CJPME believes that what is required is nothing less than a total retraction of the new policy, corrections issued to every improper use of the term “terror” in any of its forms in light of this new policy, and an investigation into how the political, economic, and lobbying pressure put forward by a broad array of international actors led CBC editors to make the decision to violate fundamental tenets of the JSP — we acknowledge that such an investigation is likely beyond the scope and mandate of the office of the Ombud, but we ask that the Ombud encourage such an action in an effort to restore public trust.
Dear Maxime Bertrand,
I am writing on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) regarding the recent Editor’s Blog, “How and why CBC News will adjust its 9/11 language guidance,” by Basem Boshra. I believe the policy announced by Basem Boshra violates the CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices (JSP), as well as the guidance provided by multiple Ombuds and CBC’s editor in chief.
Background
After a leaked memo by the Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust at CBC News, Basem Boshra, was picked up by Toronto Sun’s Warren Kinsella, the Sun published a story with a false and sensationalized headline: “9/11 wasn't a 'terrorist attack,' according to the CBC.” Despite this memo representing the standard editorial policy of CBC News as well as numerous other reputable newsrooms, the backlash was swift and loud, especially from right-wing and Trump-aligned American voices. Pressure mounted on CBC News to make a change to its editorial policy. And it did.
Journalistic Standards and Practices violations
CJPME believes that Boshra’s announcement of CBC’s new policy, and the subsequent implementation of that policy, violates the JSP in several ways.
The JSP’s Introduction states:
We are independent of all lobbies and of all political and economic influence. We uphold freedom of expression and freedom of the press, the touchstones of a free and democratic society. Public interest guides all our decisions.
This situation demonstrates that CBC News was not acting independently of “all lobbies and of all political and economic influence.” Given the ongoing economic conflicts with the United States, the pressure of political figures in the US and Canada, as well as the victories claimed by lobby groups like the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) after the announcement of this editorial policy exception, CJPME believes these aspects of the JSP’s mission have been violated. There is no avoiding at least the perception that this announcement was born out of political and economic pressure, and we believe there is enough evidence in the public record to demonstrate that this policy was a material result of this broad, international pressure campaign. It is, of course, inevitable that changes will be made to CBC’s language guidelines because of the pressure of changing times, but those changes should happen in accordance with the JSP, not as special exceptions to it. It is perfectly normal that outside pressures and the realities of our rapidly changing world can lead to more nuanced coverage and changes to language guidance, but it is not normal to carve out politically charged double standards. This presents obvious and inevitable concerns that there may be a slippery slope ahead. In fact, pro-Israel voices are now demanding the CBC label Palestinian resistance as “terror.” This is a game that CBC should not play.
The JSP’s Introduction lays out the broad vision for CBC’s standards and ethics, and the new policy, which is an admission of a double standard, goes against the core promises that are laid out.
The new policy also violates the JSP’s policy related to Opinion, which reads:
When we choose to present a single point of view:
-
-
it is clearly labeled, and
-
it does not misrepresent other points of view. …
-
We are guided by the principle of impartiality.
We provide our audience with the perspectives, facts and analysis they need to understand an issue or matter of public interest.
CBC journalists do not express their own personal opinion because it affects the perception of impartiality and could affect an open and honest exploration of an issue.
We maintain the same standards, no matter where we publish – on CBC platforms or in other media outside the CBC.
The new policy represents a single point of view. It is not impartial. It is an expression of opinion that impacts CBC’s perception of impartiality. While there is not abundant debate in the West about whether Sept. 11 constituted a “terrorist” attack according to most widely-held definitions, there is a debate about the countless atrocities carried out by Western countries that we virtually never hear described as terror attacks despite their meeting every criteria. For example, during a 2002 interview between Evan Solomon and Noam Chomsky, in a conversation largely about the fraught term and framing of “terrorism” in the media in the aftermath of September 11, Chomsky put it succinctly:
It's very simple. If they do it, it's terrorism. If we do it, it's counter-terrorism. That's a historical universal.
This reductive binary is being explicitly affirmed by CBC.
Continuing with JSP-related issues, the section on Conflict of Interest states:
This means we strive to avoid actions that create an impression of partisanship or of advocacy for a cause.
Boshra’s post creates the impression of partisanship in the face of public pressure from public figures, politicians, and the general public. CBC News is supposed to not only be impartial, but independent, and this situation represents a clear-cut case in which public pressure — from powerful actors — led to the carving out of special exceptions to CBC’s editorial policies. This sets a dangerous precedent.
Ombuds precedents violated
Multiple CBC Ombuds have reaffirmed the policy that “terrorism” must be attributed.
In 2011, CBC Ombudsman Kirk LaPointe published “Use of the word ‘terrorist.’” A complainant wanted Palestinians to be described not as “militants” but as “terrorists.” LaPointe clarified that attribution is the norm and further wrote:
I think CBC pursues the correct approach. It does not attempt to settle the semantic dispute. It recognizes the need for prudence in journalism involving politics, religiosity and ideology. Its language is descriptive but not subjective or judgmental; its moral reasoning views those latter two qualities as the domain of the audience, at its discretion on the basis of accurate and fair information provided. An important principle in its practice is the consistent application of terminology, and I am satisfied that CBC uses its descriptors uniformly.
The new policy on Sept. 11 disrupts the longstanding editorial uniformity that LaPointe had highlighted.
