Ideological Polarization and Media Distrust: Online Narratives Surrounding the June 22nd Montreal Shooting
Author: Esli Chan
Context
On June 22nd 2026, a shooting in Montreal, Quebec left three people dead and a community shaken. The shooter left behind a manifesto outlining the intent of his actions, blending ideological motivations rooted in antisemitism, Marxism, far-right elements, and misogynistic incel-related beliefs. What distinguished this event was not only the violence, but the intensity with which it was amplified online. Soon after the shooting, raw footage of the violent attack circulated widely on social media platforms. Political commentators rushed to align the attack with particular political camps and assign motive, generating a rapidly polarizing information environment in the days that followed. News outlets that obtained the manifesto pursued divergent editorial approaches to its online dissemination: some moved quickly to watermark and distribute excerpts, while others cautioned against circulating material that could itself become a point of radicalization. Taken together, these dynamics reveal how this attack was actively shaped, interpreted, and contested across the online information ecosystem, illustrating how polarization spreads in public discourse before facts and evidence are concretely established. News outlets play a key role in mediating this process, where framing choices and information sharing decisions contribute to determining which narratives gain traction.
What we have seen so far
Ideological polarization and competing narratives: While different in scale and nature, this incident is reminiscent of the assassination of Charlie Kirk in September 2025, where his death resulted in highly polarized conversations and ideological disagreements and the emergence of conspiratorial claims within minutes of the event. In both cases, uncertainty around a confirmed motive accelerated the production of divisive narratives, as political commentators advanced claims that conformed to their existing assumptions and agendas. In the Montreal case, this dynamic is complicated by the shooter’s own manifesto which resists a singular ideological attribution, giving way to commentators across the spectrum to selectively foreground particular identities or beliefs. While some characterized the attack as a continuation of incel violence in Canada, others argue that the incel framing is conflated and minimized the antisemitic nature of the attack. Still others, including community leaders, cautioned against this tendency to rush towards attributing blame to particular identity groups and the threat of misinformation.
Media institutions as a potential vector for polarization: The handling and dissemination of the online video of the attack and the manifesto further illustrates how news outlets and media actors can themselves become a vector for polarization. Traditional media outlets, including the CBC, the Globe and Mail, and the Montreal Gazette, have not published the manifesto in full “to avoid amplifying its message” but have made reference to its contents. Former Canada-and editor-in-chief and independent journalist Kathryn Pugliese also highlights how the risk of ‘copycat violence’ is real when sharing this information. La Presse also expressed that they would not share the video of the attack, questioning the value added in circulating this material and explaining that they believe their role is more in gathering and verifying the evidence not shown in the video.
Meanwhile, Rebel News has taken a different approach, publishing the manifesto which includes the outlet’s watermark. Ezra Levant, the CEO of Rebel News, has framed this as a transparency measure rather than the amplification of violent content, arguing that mainstream outlets downplayed the attack's antisemitic motive by emphasizing only certain parts of the manifesto. Founder and editor of Canadaland, Jesse Brown, also argued that mainstream media seemed to dismiss the ‘anti-zionist’ angle of the manifesto, focusing predominantly on the misogyny angle.
This divergence points to the media's contested role following violent incidents: outlets carry a responsibility to avoid enabling further harm or inciting violence, yet differing editorial choices show how coverage itself can become part of the story. It demonstrates how media narratives actively shape different interpretations of the same event, while also exposing deeper institutional distrust and contested claims of credibility within media institutions.
What to watch for/What this could mean
Competing factual information: As the investigation continues to evolve, outlets and commentators will likely continue to disagree on the shooter’s ‘true’ motive. Rather than converging towards a single accepted account of the event, disagreements are likely to harden and be subject to divisive narratives. A lack of clean ideological categorization can leave interpretive room for establishing a factual baseline, leaving space open for conspiratorial claims to emerge.
Eroding media trust: The dispute between Rebel News and mainstream outlets suggests that further events will increasingly be framed as contests of media accountability and transparency, in which conventional news institutions are challenged as a credible source of information. Within Rebel News’ post about the manifesto, some members of the public comment their support of Rebel’s initiative, citing how mainstream media has misled the public. Meanwhile, other experts warn against sharing the manifesto as it can inspire future acts of violence . This reflects an information environment in which trust is no longer rooted in shared journalistic institutions but is instead mediated through competing narratives about media credibility, transparency, and accountability.
Bill C-34 and content take-down: The tabling of Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, offers a timely opportunity to broaden discussion on radicalization and the sharing of violent or harmful content. Under this new proposed Act, content take-down provisions apply only to content that sexually victimizes a child or re-victimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent, but not depictions of acts of violence or terrorism. This is a regulatory gap that requires further consideration.
What comes next
In the following weeks, we’ll produce an incident report which will seek to track the types of narratives that emerged immediately after the shooting - including who purported various claims about the identity of the shooter and nature of the incident - and how these claims were amplified within the Canadian online information ecosystem. This will provide insight into how Canada's online information ecosystem responds to moments of uncertainty, revealing which actors, narratives, and amplification mechanisms shape public understanding before verified information is available.
This case of the Montreal shooting also illustrates wider online debates about information sharing and media responsibility, balancing the public’s access to information while ensuring that online harm and violence is not perpetuated. We aim to evaluate the nature of how the video of the attack was shared, measuring its online impact and spread. Furthermore, we will assess the various strategies of media response to this event, including public perceptions around media standards, accountability, and transparency. These debates ultimately provide insight into how traditional and emerging forms of media communicators shape Canadian discourse online, particularly in relation to public safety crises and instances of harm.
For media inquiries, please contact Isabelle Corriveau at media@mediatechdemocracy.com.