CBC Retreats on 9/11 Language After Critics Say Its Standards Obscured Terrorism

CBC Retreats on 9/11 Language After Critics Say Its Standards Obscured Terrorism
CBC’s decision to revise its language guidance on the September 11 attacks exposes a familiar conflict in journalism: the effort to maintain attribution standards can collide with the public’s expectation that plainly established facts be stated plainly.

The controversy began with an internal CBC memo instructing staff, “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.” The guidance described the events instead as hijackings and plane crashes, while acknowledging the destruction of the World Trade Center. Critics interpreted that wording as evasive, particularly with the 25th anniversary approaching.

CBC’s own explanation offered a different account. Senior standards editor Basem Boshra said the leaked excerpt lacked context and had caused “significant concern, anger and hurt for many people who believe CBC News seeks to minimize or obscure the horror of that day and who was behind it.” The broadcaster insisted that its reporting had consistently identified al-Qaeda’s role and documented the deaths, investigations and prosecutions arising from the attacks.

Its defense rests on a distinction between describing an event and attributing a judgment. CBC said terrorism coverage had long followed “the principle of attribution,” requiring journalists to tie terms such as “terrorist” or “terrorism” to officials, experts or other authoritative findings. Another account presented the broadcaster as defending the original memo rather than immediately conceding that its wording had gone too far.

The reversal nevertheless acknowledges that the policy failed its practical test. CBC now says direct attribution will not be required when describing the historic events of 9/11 as terrorism, calling the change necessary to restore “clarity and public understanding.” Its remaining insistence on attribution for newer acts of politically motivated violence preserves the underlying standard, but the episode shows how editorial caution can itself become a source of distortion when applied to events whose basic character is already firmly established.