Opinion columns on the Middle East published in the three largest Canadian print media in 2024 were a vital part of freedom of expression and independent thought about the region and Canadian foreign policy. 

However, research shows that some op-eds can propagate problematic and incendiary views with real consequences. 

Researchers, including myself, have shown how op-eds in many countries shaped foreign policy in the West, often with harmful consequences for the population in the areas affected. This occurs when narratives emphasized in Western media gain credibility abroad, influencing how local actors frame their own political and social realities.  

What is the role of the media when it comes to problematic discourse in a democracy? The issue isn’t whether the media can be held accountable because laws already limit hate speech and defamation. 

Rather, it’s a question of whether the media recognize there can be negative real-world consequences to their publication decisions that should be considered more carefully and whether governments, experts and organizations can help them realize that. 

I have identified and analyzed 365 opinion columns substantially on Middle Eastern affairs that were published in the centre-left Toronto Star (30 per cent of the articles), the centre-right Globe and Mail (27 per cent) and the National Post further to the right (43 per cent).  

In 2024, these op-ed writers weighed in on the hostages held by Hamas, Israel’s devastating wars in Gaza and Lebanon, the threat of Iran and its proxies, the change of regime in Syria and other critical developments that require sensible discussion.  

How to play a constructive role 

My analysis led me to three recommendations to Canadian editors, Middle East policy experts, and lawmakers concerned with violence triggered by inflammatory media discourse. 

• Encourage peaceful discourse and external perspectives, rather than aggressive interventions penned by a few in-house columnists.  
• Recognize that criticism about side issues is productive – until it distracts from the main issue. 
• Understand that acknowledging complexity is generally good for peace, but not always because historical nuance can foster distrust and legitimize violence. 

My recommendations are motivated by the main foreign policy that Canada has advocated in the Middle East – a voice of peace and tolerance, and a careful mediator who can reconcile differences.  

When analyzing all 365 op-eds, I looked for articles that called for peace, a ceasefire, reconciliation, hostage and prisoner exchanges, or tolerance between opposing sides. 

Two thirds of the Toronto Star articles advocated these positions, compared to 71 per cent in the Globe and Mail but only 11 per cent in the National Post. 

I also found a strong relationship between the background of the author and whether the article called for peace.  

Opinion articles written by individuals in community organizations, higher education, medicine, or the arts strongly tended to advocate solutions such as a ceasefire and the need for tolerance. 

Interestingly, my analysis suggests the number of such articles dropped slightly when the author was a lawyer – due to the equivocal ways they interpreted international law regarding the actions of the Israeli government. 

The number also dropped significantly when the author’s background was in politics and diplomacy, or policy organizations and think tanks. 

Across all three publications, authors whose background was in journalism and media – typically columnists who regularly write for their respective publications – were less likely than other writers to call for peace, ceasefire, reconciliation, hostage and prisoner exchange or tolerance.  

The largest share of the 365 articles came from authors in journalism and media: 58 per cent for the Toronto Star, 45 per cent for the Globe and Mail, and 71 per cent for the National Post. A disproportionate number of articles were written by a few authors – 40 per cent of the articles were written by a handful of authors for the Star, 30 per cent for the Globe and 37 per cent for the Post.  

This raises an important question. Do op-ed writers represent the voice of the Canadian people or the views of their respective publications? 

A handful of people set the agenda 

If the former, we should see correspondence between what ordinary Canadians have expressed in 2024 – two thirds of whom desired a ceasefire in Gaza according to a February 2024 survey – and the proportion of pacifist positions among opinion writers. This correspondence holds in the case of the Star and the Globe but not the National Post.  

Though all 365 opinion articles I analyzed were substantially on the Middle East, they served to criticize a range of issues, global and local. 

Censorship of voices within Canada as a result of Middle Eastern conflicts – particularly on university campuses – was the top issue criticized in the Star. The most commonly criticized subject in the Globe was the steps taken by the Israeli government. National Post writers mostly criticized the threat of Iran and its proxies. 

Historically, the problem with op-eds on the Middle East that focus too narrowly on national interests is losing sight of more pressing issues for the concerned countries. 

All three Canadian publications used the Middle East as a backdrop to criticize the Canadian government, members of the NDP and the Liberal Party, particularly Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, as well as the Biden administration. 

In all three publications, these political actors were criticized by both authors calling for peace and by authors who claimed more should be done to support Israel. 

There were eye-opening similarities and differences in criticized subjects. A considerable number of op-eds across all three publications were critical of international organizations, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, including many calling for the Canadian government to disregard its commitment toward them.  

In terms of distinctive character between publications, Toronto Star articles prioritized criticizing the lack of humanitarian aid going into Gaza and the lack of safe ways for Palestinians to make it to Canada.  

Writers in the Globe and Mail tended to criticize the lack of dialogue, restraint or proposed solutions, including a lack of resolve to end the suffering of Palestinians and to return the hostages.  

National Post op-ed writers regularly criticized Islamic extremism and what they called media misinformation.  

Historical context and calls for peace  

Before my data analysis, I hypothesized that opinion pieces mentioning the history of the Middle East would tend to call for peaceful solutions. 

However, there was only a weak correlation between articles with historical facts and calls for peace, due to the ways the authors interpreted the same fact. The National Post published the articles with the most diverse set of historical dates, figures, and events related to the Middle East. There was a noticeable hesitation in the Star and the Globe to discuss historical events before the 21st century. Yet, these facts are important to understanding the origins of Middle Eastern issues. 

For example, during the First World War, the Western powers promised Arabs a state that included Palestine if they helped fight the Ottoman Empire based in Istanbul which ruled over most of the Middle East at that time. The Arabs did but France and Britain betrayed their commitment after the war.  

Yet, Canadian academics who could offer experience in the history of the region made up only a small portion of the writers across all three publications.  

Opinion writers across all three publications criticized scholarship produced in Canadian universities, including studies on colonialism. That said, the Canadian-written op-ed with the highest digital engagement in 2024 was published by UBC associate professor Naomi Klein in The Guardian U.S., according to my analysis of search behaviour on Google Trends. 

The success of Klein’s article may be instructive. Its argument was simultaneously historical, geopolitical, moral, humanitarian and social/cultural.  

Op-eds in Canadian media tended to meet only one of these categories. The majority of Globe and National Post articles made a geopolitical argument about the Middle East, i.e., recommendations regarding military objectives, strategy and global influence. 

Toronto Star articles tended to make a social/cultural argument, i.e., how Middle Eastern conflicts affected the fabric of Canadian, Israeli/Jewish and Arab/Muslim society. 

Humanitarian arguments – such as reasoning that people should not be killed regardless of politics – made up only a small fraction of the articles across all three publications.  

In 2024, opinion on the Middle East in Canadian media showed some potential to become a voice of peace in the region, but it is clear substantial structural changes are needed to deliver on that promise. 

My analysis suggests diversity is key. When more Canadians from different backgrounds and perspectives were solicited for their opinion, they enriched Canadian journalism and likely foreign policy.