The Canadian public broadcaster will no longer require attribution when referring to the September 11 attacks as terrorism, reversing a policy that sparked international criticism.
The decision follows mounting pressure from political leaders across North America who condemned CBC/Radio-Canada’s guidance that journalists should avoid labelling specific attacks as terrorism without external sourcing. The policy change, announced by senior editorial staff this week, comes ahead of the 25th anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack in modern history.
International Backlash Forces Policy Review
The controversy erupted when details of CBC’s internal language guidance surfaced, revealing that newsroom staff had been instructed to refer to the September 11 attacks simply as “attacks” rather than “terrorist attacks.” The memo, which also listed other incidents like the 2005 London bombings and the 2011 Moscow airport suicide bombing, became a flashpoint in transatlantic relations.
U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra called the policy an “insult to the souls lost,” while FBI Director Kash Patel warned that any Canadian agency failing to “publicly reject this bastardization of history” would find no friendship from American law enforcement. Republican members of Congress echoed these sentiments, questioning what possible motive Canada might have for “sanitising the worst terrorist attack on American soil.”
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre described the policy as an “appalling distortion of history” that dishonoured victims and their families. The criticism intensified when Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree issued a statement affirming that “the Canadian government has always recognised 9/11 as the deadliest terrorist attack in history, and we unequivocally condemn terrorism in all its forms.”
Editorial Leadership Addresses Public Concern
Basem Boshra, CBC’s senior director of journalistic standards and public trust, acknowledged in a blog post that the “leaked excerpt” of the language policy had raised important questions requiring answers. He explained that the broadcaster was modifying its approach to remove what had become “an impediment to clarity and public understanding.”
“We are doing so to ensure our reporting serves the public interest without creating unnecessary confusion,” Boshra wrote. However, he emphasised that CBC would continue following “journalistically sound practices” by attributing causes and motivations to officials and experts when covering politically or ideologically motivated violence.
Boshra was quick to clarify that CBC News had never disputed the nature of the September 11 attacks. “We have reported fully and accurately on the reasons and motivations for those attacks as determined by police, governments and an independent commission,” he stated. “We’ve just made sure to do it with attribution.”
Defence of Previous Standards Under Scrutiny
Prior to the policy reversal, CBC spokesperson Kerry Kelly defended the broadcaster’s cautious approach, describing it as standard practice among leading international news organisations including the BBC, Associated Press, AFP, and Reuters. She characterised the memo as merely reinforcing “extreme caution” in deploying emotionally charged terminology.
Editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon had previously explained that the broadcaster’s language policy aimed to maintain neutrality by avoiding unilateral designations of terrorist acts or organisations. “By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren’t faced with the problem of calling one incident a ‘terrorist act’ while classifying another as, say, a mere ‘bombing,'” Fenlon wrote in a 2023 blog post.
The Canadian Press stylebook similarly advocates for attribution when using the term terrorism, acknowledging that while September 11 fell into universally accepted territory, many other incidents present definitional challenges. “After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, almost everyone accepted that slamming hijacked passenger jets into office towers was terrorism,” the style guide notes, “but there are often discrepancies in the way the media define and interpret other activities.”
Government Officials Welcome Change
Canadian Heritage Minister Mark Holland praised the policy update, describing it as a necessary correction that would restore public confidence in the nation’s public broadcaster. “Language matters, especially when it comes to historical events that shaped our world,” Holland said in a statement.
The move also received cautious approval from media ethics experts, who noted that while attribution remains important for context, the blanket restriction on describing universally recognised terrorist acts had created more confusion than clarity.
Why it Matters
This policy shift reflects the delicate balance democratic societies must maintain between journalistic independence and public accountability. As misinformation campaigns increasingly exploit editorial guidelines for political gain, public broadcasters face growing pressure to align their internal standards with widely held public sentiments. The episode underscores how language choices in news coverage can escalate into diplomatic incidents, highlighting the responsibility that comes with shaping public discourse about traumatic historical events. For families of 9/11 victims and survivors, the resolution represents vindication that their experiences will be accurately reflected in future commemorative coverage, while for journalism itself, it serves as a reminder that credibility depends not just on factual accuracy but on resonance with communities affected by reported events.
