What's Happening?
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has updated its internal journalistic guidelines regarding the use of the word 'terrorism' for the 9/11 attacks, following significant backlash. Initially, a leaked memo instructed journalists not to use 'terrorism' to describe
the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks without attribution. This prompted widespread condemnation from U.S. officials, including the head of the FBI and the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, as well as Canadian politicians. In response, the CBC issued a clarification on August 28, allowing journalists to directly label the 9/11 events and hijackers as 'terrorism' and 'terrorists.' However, this policy change applies only to 9/11. For newer conflicts, such as the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas, the CBC's long-standing policy remains: journalists must attribute the 'T-word' designation to governments, experts, or other sources, rather than using the label themselves. Brodie Fenlon, CBC News’ editor-in-chief, explained that this policy, which has been in place for decades, aims for precision and neutrality, avoiding the politicized nature of the term.
Why It's Important?
The CBC's policy on using the term 'terrorism' has significant implications for journalistic standards and public perception, particularly in the U.S. and Canada. The initial directive for 9/11 coverage sparked outrage, highlighting the deep emotional and historical significance of the event, especially given the Canadian casualties. The subsequent revision for 9/11 acknowledges this unique context but maintains a controversial stance for other conflicts, including the recent Hamas attacks. This distinction raises questions about consistency in journalistic ethics and the role of media in defining acts of violence. For U.S. audiences, where 'terrorism' is a widely accepted term for such events, the CBC's nuanced approach can be perceived as minimizing the severity of attacks or lacking moral clarity. The debate also touches on the independence of publicly funded broadcasters from government designations, as Canada officially designated Hamas as a terrorist group in 2002. This ongoing discussion affects how international events are framed and understood by the public, influencing foreign policy discussions and public discourse.
What's Next?
The CBC's revised policy for 9/11 may alleviate some immediate criticism, but the continued adherence to its 'attribution-only' rule for other conflicts, particularly regarding Hamas, is likely to sustain debate. Jewish community groups and politicians have been lobbying the CBC to allow journalists to directly label Hamas as terrorists and their actions as terrorism. This pressure is expected to continue, potentially leading to further scrutiny of the CBC's editorial independence and its funding. The controversy also plays into broader discussions about media bias and the challenges faced by news organizations in maintaining neutrality while reporting on highly sensitive and politicized events. Brodie Fenlon indicated that journalistic standards evolve but changing course during intense moments is not ideal, suggesting that a broader review of the policy for newer conflicts might occur in a less pressured environment. The ongoing public and political discourse will continue to shape how such terms are used and perceived in media coverage.
Beyond the Headlines
The CBC's struggle with the term 'terrorism' reflects a broader dilemma faced by news organizations globally: how to report on acts of extreme violence without adopting politically charged language, while still conveying the gravity of events. The term 'terrorism' itself is highly subjective and often used by states to delegitimize non-state actors, making its direct application by journalists a complex ethical issue. By choosing to attribute the term rather than use it directly, the CBC aims to avoid taking a side or becoming an arbiter of political definitions, instead focusing on factual reporting of events and quoting those who use the term. However, this approach can be perceived as a failure to acknowledge the universally condemned nature of certain acts, leading to accusations of moral relativism. This debate highlights the tension between journalistic objectivity and the public's expectation for clear moral condemnation, especially in the context of events that evoke strong emotional responses and have significant geopolitical implications.