In 2013, CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin dealt with a similar complaint, this time about a story on the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. The Review, “Talking about terrorists and terrorism,” reaffirms LaPointe’s position:
Sometimes the desire to use the terms is based on a subjective ideological or political perspective…. I think CBC takes a journalistically and ethically sound position when it recognizes the need for caution when using these terms, which are contentious and carry religious and ideological freight in some instances. The emphasis on specific language and the duty to provide clear, accurate information so that the audience members can make up their own minds fulfills journalistic policy and is a sound journalistic approach.
Again, the conclusion is unambiguous.
In 2023, CBC Ombudsman Jack Nagler again came to a similar conclusion about the term “terror” as it relates to Hamas in his Review, “Terrorist, or Militant?” While he does cover other ground, as it concerns us, he concluded:
CBC’s practice of referring to Hamas as terrorists only with attribution adheres to the corporation’s journalistic standards.
CJPME believes that Sept. 11 should be treated no differently.
In 2025, you, CBC Ombud Maxime Bertrand, authored a Review titled, “An Anchor Against the Whirlwind?” In this Review, you cited a useful resource: the UNESCO publication, Terrorism and the Media: A Handbook for Journalists. This resource sums up the situation CBC faced regarding “terror” well:
The duty to inform requires that a critical distance be maintained between the media on one hand, and the reactions of the public, the declarations and actions of the authorities and other information channels on the other, whether they are opposition political parties or associations and prominent figures involved in the public debate. Admittedly, such an approach is difficult, as the media run the risk of being accused by the public and the authorities of showing disloyalty in the face of the common threat. (Page 29)
It is CJPME’s view that CBC News failed to maintain that “critical distance.” We have filed Access to Information requests to CBC in hopes of learning more about what happened behind the scenes, but we believe that an internal investigation is merited to see exactly how much of a role that public pressure played in creating this editorial exception. This is a matter of public interest.
The UNESCO Handbook gives compelling advice regarding these terms that CBC News ought to follow:
What can be done? Charles Prestwich Scott, one of The Guardian’s former editors, coined the famous phrase “Facts are sacred, but comment is free”, even though, ideally, comment is only respectable if it is founded on proven facts. It is legitimate for opinion articles and editorials to use the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘terrorist’ freely, even to fuel controversy, if organizations resort to violent, indiscriminate actions. In the news, however, greater restraint is required, and the priority must be placed on describing an act rather than ‘qualifying’ it, often under the pressure of emotion, public opinion or the authorities.There are two crucial criteria to using these terms:
-
-
Use them relevantly. In an international scene dominated by crossed propaganda campaigns, there is a permanent temptation to exaggerate, bringing some to immediately qualify radical protests as “terrorist” acts.
-
Keep the mastery of words. Media must faithfully take up, between inverted commas or by giving the source, the term that is used by others (government, rebels, etc.), but they must not give others the privilege of defining a group or describing an action, whether they are armed groups, public authorities or “partisan associations”. The journalist has a duty to be autonomous in his or her service of the truth. He or she must avoid being only the reporter or the messenger of interpretations forged by the players of current events, who are, by definition, partial. The journalist must “neutralise” and “objectify” declarations, particularly those expressed in interviews, by giving the facts, the figures and the data allowing the public to rationally judge the use of words. (Page 53)
-
CJPME is requesting that CBC’s new policy be retracted, and the advice of current and former Ombuds be followed and respected.
Editor in Chief statements contradicted
In 2023, CBC’s Editor in Chief, Brodie Fenlon, published the article, “How CBC News uses the words 'terrorist,' 'terrorism'.” The circumstances leading up to this were very similar. A leaked memo, public outcry, etc. However, Fenlon stuck to CBC’s policy despite the similar contexts. Indeed, Fenlon’s article says that “the email [about CBC’s policy on the term “terrorism”] was made public, leading to great confusion about how we work, and many complaints.” Boshra’s article says almost the same, “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.” However, it is only in the latter case that an exception was made to the policy. This is all the worse, because the controversy emerged from Warren Kinsella’s story, which was based on a false premise, that CBC said Sept. 11 wasn’t a “terrorist attack.” It’s worth noting that Kinsella is a fellow for an advocacy organization funded by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Exigent Foundation. The Exigent Foundation actively promotes Kinsella’s article on its website. Regardless, Fenlon’s article made clear that CBC’s policy was, without exception, that “[CBC’s] journalists cite [“terror”] and quote it often, with attribution.”
The most recent leak should have had an identical outcome — CBC should have stood by its policy. That is what CBC’s JSP stipulates.
The heart of our complaint
We specifically believe that the announcement in Boshra’s article violates the JSP:
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.
Mr. Boshra effectively acknowledges that CBC is deliberately creating a policy that violates its well-established standards, which have been repeatedly reaffirmed, in the face of domestic and international political pressure.
The new guidance is stated as an exception to the rule, the rule being the JSP. Put simply: This policy represents a gross double standard.
There are now two articles that I see which put this double-standard into practice, “New Heritage Minute on Gander’s role in 9/11 is ‘part of the permanent record’” and “Sharing story of 9/11 'only way I can survive,' says first responder visiting Gander,” which use “terrorist” in one and “terrorism” in the other, both without attribution. These are violations of the JSP that deserve to be corrected, regardless of the new guidance issued by Boshra.
CJPME believes that what is required is nothing less than a total retraction of the new policy, corrections issued to every improper use of the term “terror” in any of its forms in light of this new policy, and an investigation into how the political, economic, and lobbying pressure put forward by a broad array of international actors led CBC editors to make the decision to violate fundamental tenets of the JSP — we acknowledge that such an investigation is likely beyond the scope and mandate of the office of the Ombud, but we ask that the Ombud encourage such an action in an effort to restore public trust.
Sincerely,
Jason Toney
Director of Media Advocacy, CJPME