1 story credited to The Canadian Jewish News
Latest story Apr 14, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for The Canadian Jewish News
Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 1 of 10. How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to The Canadian Jewish News, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from The Canadian Jewish News
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| April 2026 | 1 | 2,920 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 0 | 598 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Ethics/Corruption1
100% of 1 stories · 56% across all outlets
- Foreign Policy1
100% of 1 stories · 28% across all outlets
- Voting Rights1
100% of 1 stories · 18% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 2 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 2 story–official pairs, from 1 story.
- Republican50% · 1 pair
- Party not recorded50% · 1 pair
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 1 story.
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not The Canadian Jewish News’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 1 story.
- Good Look
- 1 (100%)
- Mixed
- 0 (0%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 0 (0%)
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from thecjn.ca
2
Doesn’t anyone care about incidental Nazi tattoos anymore?
Graham Platner is a progressive populist running to unseat longtime Republican Susan Collins in Maine. The military veteran’s campaign has been fiery, to say the least, riddled with attacks about his past online comments and—notably for Jews—a tattoo that bore a resemblance to a Nazi symbol, which he’s since covered up. But his Nazi-adjacent imagery didn’t damage his reputation in the way people expect. Instead, Platner’s continued railing against billionaires and “the people in power”, with antisemitic undertones, has bolstered his support. So American Jewish voters lose in both ways: either because Platner does indeed harbour antisemitic beliefs, or because he rallies his base against them with dog whistles and quiet accusations. David Schraub, an associate professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School, joins The Jewish Angle with Phoebe Maltz Bovy to break down the ramifications of this controversy—and how Jewish Americans also find themselves caught in the awkward middle of President Donald Trump’s war on Iran (which some accuse them of starting, by way of Israeli affiliations) while simultaneously not voting for him in the first place. Transcript Transcripts have been condensed and edited by AI. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: Hi, I’m Phoebe Maltz Bovy, host of The Jewish Angle from The Canadian Jewish News. Two things are happening these days whose exact relationship is hard to tease out. One is that Israel is becoming less popular globally. And the other is that many on the left and the right sure do hate Jews and don’t feel they need to hide that fact. Together, these are a massive topic beyond what any one podcast episode could do justice to—what connects them, what doesn’t connect them. I do not claim that I am going to have an answer for you right now or ever. However, to just sort of slowly broach such topics, today the topic is going to be a strange sort of left-right, horseshoe-type convergence happening in the United States. And here to help sort that out is David Schraub. David is an associate professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School. He’s also a commentator for places like The Atlantic, The Forward, and Haaretz. But I know him originally for probably something like 20 years now from his blog, The Debate Link, where he did a recent post about the American politician—or would-be politician—Graham Platner. And that’s really the main thing, although we have other things to talk about, that David is back on The Jewish Angle to discuss. So David, welcome back. David Schraub: Thanks for having me on again. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: So first off—Maine is cold like Canada. It’s near Canada, but it’s not part of Canada. For any Canadian listeners or any listeners anywhere who might not know: who is Graham Platner? David Schraub: So Graham Platner is running for a U.S. Senate seat in the state of Maine. Right now we’re still in the party primaries, so he’s running as a Democrat, but he still has to receive the Democratic nomination. His primary opponent is the current governor of Maine, Janet Mills, and then whoever is nominated will challenge the incumbent Republican senator, Susan Collins, who has been a thorn in Democrats’ side for a while. She has this self-styled reputation as a moderate but has been a pretty consistent vote in favour of Donald Trump and Trump’s policies for her entire career in the Senate. So it’s a seat that Democrats very much want to win. Maine is a state that typically votes Democrat, so it feels achievable. And so this primary is getting a lot of attention and has become yet another instance of this divide between what we might call establishment candidates—Mills, again, she’s the governor, she’s 79 years old, she’s not a young woman, but she’s perfectly progressive and tied into the party apparatus—and someone like Platner, who’s running more as an outsider, someone who’s going to shake things up. He presents himself as the sort of working-man oyster farmer. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: I wanted to talk about that a little bit, actually, but I don’t want to cut you off if you had more. David Schraub: No, I think that gets us to the basic background—the establishment-versus-insurgent divide that’s been part of Democratic politics for quite some time now. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: Sure. So the oyster farmer aspect is significant—not because oysters aren’t kosher, delicious but not kosher—but rather because it seems like he is maybe slightly misrepresenting his class origins. Is there a part of that going on here? David Schraub: Yeah, it’s very much an aesthetic. He’s burly, he’s got a beard, he’s got tattoos. And all of that kind of hides the fact that he’s not someone who came up from nothing. He went to very tony private schools. