Canadian Public Broadcaster Sparks Controversy Over Guidelines for 9/11 Terminology
Ottawa, Friday, 28 August 2026.
Ahead of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, Canada’s public broadcaster instructed journalists to avoid labeling the event a ‘terrorist attack’ without direct attribution, sparking political backlash over historical accuracy.
Internal Directive Surfaces
In late August 2026, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) issued internal guidance instructing journalists to avoid labeling the September 11, 2001, attacks as ‘terrorist attacks’ without direct attribution [1][2]. The memo, circulated by Basem Boshra, Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust, directs staff to describe the events as ‘hijackings that led to passenger jet crashes’ rather than using the term ‘terrorism’ independently [1][3]. This directive emerged just ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attacks, calculated as 25 years since the original events [GPT]. The guidance emphasizes using neutral language to maintain impartiality, a stance the broadcaster argues is essential for objective journalism [2][4].
Internal Directive Surfaces
CBC Public Affairs Director Kerry Kelly defended the policy, stating that the terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ are politically and emotionally loaded [2][4]. According to Kelly, the broadcaster does not forbid the term entirely but requires attribution to credible sources such as government officials or experts [3]. Brodie Fenlon, CBC News general manager and editor-in-chief, previously articulated that designating specific acts as terrorism can impede journalism due to the words being loaded with meaning and politics [2][3]. This approach aligns with the organization’s longstanding practice of exercising extreme caution with such terminology [2][4].
Political and Public Backlash
The internal memo sparked immediate criticism from political figures and public officials [1][3]. Conservative Member of Parliament Rachael Thomas condemned the guidance, stating that refusing to call it an act of terrorism dishonours the victims, their families, and the first responders [1][3]. Thomas further argued that attempting to sanitize or rewrite that history is deeply offensive and does a disservice to everyone affected by the attacks [1][3]. The FBI describes the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people, as the most lethal terrorist attacks in history [4].
Political and Public Backlash
New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino also criticized the CBC guidance, characterizing it as an effort to undermine the historical record [2]. Paladino described the directive as outrageous and insulting, suggesting it serves as a warning about institutions of public trust being influenced by specific political interests [2]. She asserted that the move represents a deliberate effort to undermine the fundamental truth of what happened that day [2]. These reactions highlight the tension between editorial policies on language and public expectations of historical acknowledgment [1][4].
Historical Context and Policy Consistency
The CBC maintains that this policy is consistent with its coverage of other conflicts, including the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel [1][3]. The broadcaster’s language guide defines terrorism generally as attacks against unarmed civilians for political or ideological reasons but notes the term is highly contested [3]. In December 2001, Osama bin Laden, founder of Al-Qaeda, referred to the September 11 attacks as ‘blessed terror’ in a released videotape [1][3]. Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan in 2011, following the largest investigation in FBI history [3][4].
Historical Context and Policy Consistency
CBC Ombudsman Maxime Bertrand reviewed the policy in March 2026 following complaints regarding coverage of the Israel-Hamas war, describing the guidelines as a necessary safeguard [3]. Bertrand noted that sensitivity to language and power relations demands constant vigilance and nuanced reflection [3]. As the 25th anniversary approaches on 11 September 2026, the debate underscores the challenges media organizations face in balancing neutrality with historical clarity [1][4]. The CBC continues to bear witness to events without designating specific groups as terrorists itself [2][3].