Journalists Ordered to Use Stunning New Term for 9/11 Terror Attack

Brick wall with American flag and memorial text against city skyline
Photo: Bartolomiej Pietrzyk / Shutterstock

Canada’s public broadcaster told its journalists not to call 9/11 a “terrorist attack,” and the fallout goes beyond one memo.

Story Snapshot

  • A leaked internal message reportedly banned calling 9/11 a “terrorist attack.”
  • The note was attributed to a CBC standards leader and tied to 9/11 coverage.
  • CBC says this reflects a longstanding rule: use “terrorist” only with attribution.
  • The policy also lists neutral labels for other major attacks.

What The Memo Said And Why It Landed Like A Thunderclap

Reports say an internal Canadian Broadcasting Corporation memo instructed staff: “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.” The message was described as coming from a senior standards official and circulated ahead of the 25th anniversary. It told producers and reporters to describe the hijackings and destruction instead of using the label. That single sentence lit a fire because most people already call al-Qaeda’s 2001 attacks terrorism as a matter of plain speech.

CBC has not released the full memo text in public. That gap leaves room for spin. But several outlets reported the same quoted line and its context. They also said it applied to a named standards leader at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The consistency of those threads gives the core claim weight, even while the full document remains unreleased. That is why the story spread fast and triggered calls for answers from media watchers and lawmakers.

What CBC Says Its Rule Actually Is

CBC’s public standards say journalists should avoid using “terrorist” and “terrorism” unless they are quoting a source. The rationale is that these words carry politics and emotion and may tilt coverage. The guidance even gives a template for 9/11: call it “the Sept. 11 attacks” or a similar phrase. After the leak, a CBC spokeswoman said the memo only reminded staff of this older rule and that it also applies to other major attacks.

That defense rests on consistency. The guide says the aim is to avoid endless fights over which events get the label and which do not. The organization prefers detailed, descriptive language about what happened, who did it, and why, then uses “terrorism” only with attribution. Critics see a dodge; CBC calls it discipline. The rule’s logic matches choices by other big outlets and public broadcasters that say they avoid adopting one side’s framing.

Why 9/11 Is Different In The Public Mind

Most people do not litigate the word “terrorism” when they talk about 9/11. They do not reach for style guides. They remember mass murder of civilians to drive a political and religious cause. They call that terrorism because it is. When a state-funded broadcaster tells staff to avoid that plain label for this attack, many hear euphemism replacing clarity. It feels like an editor’s trick that downgrades moral judgment where the facts already make the case.

Conservative readers especially prize clear language and equal standards. They back calling things what they are. They also expect government-funded media to reflect public common sense, not train the public to accept hedged words for obvious facts. On the facts alone, 9/11 meets every common definition of terrorism. CBC’s own description of the term acknowledges that. The choice to avoid the word in narration looks less like neutrality and more like selective restraint.

The Real Stakes: Trust, Not Terminology

Public broadcasters trade on trust. They earn it by being fair and being clear. Guidance that bans a true and widely used word for the clearest case on record invites doubt about judgment elsewhere. If the label “terrorist” is too loaded for 9/11, what event would ever qualify without a quote attached? CBC says attribution protects neutrality and consistency. That aim is reasonable in theory. Applied to 9/11, it reads as value-blindness, which is not the same as fairness.

There is a practical way forward. Publish the full memo. Show examples of how reporters can use direct, concrete language while preserving balance. Explain how the rule applies when the government, the courts, and the attackers’ own words align on motive and method. If the rule is truly even-handed, transparency will prove it. If the rule bends to controversy, the public will see that too. Sunlight will settle what a leak inflamed.

Bottom Line

The leak framed this as a ban on truth. CBC calls it a reminder of a long-standing practice. Both cannot carry the headline forever. The best test is consistency in daylight. If the broadcaster will not call 9/11 terrorism in its own voice, it owes a clear, open case for why. Absent that, many viewers will trust their eyes and their memory first—and the broadcaster last.

Sources:

pjmedia.com, unpublished.ca, mediaite.com, townhall.com, x.com

© partiallypolitics.com 2026. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

Featured

© 2026 Partially Politics. All Rights Reserved.