Canadian Media Won’t Call 9/11 “Terrorism”: An Insult To Victims And Truth
Internal guidance at Canada’s public broadcaster instructing journalists not to call the September 11 attacks “terrorist attacks” surfaced this week, weeks before the 25th anniversary, and the plain fact of what happened that day is now the subject of an editorial euphemism. The CBC says its policy is caution; critics say it is evasion. Avoiding using tough language when warranted does not exhibit caution, it washes away truth and the legacy behind horrid attacks that we need to spend more time honoring and remembering, not less.
What the memo says
Direct instruction. The internal guidance, reported ahead of the anniversary, states: “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks. The hijackings led to passenger jet crashes in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan.” The author is the broadcaster’s senior director of journalistic standards.
Substitution of plain description for the plain word. The memo does not offer “militant” or “extremist” as replacements; it recasts a coordinated mass-casualty attack as “hijackings” that “led to” crashes. A deliberate attack that killed nearly 3,000 people becomes, in the passive voice, an event that jets “led to.”
Old policy, new attention. The CBC casts the memo as a reminder of a longstanding practice, not a new rule; what is new is its circulation before the anniversary and its surfacing by a columnist.
In their own words
The CBC defends the practice as a matter of neutrality. A spokesperson said it is “the practice of the CBC to exercise extreme caution before using the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism,’” and that the memo “was a reminder of the longstanding practice that favors the use of these terms with attribution.” The broadcaster called it “wholly inaccurate to state our journalists have been urged to declare that this was not a terrorist act.” Its editor-in-chief has explained the underlying policy this way: “CBC News does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism, because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism.”
“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” –Dante Alighieri
The criticism
- A bright-line example. “Absolutely shameful. 9/11 was an act of terrorism. Full stop,” said Conservative Member of Parliament Rachael Thomas, arguing the refusal “dishonors the victims, their families, the survivors, and the first responders.”
- The attribution dodge. The CBC’s rule is to use “terrorist” only when attributing it to a source, but critics note that a state broadcaster declining to call the archetypal terrorist attack terrorism is a choice with its own meaning, not a neutral abstention.
- A pattern, not an isolated memo. The same policy drew fire over the broadcaster’s coverage of the October 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel, which is why the 9/11 guidance reads to critics as consistent evasion rather than a one-off.
Coming up
The 25th anniversary falls next month, and how the CBC covers it, whether it applies its own euphemism to the commemorations, will show whether the memo is a technicality or a template. A broadcaster that will not call 9/11 terrorism has not achieved neutrality. It has decided that the plainest fact of the century is a word it would rather not say.
-The Editors
Liberty · Upstream of the Swamp · August 28, 2026
