November 20, 2024 – for immediate release

The National NewsMedia Council dismissed a complaint about accuracy in an August 16, 2024, opinion article published by the National Post.

The complainant, AbdAllah Ben-Masaud, raised concerns with numerous statements in the opinion piece primarily related to the selection, interpretation, and characterization of historical facts.

In particular, the complainant was concerned with the characterization of Palestinians as a specific, non-Jewish ethnic group, the history of statehood in the region, the reception of land agreements by political leaders and subsequent events—including the opinion piece’s criticism of narratives surrounding the Nakba—and the extent to which Israel withdrew from Gaza.

The news organization provided a detailed response to each of the complainant’s concerns and noted that while the author and the complainant “have diametrically opposed views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” it appeared as though there was broad agreement on the historical facts.

The NNC upholds the long-accepted journalistic practice giving columnists and opinion writers wide latitude to express unpopular, strongly stated, and controversial views. Standard journalistic practice allows opinion writers to question, criticize, and show support for issues and perspectives subject to debate, and to use strong language. Generally speaking, the NNC will not consider a complaint about opinion writing except in the case of a clear error of fact.

In reviewing each of the points raised by the complainant and responses to the concerns, the NNC agreed with the complainant that the article is “extremely one-sided” and presents a singular viewpoint in support of Israel at the exclusion of other perspectives.

The opinion piece argues, for example, that there are “myths that are deeply woven into the narrative surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” that are “aimed at Israel’s destruction.”

We understand the complainant takes issue with the statement, “Another pervasive myth is the “Nakba” or “catastrophe,” narrative, which claims that Palestinians were forcibly expelled by Israel in 1948. This version omits the critical context that it was the Arab nations that invaded Israel, causing many Arabs to be expelled or flee their homes.”

The complainant notes, “The Nakba was in full swing well before war broke out.”

The NNC agreed with the complainant that the statements interpreting historical fact lacked additional context and details that would have presented a more balanced view of the situation at hand. At the same time, the NNC observed that the statement did not appear to suggest that the Nakba did not occur, but instead made the argument that the “narrative” should include more context. 

While we agree with the complainant that including additional context would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the issues dealt with in the piece, opinion writing is not required to include the same context and diversity of perspectives expected in a news article. 

To that end, the NNC observed that the article was clearly labelled “opinion” and that the headline included the writer’s name followed by a colon, which indicated that the views expressed were those of the writer. An ordinary reading of the opinion piece presented a strongly-worded argument that claims about Palestinian statehood serve to “delegitimize Israel.”

The NNC recognizes that this is a particularly sensitive subject and that many readers may strongly object to the views and characterization of historical events presented in the piece. The NNC further recognizes that there is significant historical information that is not presented in the opinion piece’s interpretation of historical events.

For this reason, the NNC agrees with the complainant that the opinion piece does not present readers with the full picture or complete trajectory of historical events. That said, while news reports are expected to include multiple sources that reflect different sides of an issue, opinion writers have latitude to select the scope and focus of a piece as well as the relevant sources to support their arguments. It is often not possible, nor expected, for opinion content to include a complete picture of historical events.

Importantly, it is not the role of the NNC to decide on matters of deep historical debate. In this case, the NNC agrees with the news organization that the views expressed in the piece and in the complaint represent different interpretations of historical events rather than evidence of a specific breach of journalistic standards in an opinion article.

The NNC has consistently emphasized that best practice for news organizations is to showcase the range of views on issues subject to debate. In this way, providing space to different perspectives plays an important role in informing readers’ understanding of the issues. At the same time, news organizations have the editorial prerogative to select the specific opinion content for publication.

For the reasons outlined above, the NNC did not find grounds to support a complaint about a breach of the journalistic standard of accuracy and declined to take further action on the matter.