The Media is the Message > Or, perhaps, the media got the message - CBC reverses position on 911 terrorism

 

BREAKING: CBC reverses 9/11 ‘terrorism’ directive after FBI threat, political backlash

CBC News has reversed its 9/11 “terrorism” directive following backlash from the FBI director and Canadian politicians.

Alex Dhaliwal

Aug 28, 2026

∙ Paid

Source: X (Matthew | MCGA/MAGA)

Canada’s state broadcaster announced Friday that journalists will no longer be required to attribute the term “terrorism” when describing the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

“After reviewing our current language guidance, we have decided to adjust it to clarify that direct attribution is not required for describing the historic events of 9/11 as terrorism,” said Basem Boshra, CBC’s senior director of journalistic standards and public trust.

Travis Dhanraj@Travisdhanraj

#BREAKING: @CBCNews backs down, changing its 9/11 language guidance after days of public outrage.

cbc.ca/news/editorsbl…

2:02 PM · Aug 28, 2026 · 17.1K Views

---

111 Replies · 109 Reposts · 559 Likes

The reversal follows the leak of internal guidance instructing journalists: “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.”

Instead, reporters were told to describe the hijackings and crashes without independently characterizing them as terrorism.

According to Grok:

CBC reversed a longstanding language rule after a leaked staff memo, public backlash, and official criticism.

cbc.ca

The public broadcaster’s policy had been to avoid using “terrorist” or “terrorism” in its own voice. Journalists were told to attribute those words to officials or experts because CBC considers them politically and emotionally loaded. 

A memo circulated ahead of the 25th anniversary of 9/11 restated that rule and told staff: “Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.” It instead directed them to describe hijackings that led to passenger-jet crashes. The memo was first reported by Toronto Sun columnist Warren Kinsella. 

torontosun.com

CBC initially defended the guidance as a reminder of existing practice, similar to policies at some other news organizations. The leak produced widespread criticism from Canadian Conservatives, Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, and FBI Director Kash Patel, who called it a “bastardization of history.” 

Critics said the wording minimized an attack that killed nearly 3,000 people, including Canadians. 

CBC doesn't mind emotionally loaded stories as long as they can make the villains out to be Jews. But Muslims, including terrorists, are protected from such language by Canada's far-left national broadcaster.

===============================================================================================

The Media is the Message > CBC staff told not to refer to 911 as a terrorist attack

 

Canada: Leaked Memo to CBC journalists orders staff not to call 9/11 a terrorist attack

Aug 28, 2026 5:00 pm By Christine Douglass-Williams14 Comments

Consider: In 2015, a special U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (USVSST) was established to compensate just that, victims of terror. 9/11 victims and their family members are paid from this fund. Out of the roughly 22,700 total eligible international terrorism claimants for the USVSST, over 13,000 are 9/11-related victims. The USVSST splits money for regular distributions as follows: 50% is strictly allocated to 9/11-related claimants. The USVSST Fund has already paid out nearly $7 billion to eligible claimants in six rounds of payments, where $1.41 billion went exclusively for 9/11 families.

Basem Boshra is ordering Canada’s state run broadcaster CBC’s journalists to lie about Muslims murdering thousands of Americans on 9/11. Add in the many more injuries and health fallout for emergency workers. If it were up to Basem Boshra, since 9/11 wasn’t a terrorist attack in his view, none of these victims of terror are actually victims, so they wouldn’t be compensated.

So what was the motivation of Basem Boshra? Did he agree with the mass murder of infidels on 9/11, and thus doesn’t view 9/11 as a terrorist attack? Is he undermining jihad terror to protect jihadists? How else might Basem Boshra be abusing his position to influence and shape news about jihad terror in Canada, under the banner of the state broadcaster, the CBC?

Photo: 9/11 attack, National Park Service,

Public domain, Wikimedia Commons

KINSELLA: 9/11 wasn’t a ‘terrorist attack,’ according to the CBC

by Warren Kinsella, Toronto Sun, August 26, 2026:

Terrorism.

The definition of that word is widely known and widely accepted.

The Encyclopedia Britannica people define it this way: “Terrorism is the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to create general fear in a population and coerce a government or society to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals.”

By any reasonable and objective standard, that is what happened nearly 25 years ago, on September 11, 2001: Terrorism.

On that terrible day, four airplanes were hijacked by 19 terrorists. They piloted two of those planes into New York City’s World Trade Center, destroying both buildings and murdering 2,753 innocent people. Two dozen of them were Canadians.

A third plane hit the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. There, 125 people were slain — military and civilian. The 59 people on board the hijacked American Airlines flight were also killed.

