Tag Archives: Media bias

Sovereignty, Selective Outrage, and the Stories We Choose to Tell

Posted on by
Reply

Lately, I have been noticing how quickly people change their standards depending on who they are talking about.

That was on full display when news broke on January 3 that Nicolás Maduro and his wife had been forcibly apprehended in Venezuela after twenty years in power. The language was familiar enough: justice, law, sovereignty, human rights. But the outrage shifted very quickly.

And honestly, the reaction told its own story.

Venezuela and the Sovereignty Debate

I could not help noticing how quickly people rushed to defend sovereignty. Then I came across a post by Mitchell Schneider that said, more directly than most, what a lot of people seemed to be missing:

“Because of Venezuela, everyone is suddenly an expert on sovereignty. Let me tell you what sovereignty actually means under international law, because I don’t think most people screaming about it have any idea.

‘Sovereignty’ isn’t about who controls the land with guards, guns, and ammunition. If it were, every warlord with a checkpoint would be a ‘sovereign.’ Every drug cartel would be sovereign. Every terrorist organization holding land would be sovereign.

Sovereignty requires not only ‘effective control,’ but also an assessment of the extent to which that control represents the will of the people and supports their well-being. International recognition and adherence to international obligations are shorthand for laws that embody human rights and the welfare of the governed. These are corollaries to the main principle.

Nicolás Maduro may have had military control, but he lacked the other three requirements.

The will of the people? Maduro lost the July 2024 election by a margin of two to one. The Carter Center confirmed it. The opposition released tally sheets from more than 80 percent of voting machines. Maduro declared victory anyway.

Adherence to international obligations and human rights? After he seized power, Maduro imprisoned roughly 1,700 political opponents, including children; disappeared untold thousands; forcibly shut down opposition voices; and forced María Corina Machado—recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize—into hiding for fear of her life. For years, he also presided over the Cartel de los Soles from the presidential palace: a narco-terrorist operation that flooded American streets with cocaine.”

That gets to the heart of it.

The United States did not invade Venezuela. It executed a long-standing arrest warrant against a man widely seen as having lost an election, refused to leave office, and ruled through repression. Yet so much of the outrage was aimed not at Maduro’s record, but at the supposed violation of his sovereignty.

That is what I find so revealing.

The Double Standard

Schneider also said something else that, to me, is impossible to brush aside:

“Here is what makes this so infuriating. Many of the same voices rushing to defend Maduro’s ‘sovereignty’ have spent years insisting that Israel has no right to defend itself when Hamas fires rockets from Gaza, when Hezbollah launches missiles from Lebanon, or when Iran builds drone factories in Venezuela to manufacture weapons that kill Israeli civilians. But Venezuela’s sovereignty is sacred; the sovereignty of Israel, apparently, does not exist. The double standard is not subtle, and it is not kind. But thank God, some members of the public still retain the ability to articulate moral clarity.”

That is the part I find hardest to ignore.

Venezuela’s sovereignty suddenly becomes sacred, while Israel’s right to defend itself is treated as conditional, debatable, or somehow less real. At a certain point, it stops looking like principle and starts looking like selective outrage.

I think a lot of people see that, even if they do not always say it out loud.

Power and Legitimacy

President Trump does not sugarcoat things, and that bluntness shows up in foreign policy, too. Maduro is now in U.S. federal custody. Assad fled to Moscow. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran have all taken real hits, while Russia has been warned.

Whatever one thinks of Trump, one point stands out: occupying a presidential palace does not make a ruler legitimate.

Power is not the same thing as legitimacy.

You cannot call it justice just because it is wrapped in legal language.

What the Media Leaves Out

This moment also points to something larger. The media does not simply report stories. It shapes them.

HonestReporting puts it well:

“Visual storytelling shapes perception just as powerfully as headlines, and omissions can be as revealing as what is included. This matters because editorial choices are rarely neutral. Year-end photo roundups are often presented as objective snapshots of the world, but they reflect deliberate decisions about which conflicts dominate, which images stir emotion, and which stories quietly disappear.”

As HonestReporting demonstrates in this video, these omissions are not accidental. They are editorial decisions, and they play a powerful role in shaping global public opinion and elections.

 

That point matters.

What gets shown matters. What gets left out matters too. The images people see, the stories editors amplify, the ones they minimize, the faces they return to again and again, all of that shapes public opinion.

And no, I do not think those omissions are always accidental.

Can We Judge a Culture?

This question of storytelling goes beyond journalism.

Professor Gad Saad recently pointed to a new book, The Hoaxing of Margaret Mead, that takes another look at Margaret Mead’s work on Samoa and the problems at its core. Her work helped spread the idea that cultures should be treated as beyond judgment.

