CBC updated their guidance document so broadly, if their journalists want to use the phrase terror attack to describe a particular attack, they need someone to attribute the use of the word terror to. Basically, don’t describe an attack as terrorism without having a quote or source for that.
I saw the CBC article in response but I feel like I completely missed the initial context. What actually happened?
CBC updated their guidance document so broadly, if their journalists want to use the phrase terror attack to describe a particular attack, they need someone to attribute the use of the word terror to. Basically, don’t describe an attack as terrorism without having a quote or source for that.
The Americans went “ok but what about 9/11?”