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: Hotchkiss, I mean, yeah. He’s from some posh family. It’s interesting—it’s so much a construct, right? You can present how you choose to present yourself, especially in U.S. politics. David Schraub: Yeah, it’s very much an aesthetic. Democrats have seen this before and have been very attracted to somebody who at least presents the image of the sort of working-class American that Democrats feel like they haven’t really been able to grab onto since FDR or maybe JFK. And so they’re looking for people like that. John Fetterman is another example of somebody who had that aesthetic, though now he’s not particularly popular among the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: I thought Fetterman was Jewish for the longest time and was stunned when I was writing about philosemitism to realize that that is not the case. The reason we’re speaking about Graham Platner is not because the elections of Maine are of such fascinating interest to Canadian Jews, but rather because of a few different things—antisemitism scandals. One might be dismissed, but once you get to the number we’re talking about here—so what are they? Let’s lay them out. David Schraub: The original one that kicked everything off was the discovery that he has—or had—a Nazi tattoo on his chest. He’s now covered it up, but only after the story broke in the middle of the campaign. He originally said, “I didn’t know, I was drunk, I thought it was just a cool skull,” and that he only realized later. There’s a lot of evidence that he in fact knew, and that explanation is not credible. Following that, he was happily retweeting neo-Nazi commentators. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: That’s been recent, right? The retweeting? David Schraub: Yes, within the past week or two. And he also appeared on a podcast of a white supremacist, antisemitic host, where he said at the opening something like, “I’m a long-time big fan of the show.” So it’s not just making the rounds—this is someone he claims has been an influence on him. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: I think that’s important, because there’s a difference between digging up something from 2002 and looking at what someone is doing now. This seems more current and more relevant. Some people online are spinning this as purity politics—that Democrats can’t win if candidates can’t appear on controversial podcasts. But this feels like something beyond that. David Schraub: Yeah. There’s a very patronizing outlook embedded in that complaint about needing to reach the “common man.” It assumes that what the common man wants is this kind of content, which I don’t think is true. And it’s often coming from people who themselves are quite elite. I’m not convinced that this is as necessary or as popular as people claim. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: In your blog post, you suggested something stronger—that these antisemitic associations might actually be part of his appeal. David Schraub: Yes. I think one thing people haven’t wrapped their heads around is the possibility that this is a selling point. It fits into an “I’m a fighter, I don’t bow to anyone” aesthetic. And in that context, it might be part of why he’s popular. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: That’s both compelling and depressing. It does feel like something has changed recently—maybe tied to conspiracy thinking, Epstein-related narratives, all of that. David Schraub: I think that’s right. There’s an anti-establishment tide. Some people are drawn to the explicit content—racism, antisemitism—but others are drawn to the feeling of freedom. They feel constrained by social norms and see someone breaking them without consequence. That feels liberating. And when it comes to Jews, there’s this narrative that you have to walk on eggshells, that there are things you can’t say. So someone who appears immune to that backlash becomes appealing. It’s a kind of peacocking—an exaggerated display of not caring. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: What’s interesting is that this is happening on the Democratic side. I’m also wondering about strategy. There’s so much focus on minor controversies—like who liked what on Instagram—that may not actually matter to voters. David Schraub: There’s no central authority controlling that. And I think part of what’s happening is a collapse in trust in institutions—government, parties, media. What replaces that is more chaotic. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: And Jews are often associated with those institutions, fairly or not. David Schraub: Exactly. Jews are perceived as educated, wealthy, connected—rightly or wrongly. And if those traits are what people are reacting against, Jews become a kind of concentrated symbol of everything they dislike. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: That ties into the broader significance. What does Platner represent politically? David Schraub: There’s a divide that cuts across left and right—high trust versus low trust, establishment versus anti-establishment. Swing voters are often low-information and distrustful. They’re not ideologically consistent. Someone like Platner appeals to that. And elites often underestimate this. We saw that with Trump. They thought they could control it, but they couldn’t. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: We’re also in a moment of heightened tension around Israel and Iran. Does that context matter? David Schraub: Yes. There’s a lot of frustration with Israel among Democrats. Some feel that support for Israel has come at a political cost. That creates space for candidates who signal distance from Israel—and from Jewish concerns more broadly. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: And yet American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat. So blaming them doesn’t really make sense. David Schraub: It doesn’t, but it serves a purpose. It allows people to deflect responsibility. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: Final question. There’s this idea that events like a war with Iran will “cause” antisemitism. I’m skeptical of that framing. David Schraub: I’d say they activate it rather than cause it. The attitudes may already be there, but events bring them to the surface. They make them more salient. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: That makes sense. David Schraub, thank you so much for coming back on The Jewish Angle. David Schraub: Always good to be here. I enjoy our conversations and hope to be back soon. Show Notes Credits Host: Phoebe Maltz Bovy Producer and editor: Michael Fraiman Music: “Gypsy Waltz” by Frank Freeman, licensed from the Independent Music Licensing Collective Support our show Subscribe to The CJN newsletter Donate to The CJN (+ get a charitable tax receipt) Subscribe to The Jewish Angle The post Doesn’t anyone care about incidental Nazi tattoos anymore? appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
Doesn’t anyone care about incidental Nazi tattoos anymore?
