How a Public Broadcaster's Language Policy Sparked a Debate on Journalism Standards
A major Canadian news organization instructed its journalists not to call the September 11, 2001 attacks a “terrorist attack” without attribution—and then reversed course after public and political criticism. The episode opened a rare window into how newsrooms handle loaded language, and why rules meant to keep reporting neutral can themselves become controversial.
Why a Public Broadcaster Avoids the Word 'Terrorism'
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) had a longstanding editorial guideline: staff should not describe an event as a “terrorist attack” or use “terrorism” unless they attribute that label to an official source. The policy applied not just to 9/11 but to any event where the term might appear.
CBC editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon explained in a 2023 blog that the words are “loaded with meaning, politics and emotion” and can become “impediments to our journalism.” The idea was to avoid taking sides in disputes over who qualifies as a terrorist—a label often weaponized by governments. Instead, journalists were expected to report facts and let sources label the act.
CBC Ombudsman Maxime Bertrand called the policy a “necessary safeguard” but acknowledged it “doesn’t guarantee ethical clarity.” The approach was shared by many major news organizations, which often require attribution for terms like “terrorist” to maintain editorial distance.
How the Policy Worked in Practice
In practice, CBC reports on 9/11 would not say “the terrorist attacks of September 11” as a statement of fact. Instead, they might say “what the U.S. government has called a terrorist attack” or simply refer to “the September 11 attacks.” The distinction is subtle but deliberate.
A leaked internal memo sent to CBC staff in August 2026 explicitly stated: “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.” A CBC spokesperson, Kerry Kelly, described it as a routine reminder of a “decades-old practice.” To those inside the newsroom, it was business as usual. Outside, it ignited a firestorm.
When the Rule Changed
Criticism came quickly from Canadian and American officials, including the U.S. ambassador to Canada and the FBI director, who called the original policy a “bastardization of history.” Canada’s Parliament had already legally recognized 9/11 as a terrorist attack. Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture Marc Miller called the policy “a welcome change” when it was reversed.
CBC senior director Basem Boshra announced the reversal, writing that the leaked memo “has caused significant concern, anger and hurt” and that the adjustment removes an “impediment to clarity.” Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree noted that Canada has legally recognized 9/11 as a terrorist attack since legislation passed by Parliament.
What This Means for Journalism
The episode highlights a recurring tension in journalism ethics. Language policies are designed to protect objectivity, but they can clash with common sense and public expectation when applied to widely accepted historical events. The CBC’s reversal did not abandon the underlying principle—reporters are still expected to attribute contested labels—but it carved out an exception for 9/11, a case where nearly universal consensus exists.
The broader lesson for any news outlet is that editorial guidelines must be flexible enough to account for context. A rule that works for a disputed conflict can feel absurd when applied to a day burned into global memory. Journalists walk a line between precision and clarity; sometimes, getting that balance right requires admitting the line was drawn too tightly.