Critics are blasting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over guidance telling its journalists not to refer to 9/11 as a “terrorist attack” without attribution.
“The hijackings led to passenger jet crashes in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan,” the leaked memo read. “The World Trade Center (WTC in second reference) was destroyed.” The language is tortured enough to constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. Such bizarre sentence construction lets the author avoid the matter of who carried out the attacks, never mind the more politically dangerous question of their motivations.
It also glosses over details like the nearly 3,000 people the terrorists killed that day. Sorry, I mean “individuals who died in what officials called a ‘terrorist attack’.”
The misguided missive is doing numbers in conservative circles. It even caught the attention of FBI Director Kash Patel. He called it a “bastardization of history” and vowed any Canadian agency that failed to denounce the CBC’s practice “will no longer have friend [sic] in this FBI.” That’s an insane threat for the nation’s chief law enforcement officer to make over a TV network’s style guide, even if his outrage is understandable.
Some commenters saw evidence of Trump Derangement Syndrome in the 9/11 guidance. Others speculated about anti-American sentiment or terrorist sympathies. After a decade working in media, I assure you the answer is far more boring yet equally insidious.
Everything flows downhill from the Associated Press. The AP Stylebook sets the standard for American news organizations. It increasingly makes judgments that extend beyond grammar and clarity into hot-button culture and identity issues. This is why you rarely see “illegal immigrant” in print anymore. It’s also why the Black community is capitalized, but the white community is not. The girthy guidebook is full of such subtle manipulations.
The 2022 AP Stylebook included:
“New guidance on terrorism that says to describe specific actions that are being perpetrated, and attribute the use of the word terrorism or terrorist to authorities except when talking about historical events widely acknowledged as terrorist actions.”
That seems fair enough, but the CBC’s edict doesn’t carve out an exception for historical events. The broadcaster says its terrorism policy actually predates the AP’s version, but the similarities show just how deeply ingrained these ideas are within the industry.
Journalists will vigorously debate editorial choices but rarely break from the progressive worldview that dominates the profession. Newsrooms have become hyper-sensitive to language that could stigmatize marginalized groups. The war in Gaza has only heightened that instinct around Islam. That may be well-intentioned, but walking on eggshells produces convoluted copy, and audiences lose trust.
There will be a lot of incredible, insightful coverage surrounding the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It would be a shame if cringey, performative bullshit distracted from an otherwise amazing piece.
My advice: don’t overthink it. Islamic terrorists attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Full stop. Stand firm on facts. If some unhappy soul on Bluesky thinks that’s bigoted, oh well.