Staff Reports
The big news out of Canada this week is not another political scandal or policy shift — it’s a memo. An internal note from CBC’s journalistic-standards office told reporters not to call the Sept. 11 attacks “terrorist attacks,” instead describing them as “the hijackings [that] led to passenger jet crashes.” The memo, signed “BB” (Basem Boshra, the broadcaster’s Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust), leaked to the press and set off predictable outrage from conservatives, victims’ advocates and ordinary people who think words should mean what they mean.
The memo and what it actually said
The instruction is blunt: “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.” That wording and the suggested phrasing about “hijackings” were reproduced by columnists and multiple outlets after they obtained a copy. For a national broadcaster to issue such a directive — even as a reminder of internal style guidance — is a stunning example of bureaucratic word-policing. Whether the memo was newly written for the 25th‑anniversary coverage or simply a routine reminder, its bluntness made it newsworthy and, frankly, tone-deaf.
CBC’s defense and the newsroom playbook
Predictably, CBC spokespeople said the memo merely echoes long‑standing guidance: the broadcaster prefers the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” be used with attribution rather than as the outlet’s own label. Brodie Fenlon, CBC News’s Editor in Chief and General Manager, has argued these words are “loaded” and can hinder journalism. Kerry Kelly, the public affairs spokesperson, told reporters the memo was a reminder of that practice. Fine — editorial caution is sensible. But phrasing it as “do not refer” crosses from caution into censorship of plain language.
Why this semantic stunt matters
This isn’t just a grammar fight. It’s about truth, victims, and public trust in the media. The 9/11 attacks were indisputably terrorist acts; governments, victims’ families and most of the world call them that. Telling reporters to avoid the word looks less like careful journalism and more like an ideological dodge designed to avoid uncomfortable facts. Conservatives — including MPs and commentators — have rightly called it shameful. If the CBC thinks it can neuter history with a memo, it risks losing the very credibility it claims to protect.
What CBC should do next
CBC should stop hiding behind “attribution” as an excuse for avoiding plain speech. Release the full guidance, explain why this memo used such rigid phrasing, and have Basem Boshra and Brodie Fenlon answer whether this was a targeted change for anniversary coverage or sloppy internal wording. Journalists should be careful with charged language, yes — but they shouldn’t be allowed to perform semantic gymnastics while the rest of us call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack. If CBC wants to regain trust, start by calling things what they are.
