The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is facing intense criticism following a memo regarding how to describe the September 11, 2001, attacks. Sent by Basem Boshra, the network's Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust, the directive suggests journalists avoid the specific label of "terrorist attacks" for the hijackings in Manhattan, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C.
Basem Boshra's shift away from standard journalistic attribution
The CBC has traditionally adhered to a practice of using terms like "terrorism" only when accompanied by proper attribution, a method common among major global news organizations. However, the recent memo from Boshra appears to shift this boundary by instructing staff to refrain from labeling the 2001 hijackings as terrorist acts. This change affects how the network reports on the specific sites of the tragedy,including:
- Washington D.C.
- Pennsylvania
- Manhattan
This shift has raised concerns that the broadcaster is moving away from descriptive clarity toward a form of linguistic neutrality that may obscure the nature of the violence.. Critics suggest that by treating the crashes as something other than intentional terror , the CBC risks sanitizing history.
Rachael Thomas calls the directive "absolutely shameful"
The backlash has reached the halls of Parliament , where Canadian MP Rachael Thomas has publicly condemned the memo. Thomas described the directive as "absolutely shameful," arguing that the CBC's new guidance effectively dishonors the victims of the September 11 attacks.
The controversy is further fueled by the historical context of the event itself. As noted in the report,even the perpetrator, Osama bin Laden, characterized the attacks as "blessed terror," making the CBC's attempt to avoid the term appear, to some, as a distortion of the established reality of the tragedy .
CBC's defense of "loaded" terminology
In response to the growing outcry,the CBC has defended its editorial position, stating that the organization seeks to report facts with precision. According to the report, the broadcaster maintains that it avoids labeling specific groups or actions as "terrorism" because the term is considered highly "loaded."
The CBC argues that its goal is to clarify violent acts rather than apply subjective labels. However, this defense has done little to quiet critics who believe the broadcaster is failing in its duty to provide a clear and unvarnished account of historical atrocities.
Is trade tension influencing CBC's editorial stance?
Beyond the immediate linguistic debate, some observers are questioning whether there are external pressures driving this change in tone. There are suggestions that the CBC's approach might be a symptom of a broader trend of "whitewashing" terrorism, potentially influenced by ongoing trade disputes between Canada and the United States.
This raises several critical questions that remain unanswered: Is this memo an isolated incident of editorial caution, or does it represent a systemic shift in CBC's journalistic standards? Furthermore, has the political climate regarding U.S.-Canada relations played any measurable role in shaping these specific internal directives? The CBC has yet to address whether these guidelines extend to other major geopolitical conflicts.
Comments 0