OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Bill Maher Criticizes 9/11 Revisionism on Anniversary

5 sources · updated 2026-09-14
Left 0% Center 0% Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 2 right

What happened

On a Friday episode of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" timed to the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, host Bill Maher used his closing monologue to criticize news organizations' language on Islamist terrorism and to call Democratic politicians "cowards." He said that on the 20th anniversary four American journalism associations issued guidance that "terrorism" should appear only in quotes because it is "emotionally and politically loaded," cited Canadian Broadcasting Corporation instructions (later withdrawn) not to call the 9/11 attacks terrorist attacks, and quoted BBC advice that using "terrorist" can be a "barrier rather than an aid to understanding." Maher reaffirmed his September 2001 remark that the 19 hijackers "weren't cowards" — a statement that led ABC to cancel his earlier show more than two decades ago — and said those attackers shared a "worldview" he identified as radical Islamism. He linked Democrats' lack of what he called "moral clarity" on Islamic terror to their response to Hamas and Gaza, which he described as "a counter attack in a war," not a genocide.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 4 articles

3 of 3 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 3
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Bill Maher
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 3
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 3
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 3
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 12, 19:28 UTC by The Hill, naming its source.
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage presents Maher's Friday monologue as a rerun of the 2001 fight that ended his ABC show. Right-leaning coverage is more complete: it reports the same segment as an attack on newsrooms that now hedge the word terrorism. Journalism-association guidance, the CBC, and BBC language rules fill the New York Post write-up and are absent from The Hill. A reader of left-leaning coverage would not know that media style guidance on Islamist attacks was the subject of the segment. Left-leaning coverage leads with Democratic politicians as "cowards" and the old cancellation. Right-leaning coverage leads with newsroom language. The Democrats line never appears in Breitbart or the New York Post. Did Maher on Friday restate that the hijackers "weren't cowards," a sentence no right-leaning write-up quotes?
Bottom line

Read only The Hill and Friday night is Maher calling Democrats "cowards" plus an ABC cancellation from two decades back. The New York Post's account of the same monologue is about whether newsrooms will still say terrorism.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Four American journalism associations issued guidance that terrorism should only be used in quotes because it is emotionally and politically loaded official statementin Breitbart, Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Maher's 2001 stance that the 9/11 hijackers were not cowards led ABC to cancel his previous show contextin The Hill · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • CBC issued guidance telling journalists not to refer to the 9/11 attacks as terrorism official statementin Daily Wire, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The BBC told reporters that using the word terrorist could be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding official statementin Daily Wire, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Some 20% of young people had a favorable view of Osama bin Laden numberin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Maher said of Gaza it is not a genocide but a counterattack in a war contextin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
The Hill framed the episode as Maher attacking Democratic politicians and reviving a career-ending controversy. It led with him calling those politicians "cowards" while "doubling down" on the view that the Sept. 11 hijackers were not cowards, stressing that this was "a position that infamously led to ABC canceling his show more than two decades ago." The paper located the news in that partisan insult and the old cancellation rather than in a dispute over journalism stylebooks.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets cast the monologue as Maher exposing a media refusal to name Islamist terrorism. Breitbart highlighted his line that, for the press, "when it comes to terrorist attacks, please, there are very fine people on both sides." The Daily Wire said he "destroyed the narratives pushed by revisionist historians," quoting his contrast that "back then, we were against the terrorists" while "a lot of media outlets don't even want you to say the 'T-word,'" and his claim that the conflict is "radical Islamism versus Western liberalism," asking "how did liberals wind up on their side? And many did." The New York Post foregrounded his mockery of CBC and BBC guidance — including jokes that 9/11 might be called "unruly passengers" or "a wrong turn taken at the Chrysler Building" — and his retort that "lying" is the real "barrier to understanding," while noting that AP style "generally avoids labeling someone a 'terrorist' on its own."
Our Take (balanced)
Left-leaning coverage's strongest point is that Maher's lead message was a partisan attack — Democrats as "cowards" — paired with a deliberate restaging of the 2001 "weren't cowards" line that once cost him a network show, which The Hill treated as the story. Right-leaning coverage's strongest evidence is the style guidance Maher quoted from journalism associations, the CBC, and the BBC, which those outlets present as the press declining to say plainly that the 9/11 hijackers were Islamist terrorists. The central unresolved tension is whether that caution is professional reluctance to apply a "politically loaded" label — consistent with practices such as AP's preference for citing authorities rather than calling someone a "terrorist" itself — or an evasion of the attackers' ideology, and whether Maher's "cowards" charge against Democrats is part of that media argument or a separate political escalation.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.