Recently, an internal document from Canada's national broadcaster CBC has caused a stir locally. With the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks approaching, this official Canadian media outlet quietly issued a "language directive" to all its journalists and editors: do not directly refer to the 2001 September 11 attacks as "terrorist attacks."

Everyone around the world remembers what happened back then: 19 members of Al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airliners. Two crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York, one struck the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and the fourth went down in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives in this tragedy. Following the attacks, the United States launched a two-decade-long war against terrorism in Afghanistan, fundamentally reshaping the entire Middle East.

Yet in CBC’s internal memo, even straightforward language was avoided—instead, it vaguely described the events as “hijackings leading to plane crashes in multiple locations, with the World Trade Center allegedly destroyed,” deliberately sidestepping the words “terrorist attack” altogether.

After the story was exposed by outlets like the Toronto Sun and National Post, CBC offered a defense, claiming this is just standard journalistic practice: they themselves never label any act or group as “terrorist,” reserving such terminology only when quoting government officials, experts, or politicians, fearing the term’s strong political and emotional connotations could compromise reporting neutrality.

But anyone with eyes can see: this timing—just as U.S.-Canada trade tensions reached their peak—is clearly no mere “routine policy reminder.” Just two days before the document’s release, Canada had imposed retaliatory tariffs of up to 50% on 700 American goods, while Trump continued threatening harsher penalties against Canada.

On one hand, relations between Canada and the U.S. are strained; on the other, CBC is actively downplaying the most painful historical wound in American memory—by stripping away the term “terrorism.” Behind CBC’s so-called “language guidelines” lies a wealth of subtle, thought-provoking calculations.

CBC’s move essentially uses the guise of “journalistic neutrality” as a shield for self-interest. “Terrorism” has never been a subjective or emotionally charged label—the characterization of the 9/11 attacks is a widely recognized historical fact accepted by the vast majority of nations, a collective memory forged through the grief of countless families of victims.

Now, under the pretense of “neutrality,” deliberately avoiding this term amounts to a second offense against the victims—and represents a calculated erasure of historical truth.

Even more telling is the coincidence of timing: at a moment when U.S.-Canada trade wars have escalated to fever pitch, Canada’s official media suddenly “downgrades” its language regarding the 9/11 attacks. It’s hard not to suspect this is an implicit diplomatic signal.

By weakening the language surrounding America’s core historical trauma, Canada may be trying to preserve room for maneuver in trade negotiations. To use public media’s news principles as bargaining chips in diplomacy reveals precisely the hypocrisy behind Western claims of “media independence.”

When historical facts must yield to immediate interests, so-called “objective reporting” becomes nothing more than a self-deceptive slogan.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1874720237927436/

Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.