Journalists Ordered to Use Stunning New Term for 9/11 Terrorists

Canada’s public broadcaster told its journalists to avoid calling 9/11 a terrorist attack and to stick to “the Sept. 11 attacks.”

Story Snapshot

  • CBC’s published guidance urges “extreme caution” on the words terrorist and terrorism.
  • The standard applies to 9/11 and similar mass-casualty attacks, with use preferred only in quotes.
  • CBC says this avoids bias and keeps coverage consistent across conflicts.
  • Past CBC pages used “terrorist attacks,” showing a shift in house style over time.

What CBC Actually Told Its Reporters

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation leadership put the rule in writing last year. The editor-in-chief’s public note says journalists should “exercise extreme caution” with “terrorist” and “terrorism.” The note warns these words can block clear reporting and trigger endless fights over neutrality. It says the same approach covers the September 11 attacks, which the newsroom prefers to call “the Sept. 11 attacks,” unless a source says “terrorist” on the record and the story attributes it.

CBC’s political coverage later repeated the point. Leaders said reporters may use the terms inside quotes or broadcast clips. They argued that labeling an attack “terrorism” in a journalist’s own voice can look like taking sides. They also said the rule is longstanding and applies to past events, including 9/11, not just current conflicts. That is the spine of the policy: describe the act plainly, reserve the charged term for attributed use.

Why This Standard Exists—and Why It Rankles

CBC frames the policy as a shield against inconsistency. The language guide cites a basic goal: avoid questions about impartiality across many regions and causes. Their public explanation states that “terrorism” is hotly contested, even when the facts look clear, because the label carries politics as well as description. In short, they want reporters to stick to who, what, where, when, and how—then let sources argue the why with the word “terrorist” if they choose.

Critics see the reverse. They argue that refusing a plain label blurs moral lines that should stay sharp, especially when civilians are targeted. They also point to CBC’s own history. One year after 9/11, a CBC page referred to “the terrorist attacks that rocked the United States.” That public-facing phrasing shows the network once used the term without hedging. The current style, by contrast, sounds like a retreat from common sense to many readers.

Does This Improve Clarity—or Create Confusion?

Supporters of the rule say it forces precision. They want reporters to state concrete facts: who hijacked the planes, how they struck, and how many died. They argue the audience can judge the act without the anchor handing down a verdict. They add that consistent use-with-attribution avoids fights over which groups get the label and which do not, a real problem in global coverage with many actors and agendas.

Opponents counter that language shapes truth for busy readers. When every second counts, clear words beat euphemisms. They contend that attacks on unarmed civilians for a political or religious cause fit the textbook meaning of terrorism. They note CBC’s own explanation recognizes that definition while still steering away from the word. To them, that is hair-splitting that weakens trust and muddies public memory of 9/11’s nature.

The Conservative Common-Sense Test

American conservative values prize plain speech, equal standards, and moral clarity. On that test, CBC’s approach stumbles. The policy aims for fairness but ends up sounding like neutrality toward the obvious. If “terrorism” means targeting civilians to make a political point, then 9/11 qualifies. Avoiding that word in a journalist’s voice may look tidy in a stylebook, but it reads as dodging reality to many viewers who lived that day and still carry its cost.

There is a fair middle ground. Reporters can keep the facts up front and still use the correct term. They can add legal or contextual detail without surrendering moral clarity. They can quote opposing views and still tell the truth in their own narration. CBC’s own archive shows this was once normal practice. If the goal is trust, then straight talk is not the enemy of fairness; it is the foundation of it.

Sources:

linkedin.com, cbc.ca

© featuredheadlines.com 2026. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

© 2026 Featured Headlines. All Rights Reserved.