The Slippery Slope of Language Guidance

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has reversed its policy on using the terms “terrorist” and “terrorism” to describe the 9/11 attacks, citing confusion over its initial guidance. This decision comes as the network prepares to mark the 25th anniversary of the devastating tragedy.

At first glance, this may seem like a trivial matter, but scratch beneath the surface, and you’ll find a complex issue involving language guidance, intent, and the challenges journalists face in balancing accuracy with offense. The CBC’s reversal is less about clarity than it is about avoiding controversy, which raises concerns about the slippery slope of language politics.

The CBC initially advised its journalists not to refer to 9/11 as an act of terrorism in their reporting, instead using the words “terror” and “terrorism” only when attributing them to others. This guidance was intended to avoid taking a stance on the issue, but it sparked outrage among some commentators who accused the network of downplaying the horror of 9/11 by avoiding direct language.

The CBC’s senior director of journalistic standards, Basem Boshra, pushed back against these claims, insisting that the network had reported fully and accurately on the events surrounding 9/11 over the past quarter-century. However, this raises questions about why the initial guidance was not more explicit in its intent to avoid offense.

The CBC’s reversal suggests that even established news outlets can get caught up in language politics. It highlights the challenges journalists face in reporting on sensitive topics without taking a stance or offending certain groups. The stakes are high because accurate and unbiased reporting is crucial, especially when describing atrocities like 9/11.

In this case, the CBC’s decision to reverse its policy is less about clarity than it is about avoiding offense. This approach undermines the fundamental principles of journalism, which should be committed to telling the truth without nuance or hesitation.

Reader Views

MT
Marko T. · expedition guide
The CBC's reversal on using the term "terrorism" to describe 9/11 is a reminder that language guidance can be as slippery as a mountain trail in bad weather. While I applaud their willingness to adapt and avoid controversy, it's worth noting that this decision doesn't address the elephant in the room: what constitutes an "act of terrorism"? Is it only when governments attribute it to extremist groups? Or should we use language that accurately reflects the nature of the attack itself? By sidestepping the issue, the CBC may inadvertently create a narrative vacuum that others will fill with their own agendas.
JH
Jess H. · thru-hiker
The CBC's reversal on using the term "terrorism" to describe 9/11 is a Band-Aid solution to a deeper issue: the fear of being labeled "politically correct." News outlets like CBC often struggle with nuance in their reporting, but this approach only leads to confusion and muddled messaging. What's missing from this discussion is an acknowledgment that language itself can be a powerful tool for shaping public opinion – and that journalists have a responsibility to use it thoughtfully, even when facing controversy.
TT
The Trail Desk · editorial
The CBC's reversal on using the term "terrorism" to describe 9/11 highlights the minefield of language guidance that journalists navigate. While it's understandable that the network sought to avoid controversy, this approach risks diminishing the gravity of the event. A more nuanced approach might be to emphasize the historical context and perpetrator's intentions when labeling the attacks, rather than blanket terms like "terrorism". By doing so, news outlets can provide accurate reporting without contributing to a culture of euphemism or avoidance that ultimately undermines public understanding.

CBC Reverses Policy on Calling 9/11 Terrorism

The Slippery Slope of Language Guidance

Reader Views

Related articles

More from HullChaser