Graham Platner is a progressive populist running to unseat longtime Republican Susan Collins in Maine. The military veteran’s campaign has been fiery, to say the least, riddled with attacks about his past online comments and—notably for Jews—a tattoo that bore a resemblance to a Nazi symbol, which he’s since covered up. But his Nazi-adjacent imagery didn’t damage his reputation in the way people expect. Instead, Platner’s continued railing against billionaires and “the people in power”, with antisemitic undertones, has bolstered his support. So American Jewish voters lose in both ways: either because Platner does indeed harbour antisemitic beliefs, or because he rallies his base against them with dog whistles and quiet accusations. David Schraub, an associate professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School, joins The Jewish Angle with Phoebe Maltz Bovy to break down the ramifications of this controversy—and how Jewish Americans also find themselves caught in the awkward middle of President Donald Trump’s war on Iran (which some accuse them of starting, by way of Israeli affiliations) while simultaneously not voting for him in the first place. Transcript Transcripts have been condensed and edited by AI. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: Hi, I’m Phoebe Maltz Bovy, host of The Jewish Angle from The Canadian Jewish News. Two things are happening these days whose exact relationship is hard to tease out. One is that Israel is becoming less popular globally. And the other is that many on the left and the right sure do hate Jews and don’t feel they need to hide that fact. Together, these are a massive topic beyond what any one podcast episode could do justice to—what connects them, what doesn’t connect them. I do not claim that I am going to have an answer for you right now or ever. However, to just sort of slowly broach such topics, today the topic is going to be a strange sort of left-right, horseshoe-type convergence happening in the United States. And here to help sort that out is David Schraub. David is an associate professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School. He’s also a commentator for places like The Atlantic, The Forward, and Haaretz. But I know him originally for probably something like 20 years now from his blog, The Debate Link, where he did a recent post about the American politician—or would-be politician—Graham Platner. And that’s really the main thing, although we have other things to talk about, that David is back on The Jewish Angle to discuss. So David, welcome back. David Schraub: Thanks for having me on again. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: So first off—Maine is cold like Canada. It’s near Canada, but it’s not part of Canada. For any Canadian listeners or any listeners anywhere who might not know: who is Graham Platner? David Schraub: So Graham Platner is running for a U.S. Senate seat in the state of Maine. Right now we’re still in the party primaries, so he’s running as a Democrat, but he still has to receive the Democratic nomination. His primary opponent is the current governor of Maine, Janet Mills, and then whoever is nominated will challenge the incumbent Republican senator, Susan Collins, who has been a thorn in Democrats’ side for a while. She has this self-styled reputation as a moderate but has been a pretty consistent vote in favour of Donald Trump and Trump’s policies for her entire career in the Senate. So it’s a seat that Democrats very much want to win. Maine is a state that typically votes Democrat, so it feels achievable. And so this primary is getting a lot of attention and has become yet another instance of this divide between what we might call establishment candidates—Mills, again, she’s the governor, she’s 79 years old, she’s not a young woman, but she’s perfectly progressive and tied into the party apparatus—and someone like Platner, who’s running more as an outsider, someone who’s going to shake things up. He presents himself as the sort of working-man oyster farmer. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: I wanted to talk about that a little bit, actually, but I don’t want to cut you off if you had more. David Schraub: No, I think that gets us to the basic background—the establishment-versus-insurgent divide that’s been part of Democratic politics for quite some time now. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: Sure. So the oyster farmer aspect is significant—not because oysters aren’t kosher, delicious but not kosher—but rather because it seems like he is maybe slightly misrepresenting his class origins. Is there a part of that going on here? David Schraub: Yeah, it’s very much an aesthetic. He’s burly, he’s got a beard, he’s got tattoos. And all of that kind of hides the fact that he’s not someone who came up from nothing. He went to very tony private schools. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: Hotchkiss, I mean, yeah. He’s from some posh family. It’s interesting—it’s so much a construct, right? You can present how you choose to present yourself, especially in U.S. politics. David Schraub: Yeah, it’s very much an aesthetic. Democrats have seen this before and have been very attracted to somebody who at least presents the image of the sort of working-class American that Democrats feel like they haven’t really been able to grab onto since FDR or maybe JFK. And so they’re looking for people like that. John Fetterman is another example of somebody who had that aesthetic, though now he’s not particularly popular among the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: I thought Fetterman was Jewish for the longest time and was stunned when I was writing about philosemitism to realize that that is not the case. The reason we’re speaking about Graham Platner is not because the elections of Maine are of such fascinating interest to Canadian Jews, but rather because of a few different things—antisemitism scandals. One might be dismissed, but once you get to the number we’re talking about here—so what are they? Let’s lay them out. David Schraub: The original one that kicked everything off was the discovery that he has—or had—a Nazi tattoo on his chest. He’s now covered it up, but only after the story broke in the middle of the campaign. He originally said, “I didn’t know, I was drunk, I thought it was just a cool skull,” and that he only realized later. There’s a lot of evidence that he in fact knew, and that explanation is not credible. Following that, he was happily retweeting neo-Nazi commentators. