Listen to this article
Estimated 3 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
We use this editor’s blog to explain our journalism and what’s happening at CBC News. You can find more blog posts here.
CBC News finds itself once again in a swirl of confusion about how our journalists use the words “terrorist” and “terrorism,” this time about the al-Qaeda attacks on New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001.
The confusion stems from the leak of an excerpt from our internal language guide that was published and amplified by a number of outlets without full context or explanation. It has caused significant concern, anger and hurt for many people who believe CBC News seeks to minimize or obscure the horror of that day and who was behind it.
That is the last thing we want to do. And our reporting on 9/11, through thousands of stories over the past 25 years, is an unflinching account of the devastating attacks by al-Qaeda, the hunt and prosecution of those responsible, the thousands of lives that were lost on that day and the incalculable loss and grief experienced by so many others as a result.
And we intend to mark the forthcoming 25th anniversary of 9/11 with extensive, special coverage that will continue to respectfully and thoughtfully reflect on the monumental nature of this tragedy.
CBC’s reporting on terrorism, wherever it occurs, has always been guided by the principle of attribution, and like other major news organizations, it has been our practice for decades. The reason for the extreme care around the use of the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” was detailed in this earlier editor’s blog.
But to be clear, CBC News has never said what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, was not terrorism, as some commentators have stated in recent days. We have reported fully and accurately on the reasons and motivations for those attacks as determined by police, governments and an independent commission. We’ve just made sure to do it with attribution.
Clarity and understanding are at the heart of our journalism. The leaked excerpt without context or explanation has raised more questions for the public that we must now answer.
After reviewing our current language guidance, we have decided to adjust it to clarify that direct attribution is not required for describing the historic events of 9/11 as terrorism.
We are doing so to remove what has unfortunately (and unintentionally) become an impediment to clarity and public understanding.
At the same time, as new acts of politically or ideologically motivated violence occur in our world, we will continue to follow the journalistically sound practice of attributing causes and motivations to officials and experts.