Bill Maher accuses media of avoiding 'terrorism' label for Sept. 11 on HBO, cites 2,977 deaths
Coveragetap to expand ▾Spectrum: Mixed🌍US: 1 · Other: 1
- On his show, Maher said “we were against the terrorists.”
- Maher argued that coverage of the anniversary was missing the point of the commemoration.
- Maher said the nation’s response to 9/11 was clear and should not be recast into a partisan or ambiguous debate.
- These remarks were reported by Decider and appeared under the title about Maher ripping the media on the 9/11 anniversary.
- Maher said "there was a war on terror, and we won," and contrasted that with current media language rules.
- Maher noted the Sept. 11 attacks killed 2,977 people.
- Maher said some journalism associations wanted writers to put the word terrorism in quotes because it is "emotionally and politically loaded."
Bill Maher used the 25th anniversary broadcast of Real Time With Bill Maher on HBO to attack journalism practices he said now curb calling Sept. 11 what it plainly was: terrorism. Maher opened his Sept.
11 segment by saying "there was a war on terror, and we won," then singled out journalism associations and "a lot of media outlets" he said discourage use of the word by treating it as the "T-word" or putting it in quotation marks. He repeatedly cited the human toll, saying the Sept.
11 attacks killed 2,977 people, and framed the language debate as a broader cultural shift since the attacks. The New York Post, which summarized the HBO segment in a Sep.
12, 2026 report, presented Maher's remarks as a direct rebuke to those style guides and media organizations that advise cautious phrasing; the Post quoted Maher criticizing the idea that journalists should label terrorism as "emotionally and politically loaded." The account in the Post is a single-source report of Maher's on-air comments; the article does not include responses from the journalism associations Maher named or examples of specific outlets that have adopted the quoted-style guidance.
That gap leaves Maher's critique framed as a provocation rather than as part of a documented, traceable policy shift. Whether Maher's attack changes newsroom style guides depends on those groups responding or publishing guidance; the Post report does not show that happening.
For now, Maher has put a public spotlight on how wording choices — not just policy or security — shape public memory of Sept. 11, and his comments are likely to drive further media scrutiny and pushback from advocates on both sides of the language debate.
Left- and right-leaning outlets are covering this story differently — in which facts to emphasize, which context to include, and how to frame causes and consequences.