9/11, the CBC and use of the word “terrorist": A journalistic view

 

Many people—especially those who hate the CBC—were up in arms when they learned the broadcaster had a rule against calling the 9/11 attackers in the U.S. “terrorists.” 

As a someone who lived through that event, I have a hard time accepting that stance. But as a journalist, I understand it completely.

The rule behind that stance is basically this: No adjectives. 

For those who have forgotten their high school grammar, an adjective is something that modifies a noun. (A person, place or thing.) 

Adjectives like: A "handsome" man. A "beautiful" woman. A "gorgeous" garden. A "terrifying" storm. 

The man, woman, garden and storm may be all those things. But by using adjectives that come from me and not from some other source, I am inserting myself and my opinion, as a journalist, into the story—which I must never, ever do. 

After all, that might not be how you view the man, woman, garden or storm. It can make you question my reporting, and open me to criticism about bias. 

Now, if someone says the man is handsome, the woman is beautiful, the garden is gorgeous or the storm is terrifying, I can quote them or reference them with attribution. That is perfectly fine. 

But without that, I can’t describe those people or things on the basis of my own judgement, feelings and opinion—even if it may be obvious to a reader that those things are true. 

Similarly, when it comes to the 9/11 or any other attacks, it is usual for journalists to quote someone saying the attackers were terrorists—not just to throw that word in there without a source. 

How does the reporter know they were done by terrorists? Who says?  

That was the idea behind the stance taken by the CBC. And it isn't alone; other major media outlets, like the BBC, Associated Press and Reuters are careful about using the words “terrorist/terrorism,” seeing them as loaded terms.  

As CBC editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon put it, the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” are “so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism.” 

As a result, attribution—only quoting someone calling acts those things—helps maintain journalistic neutrality. 

Now, if a government official says a group is terrorist—they can be quoted saying that. Similarly, if someone disagrees, they can be quoted saying that, too. (A reminder of the old axiom that “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.”) 

The AP, and now the CBC (just recently), have changed their rule with regards to 9/11 since that attack is now widely acknowledged as terrorism. The BBC and Reuters have not. 

(This rule about adjectives doesn't apply as strictly to column writing. But even there, if I use one, I better be sure of it and ready to defend it. There will always be readers who are willing to take me to task.)

Some say this approach leads to bland reporting. And maybe they are right. But it also prevents bias from creeping in. And one day those same critics may be glad when a reporter writes a "bland" just-the-facts story about an issue, idea or person they care deeply about or believe in, but which has done something negative that needs to be reported.

As for the 9/11 debate, I think the CBC committed an own-goal by not modifying its stance much earlier. But I give it credit for being committed to doing the right thing by the people and events it covers, even if it could have done a better job of explaining it—especially now, when so many people distrust the media. 

In the end, the rule against adjectives, or at least their careful use, is a good and principled one. It ensures people get the best and most factual journalism by ensuring the story is told the way it should be told—without embellishment by a reporter. Like me.

In his advice to writers, Mark Twain said (and I paraphrase): "

And that is my bland and adjective-free view of the situation.

The World Cup and religion: Pilgrimages, rituals, singing and saints

 

The World Cup concludes Sunday, so I had to write a column about football! 

The World Cup isn’t a religious event, but it has religion-like elements such as pilgrimages to matches, shared songs and rituals, “saints” like Messi and Ronaldo and, for many, a deep devotion to a team. 

Religion has been evident during games, too, with some players from the Christian tradition crossing themselves after scoring goals and some Muslim players performing sujood, the Islamic act of bowing down in submission and gratitude to God, after scoring. 

Before he died, Spanish journalist and essayist Manuel Vázquez Montalbán observed that football has actually become a “secular religion” in some countries. At a time when people were leaving traditional religion, football creates communities of belonging, he said, providing rituals and symbols, heroes like the saints of old and a sense of shared identity. 

And then there were those in Brazil who blamed the rise of evangelicalism in that country for their team’s loss. 

Read more in my Free Press column.

What is the future of Christian presence in Canada? Denominational leaders meet to discuss that question

 


What is the future of the Christian presence in Canada? How dependent is it on church buildings? What is the role of service to others? That was the topic of discussion in May when representatives from various Canadian Protestant denominations met in Winnipeg.

Read about that discussion in my recent Free Press column.

Story of the Doctrine of Discovery complicated, but still worth talking about

The negative impact of colonization on Indigenous people in the Americas is known only too well. So is the role the Roman Catholic Church played in it. That includes what became known as the Doctrine of Discovery — the idea that by “discovering” the Americas, colonizing countries like Spain and Portugal could claim Indigenous land as their own. 