 

I do not agree.

Cultures are different, yes. But that does not mean they are beyond criticism. Human beings still share certain needs. Children need protection. Families need stability. Communities need some way to restrain cruelty, selfishness, and chaos. Societies need standards, not just slogans.

So I think it is fair to ask hard questions.

Do the values of a culture promote fairness? Do they protect the vulnerable? Do they encourage responsibility? Do they make life more stable, decent, and humane?

Those are not hateful questions. They are necessary ones.

Jewish Sources Still Matter

It is also worth remembering how much of the West’s moral vocabulary grew out of Jewish sources.

Christianity and Islam both drew heavily from Jewish texts and ideas. The Torah, the Talmud, and centuries of Jewish learning have shaped not only Jewish communities and the State of Israel, but much of the Western moral world as well, whether people realize it or not.

What I have always appreciated about the Talmud is how grounded it is. It is not abstract for the sake of sounding lofty. It is deeply concerned with everyday life: law, family, responsibility, justice, debate, duty, and care for others.

How do we raise children?
How do we protect the vulnerable?
How do we pursue justice?
How do we build a society worth living in?

These are ancient questions, but they do not feel ancient at all.

What Keeps Me Grounded

We all understand physical needs. We know we need food, rest, movement, and care. But people also need meaning, direction, and something that helps them feel steady.

More and more, we are hearing about young people returning to churches, looking for meaning and community. I can understand that. A lot of people today seem to be searching for something that feels real and steady.

I understand that.

For me, synagogue on Sabbath morning gives me that sense of steadiness, whether I am in Montreal or Jerusalem. It reminds me that life is bigger than whatever outrage is dominating the headlines that week.

And maybe that is why this matters to me as much as it does.

Because beneath the politics, beneath the media framing, beneath the debates over sovereignty and law, there is still a deeper question: what kind of world are we trying to sustain?

What This Is Really About

In the end, this is not only about Maduro. And it is not only about Trump, media bias, or the idea that some values are off-limits to criticism.

It is about whether we are willing to be consistent. And it is about whether we still know the difference between power and legitimacy, and between justice and selective outrage.

It is also about whether we are paying attention to the stories we are being told, and the ones we are being encouraged to ignore.

The values we defend, the hypocrisies we excuse, and the truths we are willing to face say far more about us than any slogan ever will.

That is the question I keep coming back to.

 

Is CBC’s Middle East Coverage Really Balanced?

Posted on by
Reply

As this war goes on and opinions become more divided, I keep coming back to the same question: is CBC really giving Canadians the full picture?

CBC is not just another news outlet. It is our public broadcaster, funded by Canadians and trusted by many Canadians. So when it says it aims for balance, I think that promise deserves a closer look.

Since October 7, I’ve been paying very close attention.

Why I’m Asking

I’m not a journalist, and I’m not writing this as an academic expert. But I do know CBC unusually well. I listen to it all the time, in Montreal, in Jerusalem, and everywhere in between thanks to streaming, podcasts, and archived programs.

After a while, you start to notice patterns. You notice what gets emphasized, what gets repeated, and what slips into the background. Since October 7, I’ve been listening even more carefully to how CBC covers the war involving Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, the Houthis, and Iran, with Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt also involved.

And to be honest, what I’ve been hearing has left me uneasy.

Why I’m Writing This

These concerns have been building for a while. I even raised them directly with CBC leadership. I wrote to then-CEO Catherine Tait, and she passed my letter along to Brodie Fenlon, head of CBC News. His response was that CBC strives for balance.

I don’t doubt that this is the intention. But intention and outcome are not always the same thing.

Because balance is not just about sounding measured. It is also about which stories are chosen, how they are framed, what context is included, and whose voices are given the authority to explain events to the rest of us.

That’s where, for me, CBC’s coverage starts to feel incomplete.

What Does “Balanced” Actually Look Like?

CBC’s style guide speaks of neutrality. But neutrality is not automatic. It is not something a newsroom can simply declare and be done with. It comes from daily editorial choices, made over and over again.

And in this case, those choices are being questioned from more than one side.

From a pro-Israel point of view, critics argue that CBC often downplays Hamas’s role as a terrorist organization, softens the language used for the atrocities of October 7, and focuses heavily on Palestinian suffering while giving less attention to Israeli trauma, hostage families, or the daily threat of rocket fire.

From a pro-Palestinian point of view, critics say CBC relies too much on Israeli or Western official sources, uses language that echoes the Israeli government’s framing, and does not give enough weight to the devastation in Gaza or to criticism of Canada’s foreign policy.

Both sides say something is missing. CBC says it is trying to be balanced. So I think the real question is simple: what are Canadians actually hearing day after day?

