Internal CBC memo tells journalists not to call 9/11 a terrorist attack and to say “passenger jet crashes” instead
Basem Boshra, CBC’s senior director of journalistic standards and public trust, instructed staff not to describe 9/11 as terrorist attacks. The publicly funded Canadian broadcaster, backed by about $1.4 billion a year, prefers “passenger jet crashes.”
Article by Rebel News staff
Tonight on The Ezra Levant Show, hosted by David Menzies: the CBC has told its journalists not to call 9/11 a terrorist attack. An internal memo from the public broadcaster’s Journalistic Standards and Public Trust office instructs staff not to describe the September 11 attacks as terrorist attacks, directing them instead to say the hijackings led to passenger jet crashes.
The memo, first reported in the Toronto Sun, was circulated internally ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, including 24 Canadians. The CBC is now instructing its journalists to use language that strips away the deliberate nature of what happened.
The facts of September 11 are not in dispute. Four commercial airliners were hijacked. Two were deliberately flown into the World Trade Center in New York, one was flown into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and the fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers fought back against the hijackers. It was a deliberate attack carried out by al-Qaeda, yet the CBC’s preferred description is “passenger jet crashes.”
The memo was signed by Basem Boshra, senior director of journalistic standards and public trust at CBC News. In bold, italicised text, it tells reporters and editors: “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.” It goes on to describe the hijackings as having led to passenger jet crashes in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan, and states that the World Trade Center was destroyed.
CBC spokeswoman Kerry Kelly defended the policy, pointing to the broadcaster’s 'longstanding language guidance' and saying the CBC prefers to use “terrorist” and “terrorism” with attribution, a practice she said is shared by many of the world’s top journalistic organizations. She also told the National Post it was “wholly inaccurate” to say CBC journalists had been urged to declare that 9/11 was not a terrorist act. That is a distinction without a difference. It means the CBC can report that someone else called 9/11 a terrorist attack while avoiding using the term itself.
The definition of terrorism isn’t particularly complicated. The Cambridge Dictionary defines a terrorist as “someone who uses violent action, or threats of violent action, for political purposes.” Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda deliberately targeted the United States in a mass-casualty attack for political and ideological reasons. Even Saudi Arabia, where most of the September 11 hijackers originated, officially refers to the attacks as terrorism.
There is also a Canadian connection that should not be forgotten. Twenty-four Canadians were among those murdered on September 11, making this more than a chapter of American history. Canadian families lost loved ones that day, too.
The CBC receives roughly $1.4 billion a year from Canadian taxpayers, which makes its language policy more than an internal newsroom matter. Canadians are paying for a public broadcaster that has decided its journalists should avoid describing 9/11 as a terrorist attack, despite the overwhelming evidence establishing exactly what it was.
The CBC has also positioned itself as a watchdog against misinformation and disinformation. Yet its own guidance tells journalists to replace “terrorist attacks” with “passenger jet crashes,” a description that focuses on what happened to the aircraft while removing the reason they were deliberately put into the air in the first place.
What possible motive could there be for sanitizing the worst terrorist attack on American soil? Care to explain, @Canada? https://t.co/UevmkLADTE
— House Republicans (@HouseGOP) August 27, 2026
Twenty-five years later, there is no mystery about September 11. Four planes were hijacked, civilian targets were deliberately attacked and nearly 3,000 people were murdered. Al-Qaeda was responsible. Calling that terrorism is a description of the facts, not an editorial position.
The CBC’s decision to avoid the word “terrorism” when describing September 11 raises serious questions about the standards being applied inside Canada’s publicly funded broadcaster, and whether Canadians should continue paying for a newsroom that refuses to use straightforward language to describe an obvious act of terrorism.
COMMENTS
-
Bernhard Jatzeck commented 2026-08-27 23:17:47 -0400 FlagI wouldn’t be surprised if the CBC says that this coming December 7 will be the 85th anniversary of “some people did something” in Hawaii….. -
Peter Wrenshall commented 2026-08-27 21:07:03 -0400We are making a serious mistake if we keep assuming the the CBC simply functions as the mouthpiece of the government in power. If that were the case why was the CBC constantly churning out hit piece after hit piece about the Harper administration? In fact, at least since that time, the CBC has been an anti-capitalist, anti-Western, neo-Marxist propaganda organization, notwithstanding its massive taxpayer funding and handful of private sponsorship. Nowadays, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the CBC actually sympathizes with the Islamist terrorists. -
Bruce Atchison commented 2026-08-27 21:02:24 -0400 FlagCBC = Cock and Bull corporation and BB = Big Brother. Spooky, isn’t it? And of course zIslamists want us to forget 9-11. And thanks, Detective Mensies, for ironing out that irony about terrorism.
Good work too on the crack house case too. Too bad it isn’t a wise crack house. ☺ -
Jane Vandervliet commented 2026-08-27 20:39:13 -0400 FlagSo the political ideology of Islam is now running the CBC. -
Matt Abrahams commented 2026-08-27 20:19:22 -0400 FlagAre you really using “CBC” and “journalists” in the same sentence?