OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Macklemore Dropped from Ed Sheeran Tour After Antisemitic Rant

8 sources · updated 2026-09-19
Left 38% Center 0% Right 62%
3 left · 0 center · 5 right

What happened

Rapper Macklemore, opening for Ed Sheeran's Loop Tour at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey on September 4 and 5, told the crowd that a reason he joined the tour was to say "Free Palestine," performed a song dedicated to Columbia University protesters criticizing Israel's military campaign in Gaza after the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and the following night referred to the death toll as a genocide, a characterization Israel rejects. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, whose company owns Gillette Stadium on the remaining itinerary, told Sheeran that Macklemore would not be allowed to perform there and accused him of hate speech and antisemitic rhetoric; other NFL stadium owners indicated they would cancel dates if Macklemore remained. Promoter Messina Touring Group removed Macklemore from the rest of the tour on September 14; Sheeran said that decision was the promoter's, not his, after conversations Macklemore described as ending in "fundamental disagreement." Supporting acts Finneas, Aaron Rowe, Beoga, and Lukas Graham then withdrew in solidarity, and Macklemore said he would donate $1 million of his tour earnings to Palestinian aid organizations. Sheeran said he does not use his professional platform for politics because his audience includes young people and children of all backgrounds who "do not expect a political forum," and he continued toward the next date in Philadelphia without announced replacements.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 8 articles

6 of 8 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report, credited to The Wall Street Journal.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 6 of 8
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Ed Sheeran, Keith Pagello, Macklemore, TicketData, Messina Touring Group and Robert Kraft
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 8
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: market data
Credits another outlet 2 of 8
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: The Wall Street Journal, AP
Unnamed sources 1 of 8
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 17, 16:27 UTC by Daily Wire, crediting The Wall Street Journal, naming its source. First document 23 hours later, from CNBC (market data).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Macklemore was dropped after repeating onstage remarks that venues had been promised he would not repeat, a condition left-leaning coverage never reports. Right-leaning coverage in the Daily Wire says promoters promised he would stop after the first MetLife show, and he did not. Left-leaning coverage, including the BBC, describes a second night of comments and Robert Kraft's ban, so the removal reads as punishment for speech rather than a broken agreement. Left-leaning coverage, including the BBC, describes the MetLife set as "pro-Palestinian comments." Right-leaning coverage in the Daily Wire calls the same night an "antisemitic rant." What specific lines from the second night did stadium owners treat as a broken promise rather than protest?
Bottom line

If you read only the BBC, Macklemore lost the tour for speaking. The Daily Wire is the outlet that reports he had already been told not to do it again.

The receipts — 1 fact one side's coverage lacks
  • Promoters promised stadium owners Macklemore would not repeat his first MetLife political statements, and he repeated them the following night. contextin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets frame the removal as punishment of pro-Palestinian speech and a tour thrown into crisis with fans caught in the Israel-Gaza debate. BBC interviews present ticket-holders as split: one called the ouster "very, very wrong" and Sheeran's apolitical claim disingenuous because he had voiced support for Ukraine after Russia invaded, while another called it a "no-win situation" and backed continuing the shows. Macklemore argued that "taking a side can cost you" and that "there is no neutral position between the oppressor and the oppressed," adding that "one of the most effective ways to enforce silence has been to weaponize the accusation of antisemitism." Rowe said he "cannot stand by and allow billionaires to use their position of power" to silence critics of Israel's actions in Gaza; Finneas said artists should "not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed." Coverage also highlights a reported 45% rise in the get-in price for Macklemore's own Red Rocks date, softer resale prices and higher resale volume on remaining Sheeran shows, Ireland's Classic Hits Radio dropping his music after listener "disappointment and concern," and Philadelphia protest groups declaring "there is no neutrality against oppression, only complicity."
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets describe the MetLife remarks as an antisemitic rant and, citing the Wall Street Journal, say stadium owners had been promised Macklemore would not repeat them and that he did so anyway. Kraft is quoted distinguishing advocacy from hate: the decision was "not about diminishing the suffering of innocent Palestinians," but "standing with the Palestinian people and standing against Hamas, antisemitism and hate should not be mutually exclusive," and "only sharing selective information and ignoring the actions of Hamas is not honest." Breitbart stresses that Iran-aligned Al Mayadeen amplified Macklemore while omitting that some attendees were ambushed with anti-Israel messaging they had not paid to hear, and notes the donation list included UNRWA, which the United Nations said in 2024 it had reason to believe employed people who participated in the October 7 attack. Coverage recalls a 2014 onstage costume for which Macklemore apologized after critics called it antisemitic, points to Jewish fans who sought refunds over a "one-sided presentation," and treats Sheeran's refusal to turn concerts into a "political forum" as appropriate given that venues, not a slogan, were at risk of cancellation.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that owner pressure converted "Free Palestine" stage remarks into a firing, so Sheeran's claim of neutrality looks selective next to his earlier Ukraine comments and functions as a veto on speech about Gaza; the unanimous walkout of listed supporting acts, Macklemore's insistence that there is "no neutral position between the oppressor and the oppressed," and the Irish station's playlist removal are the hardest evidence that a large artist-and-fan bloc read the ouster as silencing. The right's strongest argument is that ticket-buyers and stadium operators did not consent to a one-sided wartime monologue on another artist's bill, and that repeating it after an alleged promise not to, while omitting Hamas, crossed from advocacy into hate speech venues could refuse; Kraft's coupling of Palestinian suffering with a rejection of Hamas-blind messaging, and Jewish attendees who said they were not at a concert for a "one-sided presentation," are the core support. The central unresolved tension is whether that onstage language is political witness promoters have no legitimate right to exclude, or a bait-and-switch that venues and an avowedly non-political headliner may keep off a family pop tour — and whether staying publicly silent is neutrality or complicity.

8 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.