It’s pathetic to have to say this. But the last thing any news agency should do is refuse to acknowledge reality.
That keeps happening. The latest example comes from our neighbors to the north. As we approach the 25th anniversary of 9/11, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) instructed its staff to avoid calling the attacks “terrorism.”
After a public outcry, it pulled back — but the problems remain.
In Episode 124, Natural Disasters & Democracy, I break down what the CBC told me. I explain why it’s about much more than language — it signals a dangerous shift in core societal values.
‘Appalling and cruel’
The news of the CBC’s instruction to avoid calling 9/11 terrorism was first reported by Warren Kinsella at The Toronto Sun. He described it as denying reality, offensive, wrong, and bad journalism.
“What’s shocking here, and what I think made this news and attracted the anger of so many people, including Liberal MPs (lawmakers), is that they applied this rule, thou shalt not call terrorism terrorism, in the case of 9/11, where thousands of people were murdered by Osama bin Laden’s men. Canadians were murdered. That was an obvious case of terrorism, and it is appalling and cruel for CBC to say that it isn’t.”
It’s the latest twist in a saga I covered in Episode 2: The Media’s ‘Terrorism’ Hypocrisy. I explained that many news agencies claim to have a rule requiring staff to attribute the term — that is, to quote officials calling something terror. But in reality, they apply that alleged “rule” selectively, based on their own agendas.
Take the BBC for example. The British state broadcaster censured its own presenter for accurately calling Hamas a terrorist group, but took no similar action against presenters who used the term for other groups:
Just as the BBC wields massive influence in the UK (and worldwide), the CBC wields massive influence in Canada. It isn’t just the nation’s biggest news agency; it may be the leading source of the radicalization driving Canada’s violent, antisemitic shift. I interviewed journalist Jesse Brown about this:
Canada's Dark Turn
You wouldn’t know this from big mainstream media, but Canada is quickly turning into a living nightmare for a tiny minority.
‘Loaded’ Language
The instruction to avoid calling the September 11 attacks terrorism came from Basem Boshra, the CBC’s senior director of journalistic standards and public trust(!). The network sent me the written guidance, which is filled with illogical nonsense.
First, the network said the terms “terrorists” and “terrorism” are “so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism.”
No news institution should be capable of writing that sentence without realizing how insane it is. Media outlets, including the CBC, use words “loaded with meaning, politics and emotion” constantly. They specifically seek out loaded words for headlines to increase click rates. It’s the era of rage bait.
They also use loaded words that are wrong, like in discussing an imaginary “genocide.” After the October 7 massacres, the CBC’s evening news presenter called a rally against antisemitism a “pro-war” event. But yes, CBC, tell us how concerned you are about loaded words.
Meanwhile, Islamist terrorists proudly announce their desire to terrorize. It’s the whole point, and on the rise. It’s a type of crime.
Guiding Values
The CBC says, “Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it’s a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.”
Here’s what I asked them: Do they not want their journalists taking sides against terrorism? News agencies have values. When a shooter opens fire at a school, killing children and staff, a good news agency doesn’t reach out to people who think that’s OK to get their perspective. The agency takes sides. Obviously.
Values guide coverage. Take Al Jazeera, for example. In a previous episode, I pointed out that the Western media whitewashes Qatar’s state propaganda giant, pretending it’s a legitimate news agency. The network’s own people celebrate terror on air and online. That’s where the agency’s values lie.
Ultimately, Boshra walked back the 9/11 rule. He pathetically attempted to claim that a “leaked excerpt” had created misunderstandings. But the original reporting was accurate.
Erasing Accountability
Boshra’s switcheroo doesn’t solve the problem, though. The CBC has now established that it will call 9/11 terrorism, but what about other attacks? The October 7 massacres were exponentially more lethal per capita. I’ve asked the CBC whether it will allow the term for that horror. I’m not holding my breath.
But CBC also managed to sneak in another disturbing piece of guidance. Boshra instructed reporters to cover terrorism this way: “The hijackings led to passenger jet crashes,” and “the World Trade Center was destroyed.”
Note the passive language, removing the terrorists’ responsibility. In the past, the CBC has specifically instructed journalists to avoid this. It published a piece lamenting how the “passive voice deletes accountability.” Now, in its own guidance, the CBC is telling people to do exactly that.
Note to the CBC: The hijackings didn’t lead to crashes. The hijackers intentionally flew planes into buildings in order to carry out mass slaughter.
Want to let the CBC or other news sites know how you feel about this? Here’s how to email them your feedback, and what to say.