Staff Reports
Canada’s public broadcaster managed a remarkable bit of bureaucratic contortion this week: an internal CBC memo told reporters not to call the September 11 attacks “terrorist attacks.” Yes, that 9/11 — the one with hijacked airliners, collapsed towers and thousands of dead. If you thought newsroom style guides were dull, congratulations: you’ve just discovered the softness at the center of modern journalism.
What the memo actually said
The leaked note — attributed to Basem Boshra, Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust at CBC News — is blunt and short: “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.” The memo even suggested describing events in passive terms: “The hijackings led to passenger jet crashes in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan. The World Trade Center was destroyed.” In other words, call it whatever you like — just don’t use the word most of the world has used for a quarter-century.
CBC’s official explanation — and why it rings hollow
CBC’s public affairs director Kerry Kelly defended the guidance as routine: the broadcaster prefers to use charged words like “terrorist” only with attribution, not as the outlet’s own label. That position echoes a public memo from Brodie Fenlon, CBC News editor-in-chief and general manager, urging staff to “exercise extreme caution” before using the words “terrorist” or “terrorism.” Sounds thoughtful on paper until you realize the effect: obvious crimes get handed soft euphemisms while victims get stranded by euphemistic caution. If language is power, this is less prudence than passive erasure.
Political outrage and the risk to credibility
The reaction was predictable and justified. Conservative MP Rachael Thomas called the memo “absolutely shameful,” saying refusing to call 9/11 terrorism dishonors victims and first responders. Voices across the political spectrum are asking the same simple question: why would a public broadcaster shy away from naming a politically motivated mass killing? This isn’t a nuance exercise — it’s basic reporting. When a state-funded media outlet tips toward timorous wording, trust erodes fast. The CBC’s obsession with neutral-sounding detachment ends up reading like moral cowardice.
Why words matter — and what CBC should do next
Journalists rightly worry about bias. But neutrality doesn’t mean neutering fact. The hijackers admitted their intent; Osama bin Laden himself called 9/11 an act of terror. So unless CBC’s goal is to rewrite memory for the sake of bureaucratic even-handedness, the simple, honest thing to do is clarify and apologize for clumsy phrasing. Release the memo, explain the intent, and reassure Canadians that facts will be named plainly — especially when the facts involve mass murder. Otherwise, the public broadcaster will be remembered less for reporting and more for linguistic contortions that insult victims and confuse the public. That would be the real scandal — and far less amusing than the memo’s attempt at moral legerdemain.
