After criticism, Canada's CBC changes policy that said not to label 9/11 attacks 'terrorism'
Canada's public broadcaster, CBC, announced it would make an exception to its general policy of not labeling specific attacks as 'terrorism' for the September 11 attacks, following widespread criticism from U.S. officials, Canadian politicians, and others. The policy, which previously required reporters to attribute descriptions of attacks to official sources rather than using the term 'terrorism' independently, came under scrutiny after a leaked memo reminded journalists of the guideline ahead of the 25th anniversary of 9/11. In response, CBC's senior director of journalistic standards, Basem Boshra, explained that the decision aimed to improve clarity and public understanding while maintaining the practice of attributing motives to experts. The change followed strong reactions from figures such as the FBI director, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, and members of the U.S. Congress, who condemned the initial stance as misleading or disrespectful to victims of the 9/11 attacks.
After mounting pressure from U.S. officials, lawmakers, and the public, Canada’s public broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), reversed its stance on whether to label the September 11, 2001, attacks as acts of terrorism. On Friday, the CBC announced it would make an exception to its longstanding policy that generally prohibits journalists from describing specific attacks as terrorist acts unless citing official sources. This decision came in response to backlash against a memo circulated to CBC staff ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attacks. The memo, which had been leaked and widely circulated, instructed CBC journalists to avoid using the term “terrorist attack” when referring to the 9/11 incidents. The directive sparked immediate controversy, particularly among U.S. officials and politicians who argued that the policy amounted to historical revisionism. The FBI Director, Kash Patel, condemned the memo as a “bastardization of history” and expressed concern over how such a stance might affect bilateral relations. Similarly, U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the importance of recognizing the 9/11 attacks as a defining moment in global terrorism. Republican members of Congress also voiced their disapproval, questioning the rationale behind the policy. They tweeted that there was “no possible motive” for downplaying the severity of the attacks, which they described as the “worst terrorist attack on American soil.” These criticisms gained traction quickly, leading to calls for the CBC to clarify its position and reconsider its approach to terminology. In response, CBC’s senior director of journalistic standards and public trust, Basem Boshra, issued a blog post clarifying that the organization had never denied the nature of the 9/11 attacks. He explained that CBC had consistently reported on the reasons and motivations behind the attacks as determined by authorities, law enforcement, and independent commissions. However, the outlet had adhered to its policy of using the term “terrorist” only with proper attribution, a standard followed by many international news organizations. The CBC’s reversal was also supported by Canada’s Culture Minister, Marc Miller, who praised the decision on social media, calling the previous guidance “pedantic and foolish.” Miller emphasized that the government had always acknowledged the 9/11 attacks as the deadliest terrorist incident in history and condemned terrorism in all forms. His endorsement underscored the growing consensus that the CBC’s initial policy was both misleading and potentially damaging to diplomatic ties. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree also released a statement affirming the government’s recognition of the 9/11 attacks as a terrorist event. He noted that the Canadian government had taken steps to combat terrorism and support international efforts to address extremist ideologies. This alignment between the government and the CBC signaled a broader shift in how the country handles discussions around historical events involving terrorism. CBC spokesperson Kerry Kelly defended the organization’s policy, stating that the use of the term “terrorist” required extreme caution and should always be attributed to credible sources. She cited a 2023 blog post by CBC editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon, which outlined the outlet’s general approach to using the word “terrorist.” According to Fenlon, the CBC often used the term but ensured that it was done with proper context and sourcing. Despite the CBC’s clarification, the debate over terminology continues. Some critics argue that the revised policy still leaves room for ambiguity, while others believe the change represents a necessary step toward greater transparency and accuracy in reporting. As the situation evolves, further dialogue between the CBC, U.S. officials, and the public will likely shape how future discussions about historical events involving terrorism are handled.
Go to the primary sources (5)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has reversed its previous stance on referring to the September 11, 2001 attacks as 'terrorist attacks' without attribution, following significant backlash from officials and the public. Initially, CBC issued internal guidance instructing journalists to avoid using the term 'terrorist attacks' unless citing a specific source, a policy that sparked criticism from U.S. and Canadian officials including FBI Director Kash Patel, U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, and Conservative leaders. In response to the uproar, CBC's senior director of journalistic standards, Basem Boshra, acknowledged the controversy and announced the revision, stating the network would no longer require attribution when describing the 9/11 attacks as terrorism. The change comes amid ongoing debates over media responsibility in defining terrorist acts, with similar controversies previously involving CBC's handling of Hamas-related terminology.
Bias read (Center): While the issue of labeling 9/11 as terrorism is politically charged, the article presents a balanced account of the controversy, including criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum. CBC's reversal is portrayed as a response to public and governmental pressure, without overtly favoring a左
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports on CBC's reversal of its editorial policy regarding the classification of the 9/11 attacks as terrorism. It cites the leaked memo, the reactions from officials like FBI Director Kash Patel and U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, and references Canada's legal stance on terro
Why objectivity (70): The article presents the controversy around CBC's policy change and includes statements from various officials, which provides balance. However, the tone leans toward highlighting the criticism against CBC, particularly from conservative figures, which introduces some bias. The narrative emphasizes
Canada's public broadcaster, CBC, announced it would make an exception to its general policy of not labeling specific attacks as 'terrorism' for the September 11 attacks, following widespread criticism from U.S. officials, Canadian politicians, and others. The policy, which previously required reporters to attribute descriptions of attacks to official sources rather than using the term 'terrorism' independently, came under scrutiny after a leaked memo reminded journalists of the guideline ahead of the 25th anniversary of 9/11. In response, CBC's senior director of journalistic standards, Basem Boshra, explained that the decision aimed to improve clarity and public understanding while maintaining the practice of attributing motives to experts. The change followed strong reactions from figures such as the FBI director, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, and members of the U.S. Congress, who condemned the initial stance as misleading or disrespectful to victims of the 9/11 attacks.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation objectively, detailing both the policy change and the criticisms from various political figures without overtly favoring any side. It includes quotes from multiple stakeholders, including the CBC, critics like the FBI director and U.S. ambassador, and supportive U.
Why factuality (75): The article accurately reports on CBC changing its policy regarding labeling the 9/11 attacks as terrorism, citing multiple sources including the FBI director, U.S. ambassador, and Canadian politicians. It references the leaked memo and CBC's response, aligning with the primary source document's emp
Why objectivity (80): The article presents the situation neutrally, reporting on the criticisms and CBC's response without taking sides. It uses objective language and avoids emotional or biased phrasing.
The HillIndependentCenterFactual 70Objective 858/29/2026
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has reversed its recent policy advising journalists not to refer to the September 11, 2001, attacks by Al Qaeda as an act of terrorism. This decision was made after facing significant backlash from political figures who criticized the initial guidance. The policy had been introduced in an internal memo, which was first reported by The Toronto Sun. The reversal indicates that the CBC recognized the sensitivity of the issue and the importance of accurately describing such a pivotal historical event.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation objectively, noting the reversal of policy due to political backlash without taking a stance on whether the term 'terrorist attack' is appropriate. It does not favor one side over the other but reports on the change in policy and the reasons behind it.
Why factuality (70): The article confirms CBC reversing its policy on labeling 9/11 as terrorism, referencing the internal memo and the subsequent backlash. It provides accurate information but omits some details present in the ABC News article, such as specific quotes from officials.
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, focusing on the facts of the policy reversal and the reactions from various stakeholders without injecting personal opinion or bias.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
United States
