CBC releases policy change after controversy about refusing to refer to 9/11 as ‘terrorist attacks’

It took a leaked memo and a public flogging for Canada's state broadcaster to admit that flying planes into the World Trade Center was, in fact, terrorism. Not a debate. Not a matter of perspective. A memo actually had to be written, and then quietly walked back, because someone in editorial leadership decided "terrorist attack" was too loaded a phrase for an event that killed nearly three thousand people on live television.

This is what happens when institutions get so terrified of sounding biased that they lose the ability to describe reality. There's a difference between being careful with language around, say, a contested civil conflict, and hedging on 9/11. Al-Qaeda claimed it. Bin Laden bragged about it. The word "terrorism" isn't an opinion here, it's a documented fact with a paper trail. Pretending otherwise isn't neutrality, it's cowardice dressed up as journalistic caution.

The CBC only reversed course because the memo leaked and Canadians were rightly furious. That's the part worth sitting with. This wasn't a principled stand that got reconsidered after new information came in. It was a bad call that got caught. Had nobody leaked it, the softer language likely would have run straight through the anniversary coverage without a second thought.

Public broadcasters on both sides of the border love to lecture about trust and credibility. Moments like this explain exactly why that trust keeps eroding. If you can't call 9/11 what it was without a policy review, the problem isn't your style guide.