But the story is more complicated than most people realize — and also incomplete without noting opposition from those in the Church during that age of discovery and conquest from Dominican priests and the Vatican itself. 

That included a Papal Bull issued in 1537 that declared Indigenous people must not be deprived of their freedom or lands. This remains the official position of the Roman Catholic Church — it was affirmed in 1987 by Pope John Paul II when he visited Canada. 

Read my recent column on this topic in the Winnipeg Free Press.

"There’s a priest on the front page—and he’s not even in trouble!" A brief history of Religion in the News at the Winnipeg Free Press

In 2018, the Winnipeg Free Press announced it wanted to do a better job of engaging the various communities in Winnipeg. Did that include the faith community? I decided to find out.

As the faith page columnist since 2003, I knew that people in the faith community were disappointed by religion coverage by the Free Press. They appreciated the faith page on Saturday., But if there was news about religion in other parts of the paper, it usually involved bad news about a priest involved in scandal or someone blowing things up in the name of God in a far-away country. 

The normal daily life of people of faith, including the many positive contributions they made in Winnipeg and around the world, was mostly absent from the newspaper. 

After the paper made the announcement, I met editor Paul Samyn and then-publisher Bob Cox. I affirmed their desire to better serve the various communities that make up Winnipeg. And I told them one community they could serve better was the faith community by establishing a faith beat with me as a freelance reporter. 

Paul and Bob said they would like to do that—but they had no money. “What if I go out and raise it?” I asked. If I could do that, they said, the Free Press would do it. 

After about 10 months of visiting various faith groups to invite their support, the Religion in the News Project started in March, 2019. The first article through the project was about Father Sam Arenziano, who was being honoured for a lifetime of faithful service to the city’s Italian Catholic community. 

That story, by Brenda Suderman, was on page one with a photo. I told people: “There’s a priest on the front page of the Free Press—and he’s not even in trouble!” 

It was a joke, but it underscored the goal of the Project: To make sure there was a regular, fair and balanced view of faith in Winnipeg. Not just news about the bad things that happen in the world of religion, and not only on the faith page on Saturday—but all through the week in all sections of the newspaper. 

Since that time, over 1,000 news articles about local faith have appeared in the Free Press, written by me and, until she retired in 2023, Brenda Suderman. The stories were about people, congregations, organizations, charities, conferences, events and more. They appeared in all the sections of the paper. (Except sports! I wrote one sports and faith story, but it didn’t appear there.) They are also all available free of charge on the Free Press website. 

Today, the Free Press is the only daily media outlet in Canada with a faith beat. (And still the only newspaper with a Saturday faith page.) 

The next phase 

Since I am getting older, I knew I couldn’t do this forever. And I also didn’t want to take up space that could be filled by a younger person. But how to transition the beat to keep it going? 

As a semi-retired person, I could afford to do it on a freelance basis. But not many younger people could do that. My goal was to find a way for it to keep going and become part of the Free Press in a more official way,

That’s when I wondered if the partnership the Free Press has with The Narwhal, an environmental magazine, could be replicated for religion. Through that partnership, the Free Press and Narwhal share a reporter who writes about the environment. The partnership is supported by the Winnipeg Foundation. 

I reached out to editor Paul Samyn, suggesting that Broadview Magazine—a magazine about spirituality, justice and ethical living—could be that partner on the faith side. He agreed. I then contacted Jocelyn Bell, editor of Broadview; she was interested. After that, I reached out to a friend at the Winnipeg Foundation; he said they were open to an application for funding. 

Over summer and fall 2025, meetings were held to see it if could work. An application was made to the Foundation. An MOU was signed between the Free Press and Broadview. The Foundation granted some funding and Josiah Neufeld was hired to replace me. And now here it is—ready to go! 

For me, it's been a meaningful seven-year journey. I have met many interesting people and learned many new things about different religions. Along the way, I also made many good friends. It has been a privilege to do this work.

And you can be part of it! If you believe religion is a topic that should be covered by the media, you can help launch this new partnership between the Free Press and Broadview into the future by making a tax deductible donation to the Project. 

 

 

Hey, non-profit communicators: Are you ready for Google Zero?

 

As I read and talk to people about how AI is going to change communications, I hear a lot about how it is going to change or eliminate jobs. 

I hear less about how it is going to change the way we communicate. But that is just as important—especially when it comes to non-profit websites. 

Currently, the main driver of website creation is how to make it visually appealing so it is attractive, intuitive and easy for people to use—and to make the donate button easy to find. 