The Patterns I Keep Noticing

At one point, I searched “CBC coverage of Middle East crisis” and looked through the results. What stayed with me was not just one headline, but the pattern.

Again and again, the headlines focused on Palestinian casualties and suffering in Gaza:

“7 children killed in Israeli strike while lining up for food”
“Health officials say Israeli airstrikes, gunfire leave 60 dead in Gaza”
“Canadian doctors work in Gaza as fuel shortages threaten lives”

These are important stories. I’m not questioning that for a second.

But when I looked at the broader picture, I noticed that 10 of the 12 headlines in my scan were about Palestinian casualties or humanitarian crisis.

What I did not see was similar attention to Israeli hostage families, October 7 survivors, or the continuing reality of rocket fire that still sends Israelis running to bomb shelters.

Those stories exist. They are not obscure. They are not hard to find. Yet they rarely seem to shape CBC’s lead coverage in the same way.

And that imbalance is what troubles me.

One Example That Stayed With Me: Front Burner

One recent episode of Front Burner focused on Netanyahu’s trip to Washington and the aid crisis in Gaza. Early in the conversation, Jayme Poisson asked, “Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington, meeting Trump and U.S. lawmakers… What have you made of Netanyahu’s trip?” Meron Rapoport answered by focusing on Netanyahu’s political future, saying that after the war on Iran, Netanyahu saw “an opportunity to end the war and go to early elections,” while also arguing that his legacy was tied to preventing a Palestinian state.

As I listened, I noticed how quickly the conversation moved toward Netanyahu’s political calculations and then toward Gaza’s suffering, with much less attention given to the broader regional context, including the strategic significance of U.S.-Israeli military cooperation in Iran.

Later, Poisson said, “Now, I’m hoping we can focus on the suffering in Gaza and the monstrous system of aid distribution.”

That suffering absolutely deserves coverage. I want to be clear about that. But as I listened, I kept wondering: where was the comparable attention to Israel’s reality, the trauma of October 7, the anguish of hostage families, or the security fears that shape Israeli decision-making?

Meron Rapoport is a serious journalist, and his perspective has every right to be heard. My question is not why he was there. My question is: where was the counterbalance?

Another Example: As It Happens

I heard something similar on As It Happens.

In one segment, CBC focused on the human toll of an Israeli airstrike, which is important. But the rocket fire targeting Israeli civilians before that strike was mentioned only briefly, almost in passing.

That kind of framing matters.

When coverage begins with the aftermath of an Israeli strike but gives very little context for what led to it, audiences are left with only part of the story. And when that happens again and again, partial truth can start to feel like the whole truth.

Why This Matters

This matters because CBC helps shape how Canadians understand the world.

When coverage feels incomplete, it shapes public opinion. It influences policy debates. And at a time when antisemitism and Islamophobia are both rising, selective storytelling can deepen division instead of helping people understand a painful and complicated reality.

Canadians deserve better than simplified narratives.

We deserve reporting that informs rather than steers us, that adds context instead of leaving it out, and that trusts the public enough to face the full complexity of this war.

What’s Missing

CBC leadership says fairness is the goal. I believe they may sincerely mean that. But when so much coverage presents Gaza mainly through tragedy and Israel mainly through accusation or military response, something essential gets lost.

And what gets lost is not propaganda. It is context.

It is the human reality on both sides.

It is the recognition that Israelis are not only actors in this war, but also victims of it.

And it is the willingness to cover Palestinian suffering without erasing the events and threats that continue to shape Israeli life.

Where I Look for a Fuller Picture

For anyone who wants to compare CBC’s framing with other sources, I think it helps to look more broadly. I regularly check:

I think more Canadians should do that.

A Final Reflection

In Jewish tradition, the month of Tamuz is associated with clarity of vision. I find myself thinking about that a lot these days.

Because clarity is exactly what feels so scarce.

And I keep returning to John Donne’s line, later echoed by Hemingway:

“Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

This war diminishes everyone, Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish, Muslim, religious, secular. And when public media loses clarity, the public loses something too. We lose the ability to see honestly. And once that starts to happen, it becomes much harder to think clearly, respond fairly, or remain humane.

That is why I keep asking this question.

And that is why I believe CBC’s coverage deserves closer scrutiny.

 

Rosh Hashanah Reflections on Peace

Posted on by
Reply

As Rosh Hashanah approaches, many of us take the time to send heartfelt wishes for a sweet and hopeful new year. This year, I received a thoughtful message from my dear friend Gloria, who expressed her hopes for peace amidst the challenges our world faces.