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: That’s been recent, right? The retweeting? David Schraub: Yes, within the past week or two. And he also appeared on a podcast of a white supremacist, antisemitic host, where he said at the opening something like, “I’m a long-time big fan of the show.” So it’s not just making the rounds—this is someone he claims has been an influence on him. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: I think that’s important, because there’s a difference between digging up something from 2002 and looking at what someone is doing now. This seems more current and more relevant. Some people online are spinning this as purity politics—that Democrats can’t win if candidates can’t appear on controversial podcasts. But this feels like something beyond that. David Schraub: Yeah. There’s a very patronizing outlook embedded in that complaint about needing to reach the “common man.” It assumes that what the common man wants is this kind of content, which I don’t think is true. And it’s often coming from people who themselves are quite elite. I’m not convinced that this is as necessary or as popular as people claim. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: In your blog post, you suggested something stronger—that these antisemitic associations might actually be part of his appeal. David Schraub: Yes. I think one thing people haven’t wrapped their heads around is the possibility that this is a selling point. It fits into an “I’m a fighter, I don’t bow to anyone” aesthetic. And in that context, it might be part of why he’s popular. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: That’s both compelling and depressing. It does feel like something has changed recently—maybe tied to conspiracy thinking, Epstein-related narratives, all of that. David Schraub: I think that’s right. There’s an anti-establishment tide. Some people are drawn to the explicit content—racism, antisemitism—but others are drawn to the feeling of freedom. They feel constrained by social norms and see someone breaking them without consequence. That feels liberating. And when it comes to Jews, there’s this narrative that you have to walk on eggshells, that there are things you can’t say. So someone who appears immune to that backlash becomes appealing. It’s a kind of peacocking—an exaggerated display of not caring. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: What’s interesting is that this is happening on the Democratic side. I’m also wondering about strategy. There’s so much focus on minor controversies—like who liked what on Instagram—that may not actually matter to voters. David Schraub: There’s no central authority controlling that. And I think part of what’s happening is a collapse in trust in institutions—government, parties, media. What replaces that is more chaotic. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: And Jews are often associated with those institutions, fairly or not. David Schraub: Exactly. Jews are perceived as educated, wealthy, connected—rightly or wrongly. And if those traits are what people are reacting against, Jews become a kind of concentrated symbol of everything they dislike. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: That ties into the broader significance. What does Platner represent politically? David Schraub: There’s a divide that cuts across left and right—high trust versus low trust, establishment versus anti-establishment. Swing voters are often low-information and distrustful. They’re not ideologically consistent. Someone like Platner appeals to that. And elites often underestimate this. We saw that with Trump. They thought they could control it, but they couldn’t. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: We’re also in a moment of heightened tension around Israel and Iran. Does that context matter? David Schraub: Yes. There’s a lot of frustration with Israel among Democrats. Some feel that support for Israel has come at a political cost. That creates space for candidates who signal distance from Israel—and from Jewish concerns more broadly. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: And yet American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat. So blaming them doesn’t really make sense. David Schraub: It doesn’t, but it serves a purpose. It allows people to deflect responsibility. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: Final question. There’s this idea that events like a war with Iran will “cause” antisemitism. I’m skeptical of that framing. David Schraub: I’d say they activate it rather than cause it. The attitudes may already be there, but events bring them to the surface. They make them more salient. Phoebe Maltz Bovy: That makes sense. David Schraub, thank you so much for coming back on The Jewish Angle. David Schraub: Always good to be here. I enjoy our conversations and hope to be back soon. Show Notes Credits Host: Phoebe Maltz Bovy Producer and editor: Michael Fraiman Music: “Gypsy Waltz” by Frank Freeman, licensed from the Independent Music Licensing Collective Support our show Subscribe to The CJN newsletter Donate to The CJN (+ get a charitable tax receipt) Subscribe to The Jewish Angle The post Doesn’t anyone care about incidental Nazi tattoos anymore? appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.