As someone who’s spent a career in newsrooms — reporting, anchoring, and holding truth to power — I’ve never been more concerned about the erosion of credibility in the media and the damage it’s doing to public trust. That concern has only deepened in recent weeks as misinformation — and the careless amplification of it — continues to seep into even our most established Canadian outlets.

Case in point: the events surrounding a supposed Israeli attack on a food depot in Gaza on Sunday. Several mainstream Canadian news organizations reported that Israel had killed Palestinians at the site — repeating claims that originated from Hamas without sufficient verification. Their source: Associated Press and Reuters, wire services Canadian media outlets subscribe to for international reporting. Trusted, not fact-checked from here. Within hours, video evidence and detailed reports from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) strongly contradicted that narrative, showing it to be very likely false. It took

almost a full day

to see a single clarification in their reporting. By then, the damage was done. Once again, a claim manufactured by a terrorist group was laundered through respected western media, reaching audiences hungry for truth but served distortion.

I saw firsthand how misinformation spreads during a recent trip to Israel, sponsored by the Exigent Foundation, where the IDF now serves not only as a defense force, but also as a real-time fact-checking unit — challenging falsehoods as quickly as they emerge. In an era of instant outrage and algorithmic amplification, Israel is fighting not only a war on the ground, but a war over truth.

There was a time — not so long ago — when journalists double- and triple-checked the facts before airing or publishing a story. We’d hold back, even under pressure, until we could confirm. We knew that credibility wasn’t just currency — it was everything. Somewhere along the line, the speed of the news cycle began to outrun the discipline of journalism. And we’re all paying the price.

In this case, Jews are asking, is it blatant bias against Israel?

The Jewish community is paying the price most directly. These inaccuracies are not just journalistic failures — they’re fuelling antisemitism across Canada. No wonder some Jewish Canadians are quietly contemplating “an exit plan” if things continue to escalate. Many now say that, if it becomes too much to bear, Israel feels like the only safe place left.

When lies spread faster than facts, and when reputable journalists amplify propaganda from bad actors, our democratic foundation trembles. As Canadians, we pride ourselves on fairness and integrity — but our media must reflect those values. Reporting claims from a group like Hamas without scrutiny is not journalism. It’s a disservice to every honest reporter still doing the work, and to the public that depends on us.

We are at a turning point. Do we double down on truth, context, and clarity — or do we let the noise win? Do we allow ourselves to become a softer echo of the U.S., where polarization paralyzes discourse — or do we reclaim the journalistic standards that once set Canadian media apart?

Canada is not immune to misinformation. But we still have time — and a responsibility — to protect the civility, decency, and shared reality that hold us together. That begins with accountability. And it begins with each of us.

Leslie Roberts is a former television journalist and news anchor.

• Iddo Moed: False narratives about Israel have violent consequences
• Michael Higgins: Flamethrower attack could easily happen in Canada

I am the ambassador of a country that was built by unexpected leaders.

The founders of the State of Israel were not aristocrats or members of a wealthy elite. They were refugees and immigrants — men and women who arrived with little more than determination and hope. They fled violence, persecution, and antisemitism from every corner of the world: pogroms in Europe and Asia, attacks by mobs and ultimately expulsion from Arab lands, and the unthinkable horrors of the Holocaust.

While Jews have had a continuous presence in the Holy Land for millennia, modern Israel was forged in the crucible of exile and survival. Today, Israel is a thriving liberal democracy with a diverse and multicultural society, a dynamic economy, and a strong defence force.

We are proud of these achievements. But we have never forgotten an important lesson from Jewish history: false narratives, when left unchallenged, have violent consequences.

One need not look far to understand why this lesson is so deeply ingrained in our psyche. Theodor Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, was moved by what he witnessed during the infamous Dreyfus Affair in late 19th-century France. A Jewish army officer, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, was falsely accused and convicted of treason. The campaign against him was led by the virulently antisemitic press — particularly La Libre Parole, which pushed a dangerous narrative: that Jews were inherently disloyal.

Given our history, we are highly attuned to the moments these falsehoods begin to surface. That’s why, when I woke up Sunday morning to headlines from nearly every major Canadian media outlet — except National Post — about an alleged incident at a Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid hub in Rafah, I was immediately concerned.

