What's Happening?
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has announced a policy change regarding its language guidance for describing the September 11, 2001, attacks. This adjustment comes after a controversy erupted
over an internal memo that reportedly advised reporters to refrain from explicitly calling the events 'terrorist attacks.' Basem Boshra, CBC News’ senior director of journalistic standards and public trust, authored the memo, which surfaced ahead of the attacks' 25th anniversary. The initial directive, as reported by Toronto Sun columnist Warren Kinsella, suggested describing the events as hijackings that led to crashes in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania, and the destruction of the World Trade Center, without using the term 'terrorist attacks.' The CBC has since clarified that while their practice has been to attribute causes and motivations, they will now adjust their guidance to state that direct attribution is not required for describing the historic events of 9/11 as terrorism, aiming to remove impediments to clarity and public understanding.
Why It's Important?
This policy change by a major news organization like the CBC is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it highlights the ongoing sensitivity and profound impact of the 9/11 attacks, even decades later, on public discourse and media representation. The initial directive caused 'significant concern, anger and hurt' among those who felt it minimized the horror of the day. Secondly, it underscores the critical role of language in shaping public perception and historical narrative. How media outlets frame such events can influence collective memory and understanding. The decision to explicitly allow the use of 'terrorist attacks' without requiring direct attribution reflects a recognition of the widely accepted historical understanding of 9/11 and aims to align the CBC's reporting with public sentiment and historical consensus. This move can help prevent misinterpretations and ensure that the gravity of the events is accurately conveyed.
What's Next?
Following this policy adjustment, CBC News will continue its extensive coverage of the 9/11 attacks, particularly leading up to the 25th anniversary. The revised guidance is intended to ensure that their reporting respectfully and thoughtfully reflects the monumental nature of the tragedy. Other news organizations may review their own internal language policies in light of this controversy, potentially leading to broader discussions within the media industry about the appropriate terminology for historical acts of violence. The CBC's statement also indicates that for new acts of politically or ideologically motivated violence, they will continue their practice of attributing causes and motivations to officials and experts, suggesting a nuanced approach to terminology based on historical context and established facts.
Beyond the Headlines
The controversy surrounding the CBC's language guidance touches upon deeper issues of journalistic objectivity versus historical consensus. While journalistic practice often emphasizes attribution and avoiding loaded terms, certain historical events, like 9/11, have achieved a widely accepted classification. The initial policy, though perhaps intended to maintain strict neutrality, inadvertently created a perception of downplaying the nature of the attacks. This incident highlights the delicate balance news organizations must strike between adhering to journalistic principles and acknowledging the emotional and historical weight of certain events for their audience. It also underscores the power of public reaction and social media in influencing editorial decisions, demonstrating how quickly a perceived misstep in language can escalate into a significant public relations challenge for media institutions.
