Backlash Erupts: CBC Downplays 9/11

Canada’s taxpayer-funded broadcaster told journalists not to call 9/11 a “terrorist attack” without attribution — and is now scrambling to adjust after a public backlash.

Story Highlights

CBC confirmed long-standing guidance to avoid labeling 9/11 “terrorism” in its own voice, preferring attribution.
Conservative leaders in Canada condemned the policy as an insult to victims and a rewrite of history.
A leaked memo sparked outrage ahead of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, intensifying scrutiny of CBC standards.
CBC says the rule applies broadly to charged terms and is not tied to one conflict or event.

What CBC Told Its Reporters About 9/11 Language

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation leadership has long directed staff to avoid calling specific acts “terrorism” without attribution. CBC’s editor-in-chief wrote that the newsroom “does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism,” and that the same preference applies to the attacks against the United States in 2001, which CBC “prefers to call ‘the Sept. 11 attacks’” or similar wording. The latest storm began when an internal note on 9/11 wording circulated and drew public attention and anger just weeks before the 25th anniversary.

CBC says this approach is a general style rule meant to keep loaded terms in quotes or tied to a named source. Leaders argued that labels carry politics and emotion that can block clear reporting. They stressed the policy is not new, not tied to any single war, and is meant to preserve neutrality in coverage of violent events. CBC’s public comments echoed earlier statements from 2023 defending the same principle on other stories.

Why The Backlash Erupted So Fast

Conservative leaders in Canada reacted quickly and sharply. Pierre Poilievre said calling 9/11 anything other than a terrorist attack is “an appalling distortion of history,” and that it dishonors victims, families, survivors, and first responders. The Conservative Party’s culture critic, Rachael Thomas, called the guidance “absolutely shameful” and said it disrespects those who suffered that day. Critics said plain language matters when evil targets civilians on purpose.

Media figures added fuel. Warren Kinsella said he saw memo language telling staff, “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” which he compared to euphemisms used for terror groups elsewhere. The outrage spread online and into broadcast segments, turning a style note into a wider fight over moral clarity. The pushback framed CBC’s rule as word games that blur right and wrong when the facts are settled.

The Broader Pattern Inside Big Newsrooms

Major outlets have wrestled with this same issue for years. Some newsrooms, including the British Broadcasting Corporation and Reuters, advise reporters not to use “terrorist” in their own voice for specific events, and to rely on precise descriptions or named sources. They say the word can hinder understanding and pull journalists into politics over labels. CBC’s rule sits in that wider media trend, even as many viewers see it as needless hedging on clear-cut mass murder.

Supporters of attribution rules argue that naming the act and the killers, and describing what they did to civilians, is the best way to inform the audience. Critics respond that refusing to apply the word “terrorism” where it plainly fits breaks trust. On 9/11, al-Qaeda hijacked planes to slaughter thousands of civilians. To many readers, failing to call that terrorism in plain voice looks like moral drift in institutions funded by the public.

Why This Matters To Americans

Words shape what our kids learn and what our leaders defend. When a national broadcaster backed by taxpayers tells staff to sidestep the word “terrorism” for 9/11, it sends a message about values. It suggests elites want to manage language instead of naming evil. That worries families who remember the day, support our service members, and expect straight talk about threats to our country and allies.

Here at home, President Trump’s administration continues to press for clear terms, secure borders, and strong counterterror policies. Allies should meet that standard too. Journalists can cite sources and still speak plainly. CBC says it will adjust its 9/11 guidance after this uproar. That is a start. The real test is whether public institutions choose clarity over caution the next time terrorists target civilians.