March 19, 2025 – for immediate release

The National NewsMedia Council has considered and dismissed a complaint about journalistic standards in a November 12, 2024, opinion piece published by the Montreal Gazette.

The opinion piece expressed concern about behaviour during a recent protest that appeared to violate an injunction order prohibiting demonstrations within a certain distance from a synagogue. The piece argued, “Jews entering a synagogue were threatened and vilified because they are Jews—not for anything they’ve done, but for who they are.”

The NNC received a separate complaint raising similar concerns. As is standard, when similar complaints are received, the NNC selects a representative complaint to assess.

Richard Fung filed a complaint stating that the opinion piece was “not based on fact” because it neglected to mention that the protestors were there to demonstrate against a specific event in which a former Israeli government spokesperson was speaking. The complainant noted that the missing context “leaves readers with the impression that protesters were indeed drawn to the synagogue simply because it is a Jewish place of worship,” the result of which “spins a false narrative that misleads readers.”

The news organization responded to the complainant’s concerns by noting, “whatever the pretext of the gathering, the opinion expressed by [the opinion writer] is based on reports of what was said to the people entering the synagogue.”

The news organization pointed to multiple sources cited in the opinion piece that support the opinion writer’s view that “the behaviour outside the synagogue that night constituted antisemitism.” The news organization also noted that it covered the event in a separate news article, which was linked in the opinion piece.

In reviewing the matter, Council considered standards and practices surrounding opinion writing. The NNC consistently upholds the wide latitude afforded to opinion writers to express strongly-stated and unpopular views. Opinion writers may select the relevant, credible sources to support their arguments.

Opinion writing does not require the same level of context required in news reporting to present readers with multiple sides of an issue. Council has previously found that while additional context may be useful for readers to have a complete picture of a given issue, opinions may draw on widely available information and the relevant selection of details, so long as opinion pieces are clearly labelled and grounded in fact.

In reviewing the opinion piece in question, the NNC observed that the article is clearly labelled “opinion,” that the byline indicates it was a “special to” the Gazette, and that it provides a brief description at the end of the article describing the opinion writer’s former role as a politician. In this way, Council found that the article informs audiences about the background of the opinion writer and their relationship to the news organization. Council also observed that the piece included a statement highlighting the opinion writer’s work combating Islamophobia, which may be viewed as offering further background about the source and perspective of the opinion.

In reviewing the content of the opinion piece, the NNC observed that it cites multiple sources, including comments from elected officials and attendees of the event, to support the opinion writer’s view that synagogue goers felt intimidated by the behaviour of individuals at the demonstration.

Council also recognized that the second paragraph of the opinion piece includes a link to the news organization’s coverage of the event, which provides readers with a more comprehensive recounting of the events described in the column. The linked article notes, “A presentation by Eylon Levy, former Israeli government spokesman & international media advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu, was taking place at the synagogue at the time of the protest. Levy was in Montreal to discuss antisemitism on college campuses.”

The NNC takes the view that articles should stand on their own merit, and recognizes the differences in audiences’ abilities to access more information when reading a digital version of the article compared to a print version. That said, Council has previously supported the inclusion of hyperlinks to provide readers with the ability to learn more about the relevant facts that form the basis of an opinion presented in a column.

In its deliberation, Council recognized that reading statements from the opinion piece in isolation and the lack of explicit reference to the nature of the event may lead some readers to believe that protesters were simply there to intimidate synagogue goers attending a religious service rather than to protest a specific event.

Importantly, however, the opinion piece appears to condemn the specific statements and behaviour directed towards individuals. The piece argues, for example, “you don’t stand outside a Montreal synagogue in order to scream at the Israeli government; you go to a synagogue because you can scream your hatred at Jews who will be entering a place of worship.” It also states, “That fundamental confusion between Jews and the Israeli government goes to the core of long-standing antisemitic attacks.”

By referring to an intention to “scream at the Israeli government,” the opinion piece appears to acknowledge the wider context of the situation that unfolded. Ultimately, however, the piece appears to argue that antisemitism in any form must be called out, rather than qualified, and that people must be held accountable, regardless of the context in which it occurs.

The NNC would note that the polarized reaction to sensitive and divisive topics highlights the value of ensuring clarity in presenting facts. By the same token, presenting audiences with a wide spectrum of views on such complex issues, including strongly-stated arguments, contributes to a more nuanced discussion.

The NNC has long held that readers may disagree with the opinions presented, but that in itself does not indicate a breach of journalistic standards. While including further context about the nature of the event in question may have provided a fuller picture for readers, and could have even advanced the opinion writer’s argument that the events that unfolded represented a conflation of Jewish people and the Israeli government, Council accepted the news organization’s view that the writer’s argument, while strongly stated, was supported by the information cited in the piece.

For the reasons outlined above, Council did not find grounds to support a breach of journalistic standards and dismissed the complaint.