June 22, 2026 – for immediate release
The National NewsMedia Council (NNC) has considered and dismissed a four-part complaint about accuracy, context, and the opportunity to respond related to a November 21, 2025, news article published by The Canadian Press.
The news article reported about how several individuals had either been disciplined or lost employment as a result of critical comments of Israel on social media during the Israel-Hamas war.
Cary Kogan, the president and co-founder of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics (NECA) filed a complaint with the NNC, which included a critical review of the article’s content and allegations of editorial errors committed by the news organization.
During the process, the scope of the complainant’s concerns were identified as follows:
a) That the article misled and misquoted NECA;
b) That the article misrepresented NECA as a “Jewish advocacy group”;
c) That the article presented “propaganda from a terrorist organization as fact and conceals
their source”; and
d) That the article fails to provide the specific behaviour and/or statements made by the
individuals allegedly affected.
In response to the concern that the article misled and misquoted NECA, the news organization stated that the focus of the article was to identify examples where individuals had faced penalties at their job for speaking out about the Gaza conflict.
The news organization indicated it had identified several examples of pro-Palestinian speech that had lead to censure and, for balance, had examined whether individuals making public declarations of support for Israel had faced discipline.
The news organization stated it had approached NECA to identify some examples. It received no response from the organization after several days and indicated this fact in the news story. In response to the concern about identifying NECA as a “Jewish advocacy group,” the news organization acknowledged the organization has a lengthy vision and mandate statement posted on its website. This statement reads as follows:
“We are a non-partisan group of Jewish and non-Jewish academics who share concerns about rising antisemitism on campus. We advocate for strengthening academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, and inclusion on Canadian campuses. We work to protect and teach about Jewish identity as well as combat antisemitism.”
The news organization stated they decided to shorten this description for space and word count. The news organization also stated that it did not view the description of “Jewish advocacy group” as a mischaracterization of the organization’s general activities and mandate.
In response to the complainant’s concern about the news article citing “propaganda from a terrorist organization as fact and concealing their source,” the news organization affirmed all statistics are clearly sourced. The news organization used the same background information as its partner, The Associated Press, which has reporters on the ground in the Middle East covering the conflict.
In response to the complainant’s concern that the news article presented no evidence to show that individuals listed in the article had lost their positions solely on the basis of expressing their support for Palestinians, the news organization said it stood by its reporting.
The complainant remained unsatisfied with the responses provided by the news organization.
In their response, the complainant reiterated that the news article mischaracterized, omitted or distorted key information that left readers with an incorrect understanding that individuals were being penalized solely for expressing their support for the Palestinian cause.
The complainant also took issue with the impartiality of the Associated Press reporting. The complainant stated their concern that several freelance journalists working in Gaza have been found to have had links to Hamas, which is recognized by Canada as a terrorist organization.
In reviewing the materials and comments submitted by both parties, Council evaluated the accuracy of four central areas of concern identified for parties at the outset of the complaint.
With regards to the complaint about misleading and/or misquoting NECA, the NNC understands that a journalist working with the news organization contacted the complainant because they were hoping to connect with someone who had been fired, suspended or investigated for expressing their opinion in support of Israel.
The NNC understands the complainant considered the inquiry inappropriate as it would have entailed disclosing the private employment details of individuals, and therefore chose not to provide comment. The Council also understands the complainant felt this line of questioning was misleading as it was not the single subject of the final article.
At the same time, a free press allows journalists to choose the scope and focus of a story. It is standard practice, by extension, for journalists to select sources and questions they deem relevant to the article’s subject matter.
The NNC agrees that the news organization approached the complainant for this story in the spirit of upholding the journalistic standards of balance and fairness. Given that the news organization had identified what appeared to be several examples of pro-Palestinian speech leading to censure, it was reasonable to consider whether examples existed of individuals being disciplined for expressions in support of Israel.
Council understands the news organization made reference to the complainant organization to demonstrate to readers that it had taken steps to seek additional information that would provide readers with a more complete picture of the issue at hand.
At the same time, Council agreed that the complainant chose not to provide a response to the news organization. This is reflected in the news story’s statement that the complainant organization could not be reached for comment.
For this reason, no breach of journalistic standards was found in evaluating this first part of the complaint. Council shared the logical view that one must first provide a quote to a news organization in order to be misquoted. NECA chose not to respond. As the news organization indicated in its responses, had a representative of NECA responded that the question was inappropriate, the article could have included that statement.
In considering the second portion of the complainant’s concerns, Council understands the complainant may have preferred a more detailed description of their mandate. At the same time, the description of “Jewish advocacy group” was not deemed to be a mischaracterization but a general overview of the group’s activities, which include providing education about Jewish identity and combatting antisemitism.
News organizations have the prerogative to choose their words for both coherence and concision so long as they are accurate. For this reason, Council dismissed this portion of the complaint.
With regard to the third portion of the complaint, Council understands that the complainant questions the overall credibility of the news organization cited. In this specific case, however, Council agreed that the information presented was clearly sourced, and that there was no evidence of a clear factual error. As such, Council found no grounds to support a breach of journalistic standards.
In evaluating the final portion of the complaint, Council understands the complainant disputed the conclusion that individuals cited in the article were sanctioned solely on the basis of expressing their support for Palestinians, and that the complainant wished to see more context included to present a full picture of the incidents described.
For example, the complainant argued it was unclear if individuals referenced in the article were punished because of their speech or for other reasons, such as violating other workplace or professionalism policies.
In evaluating the accuracy of this claim, Council undertook a careful reading of the story’s general focus, which was identified in the article’s headline as “free speech fears.”
Upon review, Council determined that the article cited a series of general events and asked experts, including the complainant’s organization, for their expertise and opinions on the incidents and issues presented. The focus of the article, Council found, was not meant to be a definitive, legalistic review to determine causation related to the termination of employment or censure of any individual.
Council discussed how providing additional context, such as examples of the specific statements made by the individuals referred to in the article, could have provided readers with more information to assess the multiple incidents reported. That said, journalists have the prerogative to choose the scope and relevant details of the story. Council agreed that not including the specific statements or additional information on the incidents reported did not indicate a breach of standards.
Further, including the complainant’s perspective could have provided readers with additional context to assess the examples cited in the report for themselves. Ultimately, however, the complainant chose not to respond to requests for comment, which is their prerogative. The news organization, however, cannot be in breach of standards for failing to include information or perspectives it sought to obtain but was denied.
For these reasons, Council dismissed this portion of the complaint.