This war has shown us, time and again, how Hamas manipulates facts on the ground, creating stories of atrocities that either didn’t happen or happened in a very different way. The media often amplifies these claims uncritically, and by the time the truth emerges, the damage is done.

The most egregious example came just weeks after the October 7 massacre. The Hamas-run Palestinian Health Ministry claimed an Israeli airstrike had killed hundreds at Al-Ahli Hospital. Israel immediately launched an investigation — but the media didn’t wait. The story exploded across front pages and screens around the world.

By the time the investigation revealed that the explosion was caused by a Palestinian rocket, which was confirmed by the

Canadian Forces Intelligence Command,

millions were misled. Worse, some politicians — including Canada’s own foreign affairs minister at the time — rushed to condemn Israel before the facts were known.

In the case of Sunday’s reports out of Rafah, we’re already seeing the familiar pattern unfold. By Monday, the BBC

issued a correction,

noting that the video initially used to implicate the Israeli military in alleged shootings was actually filmed at a different location and at an entirely different time.

Rather than rushing to publish unverified claims, the media should be asking a more pressing question: why is Hamas so eager to spread this lie? The answer can be found in what’s happening on the ground. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is beginning to shift the dynamic. It’s getting food and aid directly to civilians — bypassing the usual pattern of supplies being siphoned off by Hamas or rerouted through compromised international agencies. For Hamas, this is a threat not just to its control but to its entire narrative.

But the damage caused by these false reports doesn’t stop at distorting the public’s view of the conflict. It also endangers lives beyond the Middle East.

Just hours after the Rafah reports went global, the world learned of a horrifying antisemitic attack in Boulder, Col. At a peaceful rally in support of the 58 Israeli hostages still held by Hamas, a man used a flamethrower to set attendees on fire while shouting, “Free Palestine.” Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar rightly called the attack “pure antisemitism, fuelled by blood libels spread in the media.”

Two weeks earlier, following another sensational — and ultimately debunked — BBC report claiming 14,000 children will die of starvation in just 48 hours, tragedy struck again. In front of the Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. a man radicalized by the pro-Palestinian movement murdered two Israeli Embassy staff members, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim. According to witnesses, he boasted, “I did it for Gaza.”

This is not to suggest that the media bears all the blame. Clearly, hatred runs deep within both perpetrators. But it is worth asking whether false reports served as a catalyst — intensifying emotions, reinforcing dangerous narratives, and perhaps even triggering the eventual acts of violence.

While the media has a duty to verify information, the words of our political leaders carry even greater weight.

It was notable that Prime Minister Mark Carney unequivocally condemned the Washington attack as “a violent act of antisemitism.” As Hamas grows more desperate, this kind of moral clarity will be more essential than ever. Whether it’s unverified reports of attacks, reckless claims of genocide, or calls for unilateral Palestinian statehood that will only embolden Hamas terrorists, we cannot allow dangerous narratives to shape the conversation.

What’s at stake is more than just the future of the Middle East — it’s about the safety and security of vulnerable communities everywhere, including right here in Canada.

Iddo Moed is the Ambassador of Israel to Canada

Elon Musk’s departure from his temporary role with the Trump administration creates an opportunity to assess the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that he created to shape a smaller, leaner federal government. There’s no doubt that the job is necessary; government in the U.S. and especially at the federal level has metastasized over the years in

size, scope, and power

beyond affordability — or the bounds of respect for people’s liberty.

Unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, DOGE has so far delivered something between disappointment and failure.

When the idea of DOGE was first floated, Musk boldly predicted that

$2 trillion could be cut

from the federal budget. Predictably, after the election was won by Donald Trump and his Republicans, Musk hedged a bit,

saying

“I think if we try for $2 trillion, we’ve got a good shot at getting $1 (trillion).”

That was a walk-back, but still a credible effort to address a federal government that is on its way to spending

$6.75 trillion

this year and takes a growing bite from the economy. As the U.S. Department of the Treasury

puts it

, “since 2015, the spending to GDP ratio has increased from 20 per cent to 23 per cent.”

One trillion dollars might sound like a lot to cut from the federal government, but it’s just a bit more than half of the

$1.83 trillion deficit

the federal government ran last year. The U.S. federal government has consistently

spent more than it takes in for a quarter of a century

, borrowing to make up the difference in an ongoing unofficial policy of fiscal irresponsibility. It has run up a national debt that currently stands just shy of

$36 trillion

or around

100 per cent of gross domestic product

if we just look at debt held by the public and not money the government owes itself.

