Ahead of the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, CBC journalists have reportedly been reminded not to independently describe 9/11 as a “terrorist attack.” The broadcaster disputes reports suggesting it is denying the nature of the attacks, saying journalists can use the terminology when attributing it to authorities, experts or other sources.
INR Report: Based on reporting by RT HERE.
Canada's publicly funded national broadcaster has reportedly instructed journalists not to describe the September 11, 2001 attacks in their own editorial voice as “terrorist attacks,” reigniting a longstanding debate over whether attempts at neutral language can themselves distort established facts.
According to RT, the Toronto Sun reported that CBC Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust Basem Boshra circulated a confidential memo ahead of the 25th anniversary of 9/11.
The reported instruction was explicit:
“Refer to the Sept. 11 attacks, not terrorist attacks.”
The memo reportedly suggested describing what happened factually: hijackings followed by passenger aircraft crashes in Washington DC, Pennsylvania and Manhattan, and the destruction of the World Trade Center.
CBC, however, strongly disputes the interpretation that it has instructed journalists to deny that 9/11 constituted terrorism.
What CBC Says the Guidance Actually Means
A CBC spokesperson responding to the controversy said it was “wholly inaccurate” to suggest its journalists had been encouraged to declare that September 11 was not a terrorist act.
Instead, the broadcaster says the memo simply reminds journalists of its established policy governing the use of the words “terrorist” and “terrorism.”
Under that policy, CBC journalists generally avoid independently applying those labels.
They can, however, report that an event has been described as terrorism when the description is attributed to governments, authorities, politicians, experts or other appropriate sources.
CBC News editor-in-chief and general manager Brodie Fenlon has previously explained the reasoning behind the policy.
The broadcaster “does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism,” Fenlon has said, because the terms can be politically and emotionally loaded and potentially become “impediments to our journalism.”
That distinction is central to understanding the controversy.
CBC is not saying that journalists must report that 9/11 was not terrorism. Rather, according to its explanation, reporters should describe the event and attribute the terrorism designation rather than having CBC itself make that designation.
But 9/11 Presents an Unusual Test of That Policy
The difficulty is that September 11 is not an obscure event whose nature remains seriously contested.
On September 11, 2001, 19 Al-Qaeda hijackers seized four commercial passenger aircraft.
Two were deliberately flown into the World Trade Center towers in New York.
A third struck the Pentagon outside Washington DC.
The fourth, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers and crew attempted to regain control of the aircraft.
Nearly 3,000 people were killed.
The attacks triggered America's global “war on terror,” the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and an extraordinary expansion of counterterrorism, intelligence and surveillance powers across Western countries.
They were described as terrorist attacks by the US government, allied governments and international institutions.
So while CBC's policy may have been developed to avoid journalists becoming arbiters of politically disputed labels, applying it to September 11 inevitably raises a different editorial question:
At what point does avoiding a description in the interests of neutrality become less precise than simply describing an established historical event?
Description Versus Designation
There is a legitimate journalistic principle behind CBC's approach.
The word “terrorist” has frequently been used selectively in conflicts around the world. One government's terrorist may be another political movement's insurgent, resistance fighter or separatist.
News organisations therefore have good reason to exercise care.
Reporting what people did, rather than relying on politically charged labels, can sometimes provide readers with a clearer understanding of events.
But September 11 pushes that principle towards its limits.
If a coordinated operation in which civilian aircraft were deliberately hijacked and used to attack civilian and government targets, killing almost 3,000 people, cannot simply be described by a public broadcaster as a terrorist attack without attribution, critics are entitled to ask what event could meet the threshold.
That does not mean CBC is rewriting the history of September 11.
It does mean its editorial policy produces language that can appear strangely detached from the overwhelming historical and institutional characterisation of the attacks.
What the Headline Doesn't Quite Tell You
There is also an important distinction between RT's headline — “Canada's state TV orders staff not to call 9/11 ‘terrorism’” — and CBC's explanation.
The reported memo does appear to instruct journalists not to use “terrorist attacks” as CBC's own description.
But CBC says that is not equivalent to declaring that September 11 was not terrorism.
That nuance matters.
The dispute is therefore less about whether the attacks occurred or whether Al-Qaeda carried them out than about who gets to apply the terminology in a news report.
CBC's position is essentially that its journalists describe and attribute.
Its critics argue that this approach creates an artificial neutrality around events whose character is already overwhelmingly established.
Both points should be understood before reaching conclusions about what CBC is actually telling its journalists.
A Broader Debate About Language in Newsrooms
The controversy also illustrates how much power sits inside seemingly minor newsroom style decisions.
Words determine framing.
Whether an organisation is described as a terrorist group, militant organisation, resistance movement, armed group, insurgency or liberation movement can substantially change how audiences perceive it.
The same applies to terms such as invasion, occupation, annexation, riot, protest, extremist and genocide.
Major news organisations therefore maintain extensive editorial guidelines governing when these terms can be used and when attribution is required.
Those rules are intended to promote consistency and impartiality.
But they can also produce their own biases if a rigid language policy prevents journalists from using ordinary descriptions where the evidence is overwhelming.
The challenge is not eliminating judgement from journalism.
It is making that judgement transparent and applying standards consistently.
Does This Affect New Zealand?
Yes — primarily as a question of public-media editorial standards.
New Zealand has its own publicly funded broadcasters and news organisations that must regularly decide how to describe terrorism, political violence, wars and armed organisations.
The CBC controversy therefore poses a question that applies equally here:
Should publicly funded journalists independently describe an event as terrorism when the evidence overwhelmingly supports that description, or should the term always be attributed to another authority?
There is no requirement that New Zealand broadcasters adopt CBC's terminology policy, and the RT report provides no evidence that they have.
But the underlying issue is relevant.
Public trust in journalism depends not only on factual accuracy but on audiences understanding why particular words are used — and why others are deliberately avoided.
Twenty-five years after September 11, the historical facts surrounding the attacks are extensively documented.
CBC's policy does not change those facts.
The debate is instead about whether a newsroom's pursuit of neutral terminology can sometimes reach a point where the language becomes less clear than the event it is trying to describe.
Source
RT, 27 August 2026
Canada’s state TV orders staff not to call 9/11 ‘terrorism’ – media
RT cites reporting by the Toronto Sun and National Post, together with a response from CBC News.
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.