Taxpayer-funded news outlet bans journalists from calling 9/11 ‘terror attacks’ and unveils woke new phrase to be used instead
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
CBC has denied that it instructed journalists to deny the terrorist nature of the 11 September 2001 attacks, following reports of a leaked staff memo advising against calling them “terrorist attacks” without attribution. The dispute has prompted criticism from some Canadian politicians and members of the public, who argue that the wording lacks respect for victims and emergency responders.
The reported guidance, circulated before the attacks’ 25th anniversary, suggested describing the hijackings, plane crashes and destruction of the World Trade Center in factual terms. CBC says this reflects a longstanding editorial policy of using “terrorist” and “terrorism” when attributed to credible sources, rather than applying the labels itself; it generally refers to the event as “the September 11 attacks”. Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.
- CBC defends attribution-based language policy on 9/11.
- Critics say the approach disrespects victims and responders.
- Nearly 3,000 people were killed in the attacks.
New here? Start with this
The 11 September attacks were a series of coordinated hijackings in the United States in 2001. Members of al-Qaeda seized four passenger planes, crashing two into New York’s World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, while a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers intervened. Nearly 3,000 people were killed.
Al-Qaeda was an Islamist militant network led at the time by Osama bin Laden. The attacks had major consequences for US foreign policy, security rules and conflicts in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and they remain a defining event in recent American history.
News organisations sometimes set rules on describing politically charged groups and events. CBC, Canada’s publicly funded national broadcaster, says it generally uses words such as “terrorism” when they are attributed to a source, rather than applying the label in its own voice.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of CBC’s guidance argue that public broadcasters should describe even horrific events with precise, independently verifiable language rather than adopt labels that may carry legal and political implications. They contend that saying al-Qaeda carried out coordinated hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people conveys the essential facts without suggesting the broadcaster is making its own adjudication, while attribution preserves clarity when governments, courts or recognised bodies use the term terrorism. The underlying value is editorial independence and consistent standards across conflicts, rather than minimising the atrocity.
The case against
Critics argue that the September 11 attacks plainly meet the ordinary and widely accepted meaning of terrorism: deliberate violence against civilians intended to spread fear and advance a political cause. They say refusing to use the term directly can make reporting sound evasive, obscure moral and factual clarity, and create a false impression that the description is meaningfully disputed. The underlying value is straightforward language, accountability for ideologically motivated violence, and public confidence that editorial caution does not become needless ambiguity.