But despite its high-profile efforts over the protests of flustered federal workers and frenzied advocates of ever-expanding government, DOGE hasn’t cut $2 trillion. DOGE hasn’t cut $1 trillion. On its website, Elon Musk’s creation

boasts of saving $175 billion

. And that may be a bit of an exaggeration.

According to a

Reuters analysis

, DOGE’s own data reveals cuts that “add up to less than half of that figure.” Worse, the analysis found the federal government “spent about $250 billion more during the first months of Trump’s administration than it did during the same period of time last year.”

Part of the disparity between DOGE’s claims and the Treasury figures comes from tallying errors by the cost-cutters. Also, judges reversed or delayed spending cuts and agency closures. The huge federal debt also plays a role, with interest payments up by about 22 per cent from last year. The federal government’s ongoing borrowing spree is not just displacing other federal priorities, but also the ability to reduce the cost of government — leaving the taxpayers with bills to pay for expenditures years in the past.

Also, DOGE is an advisory agency with no enforcement power of its own. Even a president inclined to slash the size and power of the federal government can’t do so unilaterally. That requires congressional approval. And legislators aren’t inclined to tell their constituents that it’s time for tough fiscal medicine; a bill set to be introduced this week will contemplate all of

$9.4 billion in DOGE-recommended

cuts.

Whether this constitutes a disappointment or a bitter failure lies in your opinion of the government’s openness to reform. At Reason magazine, where I’m a contributing editor, Christian Britschgi

called

DOGE a “smashing success” for cutting anything at all from an institution that embodies Leviathan. He argued that “making the federal government a less secure place to work and a less reliable funding partner means fewer people will want to work for it, and fewer organizations will rely on it for funding.”

By contrast, his colleague Eric Boehm

labeled DOGE a failure

for refusing to address the entitlement spending that’s rapidly consuming the entire budget. It also tried to cut costs before asking Congress to reduce the power and role of federal agencies that spend so much money. Still, like Britschgi, Boehm allowed that DOGE’s results were probably better than we’d get in its absence.

At City Journal, Christopher F. Rufo

concluded

that DOGE’s big error was taking a technocratic approach to reforming the government when it should have focused on forcing true believers in an intrusive state out of federal employment. He believes “the fight for fiscal restraint is not over, but the illusion that it can be won through efficiency and memes has been dispelled.“

Among those disappointed by DOGE is President Trump himself. According to The Wall Street Journal, he

asked his advisors

“was it all bullshit?” of the cost-cutting project’s promises to cut trillions in spending.

But Elon Musk also sees fault in a federal government run by people who like to talk about reform but have no interest in the tradeoffs it requires. Before leaving the Trump administration, he criticized the House-passed version of President Trump’s “

big, beautiful bill

” full of domestic policy priorities. Musk

said

he was “disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit.”

After all, there’s little point in DOGE proposing spending cuts if Congress is going to more than offset them with expensive new boondoggles intended to buy votes in the next election.

The ultimate failure of DOGE is probably baked into the U.S. federal government itself. By most reports, it has been (and continues to be) a sincere if not always competent effort to reduce the size and cost of federal agencies, supported in principle by the White House and some lawmakers. But the federal government thrives on purchasing goodwill from the public with unaffordable programs. And its employees gain status and fulfillment by expanding their reach into every nook and cranny of life.

Without major course correction — not as yet provided by DOGE — the government will continue to grow.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s

latest alternative scenario projections

, if federal spending and revenues continue on the path they’ve followed for 30 years “federal debt held by the public in 2055 would exceed 250 per cent of GDP.” That’s well over the maximum 200 per cent of GDP that economists at the

Penn-Wharton Budget Model believe the federal government can sustain

before “defaulting on its debt,” with all of the ensuing mayhem that you’d expect to result.

In the end, it doesn’t matter whether DOGE’s shortcomings are a failure or just a disappointment. In either case, the U.S. federal government and the American people face looming financial disaster.

National Post

• Michael Higgins: Flamethrower attack could easily happen in Canada
• Christopher Dummitt: Systemic discrimination is legal in Canada