Canadian public broadcaster unveils new journalistic standard requiring typists to avoid words that might accidentally describe reality.
TORONTO, Canada — The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has issued a stern warning to its typists: under no circumstances should they refer to the September 11, 2001 attacks as “terrorist attacks,” because that would risk introducing dangerous quantities of meaning, politics, emotion and, worst of all, facts into the story.
Instead, CBC typists have been instructed to describe 9/11 as “a situation where some folks did stuff in America as a prescient sign that one day Donald Trump would be President.”
The memo, authored by CBC News senior director of journalistic standards and public trust Basem Boshra, was considerably less colorful but no less bewildering.
“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” the memo said.
The directive instead recommends describing the attacks as hijackings that led to passenger jets crashing in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan.
The World Trade Center was also destroyed, apparently by forces that CBC typists are not at liberty to characterize.
CBC officials defended the policy by explaining that the word “terrorist” is simply too emotionally loaded.
“It is the practice of the CBC to exercise extreme caution before using the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism,’” CBC Public Affairs Director Kerry Kelly said.
This is understandable.
After all, imagine the emotional trauma a CBC reporter might experience by typing the words “19 al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes and deliberately murdered nearly 3,000 people.”
That is an awful lot of adjectives.
Much safer to write:
“Nineteen individuals participated in an aviation-related disagreement that unfortunately resulted in several buildings becoming unavailable for future occupancy.”
CBC editors reportedly rejected the phrase “mass murder” because it was considered “judgmental.”
“Death,” meanwhile, is apparently acceptable because it can happen naturally.
“Premeditated murder” remains under review.
“Islamist terrorism” has been referred to the CBC’s Department of Extremely Careful Feelings.
CBC: We Don’t Call Terrorists Terrorists Because That Would Be Taking Sides
CBC News general manager and editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon previously explained that the organization prefers to “bear witness” rather than independently determine whether acts are terrorism.
“We bear witness. But CBC News does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism, regardless of the region or the events, because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism,” Fenlon said.
Which is an impressive position for a news organization.
It is roughly equivalent to a weather forecaster saying:
“We don't independently designate rain as wet because ‘wet’ is such a loaded term.”
Or a hockey announcer saying:
“We cannot characterize the puck as having entered the net because the phrase ‘goal’ carries political and emotional implications.”
Or a coroner saying:
“We can confirm that the individual is no longer participating in the ongoing experiment known as life.”
The CBC is simply committed to maintaining neutrality.
Even when neutrality requires pretending everyone else hasn't already figured out what happened.
New CBC Style Guide Released
Sources say CBC editors are now considering a comprehensive update to their style guide.
Under the proposed rules:
Terrorist attack: “An event involving unexpected violence.”
Suicide bomber: “A person experiencing a severe disagreement with mortality.”
Hostage-taking: “An involuntary relocation experience.”
Murder: “An unauthorized termination of another person's biological processes.”
Massacre: “A gathering that ended with an unusually high number of people no longer gathering.”
Hamas: “A group whose designation as a terrorist organization should be attributed to Canada, Israel, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and approximately half the planet.”
9/11: “The Sept. 11 attacks.”
Actual terrorism: “Please consult Legal.”
The CBC is particularly sensitive about the word “terrorist” because it might imply that someone who deliberately murders civilians for political purposes is, in fact, a terrorist. And once journalists start making those kinds of obvious connections, there is simply no telling where it could lead.
Soon they might start saying that criminals commit crimes.
Or that people who intentionally kill innocent civilians are responsible for killing innocent civilians.
Then civilization itself could collapse.
There is, admittedly, one small problem with the CBC's position. The FBI describes 9/11 as the most lethal terrorist attack in history.
Nineteen al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes, killed nearly 3,000 people and triggered the largest investigation in FBI history.
Canada itself lists al Qaeda as a terrorist entity and states that the organization perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But CBC journalists remain bravely unwilling to reach the same conclusion without first consulting someone who has already reached it.
This creates the fascinating possibility that a CBC reporter could stand outside the wreckage of a terrorist attack and say:
“According to witnesses, the FBI, the Canadian government, the American government, the Israeli government, the British government and virtually everyone who has ever looked at this event, this may have been terrorism.”
“But I wouldn't want to speculate.”
New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino condemned the guidance, accusing the broadcaster of disregarding the victims and deliberately undermining the historical record.
“The CBC guidance is frankly outrageous and insulting, but it stands as a stark warning for what happens when you allow institutions of public trust to be taken over by leftists and foreign interests,” Paladino said.
“This is not merely a callous disregard for the memory of those who perished on 9/11, it is a deliberate effort to undermine the fundamental truth of what happened that day in direct service to Islamism, as Europe, Canada, and the United States become increasingly overwhelmed by Islamist politics. We must not tolerate it any longer and dedicate ourselves to fighting this poison with every tool we have available before it’s too late,” she continued.
Conservative Canadian MP Rachael Thomas called the guidance “absolutely shameful.”
“The CBC is choosing to redefine terrorism in a way that downplays the atrocity of 9/11. Refusing to call it an act of terrorism dishonors the victims, their families, the survivors, and the first responders who witnessed the horrors of that day. 9/11 was an act of terrorism. Full stop,” Thomas said.
The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs likewise accused the CBC of “sanitizing” history and presiding over a “collapse of journalistic standards.”
CBC responded that it was merely following its longstanding policy.
Because apparently the collapse of a building is tragic, but the collapse of a journalistic standard is merely a longstanding practice.
The policy is not limited to 9/11. CBC faced similar criticism following Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, when journalists were instructed not to independently call militants or soldiers “terrorists” and instead treat the designation as an attributed opinion.
Which raises an obvious question:
If Hamas murders civilians, kidnaps children, takes hostages and deliberately attacks Israeli communities, when exactly does CBC believe the word “terrorist” becomes appropriate?
Apparently, after the reporter has obtained a notarized affidavit from someone willing to accept responsibility for the adjective.
Perhaps the CBC could establish a new editorial hotline.
CALL 1: “Was someone intentionally trying to terrorize civilians?”
CALL 2: “Did they kill people?”
CALL 3: “Does Canada officially designate the organization as terrorist?”
CALL 4: “Is the answer to all three yes?”
CALL 5: “Sorry, we can't make that determination. Please hold for 45 minutes while we locate a sufficiently neutral adjective.”
CBC's New Definition of Journalism
The CBC's position ultimately leaves Canadians with a remarkable picture of modern journalism.
The journalist sees the plane.
The journalist sees the building.
The journalist sees the fire.
The journalist sees the bodies.
The journalist sees the terrorist organization that planned the attack.
The journalist sees the government's official designation.
The journalist sees the FBI's determination.
And then the journalist looks directly into the camera and says:
“Some things happened.”
This is apparently what “bearing witness” means in Canada.
Not telling people what happened.
Not describing what happened.
Certainly not using words that might help people understand what happened.
Just standing there solemnly while history happens nearby.
And if anyone asks whether 9/11 was terrorism, the answer is simple:
According to the FBI, yes.
According to the Canadian government, yes.
According to the historical record, yes.
According to the victims, their families and the first responders, obviously yes.
According to the CBC?
“The Sept. 11 attacks.”
Because apparently after 25 years, nearly 3,000 deaths, four hijacked aircraft and the destruction of the World Trade Center, the most dangerous thing about 9/11 is still the possibility that a CBC reporter might accidentally call a terrorist a terrorist.
Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.
Posts