In our tradition, peace is central to our prayers and aspirations, particularly during tumultuous times. In response to Gloria, I emphasized our collective wish for peace and the importance of holding onto hope, even when it seems distant. Each day, in our communal services, we recite the prayer:

“May the One who makes peace in the heavens bring peace to us and to all Israel. And let us say, Amen,”

This prayer reminds us that while peace may seem far off, it remains a possibility—one we must continually strive toward.

Reflecting on the past year, which has been marked by numerous global crises—including wars, natural disasters, and economic instability—I recognize the impact of these events on our communities. As I’ve listened to various news sources, including CBC’s Q and The Current, I’ve been struck by the complex narratives surrounding conflicts, particularly the ongoing situation in Israel and Gaza. There is a notable concern that media coverage can sometimes oversimplify or misrepresent the complex nature of these conflicts.

  • Misrepresentation of “Genocide” Claims: When discussing allegations of “genocide” and civilian casualties, some media outlets often concentrate on civilian deaths in Gaza. However, these reports might not fully address the complexities of how militant groups operate and the broader context of the conflict.
  • Civilian Casualty Narratives: Discussions often focus on civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon, particularly among women and children. However, it is essential to recognize that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have been reported to target Israeli civilians and use their own populations as human shields. Understanding this context is crucial for fully comprehending the ongoing conflict and its impact on all affected populations.
  • Political Motives of Netanyahu: Some narratives propose that Prime Minister Netanyahu may have political incentives to prolong the conflict and fail to point to the substantial support he receives from the Israeli public during times of crisis.

These misrepresentations muddy public opinion, making it harder to achieve a true understanding of the conflict and hindering efforts for peace. Commentators like Bari Weiss, David Hirsh, and Melanie Phillips offer counterpoints to these distorted views.

Bari Weiss, in her Free Press article, discussed the troubling reactions in the West to Hamas’s attacks on Israel. She was especially surprised by the lack of condemnation from elite institutions and student groups, who instead placed the blame solely on Israel.

“As news of the scope of the slaughter was still registering, and the tally of hostages still being made—the final count: 240 people from 40 countries carried off like barbaric spoils of war—progressive groups here at home and across the West began to celebrate.

More than 30 student clubs at Harvard put out a letter holding Israel “entirely responsible” for the massacre. Israel. Not Hamas. Israel. This was on October 8, as Hamas terrorists were still roaming Israel’s south, and Hezbollah began its assault on Israel’s north from Lebanon.”¹

Weiss’s reflections point to a troubling trend: antisemitism disguised as political critique, a pattern that is not new but is now more visible than ever.

David Hirsh, a sociologist who studies antisemitism and its connection to anti-Zionism, echoed this concern. He explains that media bias and public opinion are often shaped by these antisemitic undercurrents:

“Antisemitism has always constructed its own fictional image of ‘the Jews’ which is quite distinct from the diversity of actual Jewish men and women. Antisemitism puts ‘the Jews’ at the centre of all that is bad in the world. Similarly, anti-Zionism constructs ‘Israel’ as being central to all key evils on the planet. Moreover, the antisemitic construction of ‘the Jew’ has been forged over centuries by a succession of distinct antisemitic movements, each adding to the narrative and emotional vocabulary of the demonized other.

It sits there in our culture and we think it is a thing of the past, too vulgar and awful to constitute a contemporary threat, but antisemitic ways of thinking are nevertheless entrenched in our subconscious and are tempting resources because they give material shape to unendurable, abstract, fear and fury.”²

Melanie Phillips elaborates on this issue in a recent interview, noting how deeply ingrained antisemitism among Western elites continues to fuel the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.³

Despite our challenges, our tradition encourages us to continue believing in the possibility of peace. As we enter the Days of Teshuvah, a time for reflection and atonement, we have the opportunity to educate ourselves, challenge our assumptions, and engage in informed discussions about complex issues.

May we work together towards a future where peace is hoped for and actively pursued, benefiting all communities affected by conflict.
May we see peace come speedily and in our times!

Footnotes:

  1. Weiss, Bari. “A Year of Revelations: We Expected Hamas to Try to Kill Jews. We Didn’t Expect Americans to Celebrate When They Did.” The Free Press, 7 Oct. 2024, www.thefp.com/p/a-year-of-revelations-we-expected-hamas-to-try-to-kill-jews.
  2. Hirsh, David. “Why Antisemitism and Populism Go Hand in Hand.” The Times of Israel, 30 Sept. 2023, blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-antisemitism-and-populism-go-hand-in-hand-david-hirsh/.
  3. Phillips, Melanie. “Israel’s Last War.” TRIGGERnometry, 6 Oct. 2024, www.youtube.com/watch?v=link-to-video.