A fourth plane, a United Airlines flight, slammed into a field in Pennsylvania after the hostages attempted to seize control from the four terrorists. Thirty-seven passengers and seven crew members were murdered.

Around the world, pretty much everyone accepts what the word terrorism means. The government of Saudi Arabia — where the majority of the 9/11 killers came from — officially call what happened on that day “terrorism.” No less than Osama bin Laden, who conceived of 9/11, used the word “terrorism” too — although, in his case, he usually applied it to those of us in the West, not him.

So, the word is understood to mean what it means: The use of violence to achieve some goal, political or religious or ideological. That is what 9/11 obviously, unarguably was: Terrorism by terrorists.

Memo sent to CBC News staff

Except, not at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

This week, I received a memo — presumably confidential — addressed to CBC News staff. It is authored by one Basem Boshra, who is the “Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust at CBC News.” In Boshra’s memo, reporters are editors are told this:

“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks.”…

============================================================================================

Tucker Carlson, et al > Why the sudden change of opinions about Israel and Islam?

 

Tucker Carlson claims he used to say Muslims ‘all want to kill us, they’re all crazy,’ but no longer believes it

Jun 25, 2026 5:00 pm By Robert Spencer9 Comments

Tucker Carlson never actually said “The problem is Islam. The problem is Muslims. They all want to kill us. They’re all crazy. They’re all in this lunatic suicide cult created by Muhammad in the 7th century.”

Tucker Carlson is committing the all too common fallacy of conflating Islam and Muslims. In reality, to say that there are problems with Islam, or even that “the problem with Islam,” doesn’t say anything about “all Muslims,” because there are degrees of knowledge of the religion and commitment to it among Muslims, just as there are among adherents of all religions. No serious analyst ever says “all Muslims want to kill us,” or that all the members of any group want to do anything. If Tucker Carlson had ever said on his Fox show or anywhere else that “all Muslims want to kill us,” he would have been the object of screaming headlines, excoriating him for his “Islamophobia” and demanding that he retract, apologize, end his show, and do various forms of public penance such as visiting a mosque or chatting with officials of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). None of that ever happened, because Tucker never said this.

Also, those of us who did dare to point out that Islam had doctrines of warfare against unbelievers were smeared, defamed, marginalized, deplatformed, and silenced. If Tucker Carlson had said this, which we were accused of saying but that none of us ever actually said, he would never have been allowed to continue to occupy his massive platform.

Compounding Tucker Carlson’s dishonesty here is the fact that he is also making claims about Islam and dismissing those claims as “hysterical,” and will never allow anyone who believes that there is a problem with Islam, or that the problem is Islam, onto his show to discuss it with him. He is, of course, free to feature anyone he wants, but his is not exactly a platform for open and honest discussion of the relevant issues that will allow for opinions that differ from those that Tucker Carlson holds. That also is his right, but when he makes sweeping claims that are false, as he does here, he does his audience an even greater disservice than usual. What about the Qur’an’s violent teachings? What about Islam’s doctrines of conquest and subjugation? Do they simply not exist now because Tucker Carlson says they’re hysterical?

Unfortunately, the jihadis are not uncomfortable with this particular brand of hysteria, and will keep advancing, no matter what Tucker Carlson says.

Tucker Carlson Retracts Past Rhetoric on Islam, Condemns Trump Over Iran

Clash Report, June 25, 2026:

Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson on Thursday publicly disavowed his previous hostile statements regarding Islam and issued a sharp critique of Donald Trump’s foreign policy record.

Carlson characterized his own past rhetoric as hysterical and explicitly retracted his claims that Muslims belonged to a suicide cult.

The remarks signal a significant ideological shift for the prominent media figure.

Carlson stated that he previously believed and propagated the idea that Islam was the primary threat to the West.

He admitted to frequently claiming on television that Muslims wanted to kill Americans and were part of a lunatic cult.

He now rejects these statements entirely.

“Nothing about that is true, but I believed it,” Carlson said. He described his former mindset as hysterical and acknowledged the falsehood of his previous assertions….

Carlson offered a stark condemnation of current Israeli government actions, arguing they contradict the foundational principles of Western civilization.

He accused Israel of abandoning individual justice in favor of an evil standard of blood guilt.

He rejected the premise that defending Western civilization requires defending Israel.

Instead, Carlson asserted that his opposition to Israeli policies stems directly from his commitment to Western values.

He added that the modern state of Israel bears no resemblance to the country he first visited decades ago….

Such a dramatic turnaround in opinion causes a conspiracy theorist like me to wonder if one of two things might have happened to Carlson and two of my once-favourite female journalists:

1. A serious turning away from God, 

2. A sudden infusion of a whole lot of money with the smell of Arab oil on it.

But that's probably just me.

===============================================================================================