whether a famine in the technical sense, was taking place.

The NNC also observed that the review committee report said the organization remained “gravely concerned” about the situation in the region based on the presence of “important drivers of Famine risk.”

The review committee report emphasized, “the very fact that we are unable to endorse (or not) [the Famine Early Warning Systems Network] analysis is driven by the lack of essential up to date data on human well-being in Northern Gaza, and Gaza at large.”

Council observed that while the review committee report stresses the need for quantifiable and up-to-date evidence to assess current and past thresholds of famine, the opinion piece relies on the lack of formal confirmation, based on a lack of “essential, up to date data,” to deny the risk of famine.

The column also cited other studies to support its argument. In one pre-peer reviewed study, the researchers state: “Our results suggest that if famine were to occur in Gaza, it is unlikely to be due to any limitations posed by Israel on the food supply entering the Gaza Strip. Rather, the issues may be related to how food aid is distributed, made accessible, and utilized by the population once it reaches Gaza.”

In reviewing the materials cited, Council observed that the opinion column appears to equate increased food supplies and a lack of data to endorse a technical classification of “famine” with the notion that data show that “there was never a famine, nor anything close to it.”

The NNC has previously found that conflation of views which leaves readers with an inaccurate understanding of the facts breaches the journalistic standard of accuracy in an opinion column.

In this case, Council is of the view that the column blurs the lines of accuracy and fidelity with the sources cited, in particular, by conflating a lack of data to support a classification of famine with the notion that there is “clear” evidence to indicate that there is no high risk of famine.

An ordinary reader is, therefore, left with the impression there was never “anything close” to a famine in the region. In fact, a review of multiple studies referenced by the writer points to the fact that food and nutrition security remain ongoing concerns for those living in Gaza.

While the NNC supports the column’s ability to present an argument that challenges the extent to which a particular government is responsible for food insecurity in the region, the statements must accurately reflect the sources cited. For this reason, Council upheld this portion of the complaint.

For the reasons outlined above, Council dismissed the concerns around the use of the image and lack of counter arguments, while upholding one part of the complaint for breaching the journalistic standard of accuracy in its use of the source material.