Another goal was to make it easy for Google to find, so you would come up on the first page and deliver people to your website. 

But what if people no longer need to go to your website to find out who you are and what you do? What then? 

Welcome to Google Zero. 

Google Zero, also known as People Zero, is the term used to describe what could happen—what is happening—because of AI like Google Gemini, ChatGPT, Perplexity or Claude. 

This is how it works.

These days, if someone needs information about your organization or cause, many ask AI about it. AI then scans all the information available on that topic on the  Internet and delivers an answer. 

Or, if they ask Google, they get the answer at the top of the page from Google Gemini.  

The requester, having found the information they sought, is done. They don’t need to visit your website. They never see your donate button, have an opportunity to subscribe to a newsletter, or learn about any other neat or important things you are doing.

They are done, satisfied. Goodbye.  

That’s Google Zero. 

With Google Zero, Google is the final destination. It’s not the gateway to other websites, like your website, as it has been in the past. It’s the same with other AI. 

This matters for non-profits. It also matters for journalism, since news sites are also getting fewer visitors. And fewer visitors means fewer advertisers, or advertisers not willing to pay much for being on a media website. 

It also surrenders information sharing to Google or AI; they may get it right, or they may not. And they may not provide any of the nuance that is important for a story or campaign. 

And—importantly for non-profits—it can prevent them from building relationships with people who seek information, prevent them from guiding visitors to information they might not have seen otherwise, and also prevent them from subscribing to a newsletter or donating. (Yikes!)

Media outlets are already dealing with this reality as search referrals and website visits decline significantly.

To summarize, Google or People Zero happens like this:

1.    A person asks AI a question.

2.    The AI pulls information from many sources.

3.    The AI generates a synthesized answer.

4.    The user receives the answer without seeing the original website. 

What does this mean for communicators? 

First off, it means designing websites for AI—not just for people. After all, if most people are using AI to find information, you want AI to be able to find you easily. 

Of course, you still want your website to look good. But the visual appeal isn’t as important as the content—when it comes to AI. AI doesn’t care what your website looks like. 

To find out AI is looking for in a website, I asked: AI! (Who else?) 

According to ChatGPT, a website that helps it find information:

• Has clear headings that describe the content of each section. Cute or whimsical headings might cause a human to chuckle or take a second look to find out what it means, but not AI.
• Each section or page should have a descriptive title. (“News,” “Events,” “Calls to Action.” Etc.)
• Photos and images should include descriptive text and captions. for images
• Ensure content is crawlable by not embedding important text in images or JavaScript-heavy sections.
• Use clean URLs with meaningful words, not random IDs (/hunger-Sudan vs /page?id=123).
• Provide internal and external links to content. If a story builds on a previous story, put a clear link to that story in the text.
• If you post a PDF, make sure it is searchable.
• Don’t embed important content in images.
• Keep content concise. (Which is important for humans, too!)
• Use clear, factual writing and avoid overly ambiguous phrasing.
• Include dates, sources, and units for statistics.
• Break long content into smaller chunks with descriptive headings.
• Keep decorative elements to a minimum; don’t clutter the page. 
• You may also want to make sure the donation option, call to action or request for funds is stated clearly in the content (if you aren't doing that already). 

We are at the early stages of this change in Internet behaviour. There is no telling where it will go, or how fast. But one thing is clear: AI, in some form, is here to stay. Now is the time to start thinking about how your non-profit can adapt to it. 

 

 

Making the News book available online—for free!

It’s been a long time since I posted to this blog! Almost five years. That’s mostly because my attention has been elsewhere as I developed a religion beat at the Winnipeg Free Press and Canadian Affairs, and dedicated more time to journalism. 

But media relations still comes up, like it did this morning when a friend asked for some advice about how to deal with the media. I mentioned by book Making the News: An Essential Guide for Effective Media Relations, saying I would send him a link to where it can be found online. (It’s been out of print for years.) 

The book was written in the late 1990s, and went through to more printings (with two different publishers). The last edition was published in 2006. 

The goal was to help non-profit groups which had few resources do a better job of telling their story with the media. 

It has chapters on what is news, rules the media lives by, how to write a press release, interviews, press conferences, crisis communications, etc. 

Although the essential message is timeless, it was last published before the arrival of social media—so you won't find much about that in there. (Maybe one short mention.)

And the media is very different today, too. It’s not as pervasive or influential as it was back then. But it still reaches millions of people and has a role to play. 

Although long out of print, the book can be accessed here on the Internet Archive—for free!