Jan Rivers against The Press
Case Number: 3594
Council Meeting: 2 December 2024
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: The Press
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Overview
1. Jan Rivers complains that an article published by The Press on 28 September 2024 headed The war over puberty blockers, breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The article began by describing a protest opposing puberty blockers led by Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki. The story said the protest illustrated the point made by the author of the UK Cass Review into transgender healthcare, who said the debate was “toxic”. The story canvassed the views of Emeritus Professor Charlotte Paul, who was sceptical of puberty blockers, and others, including the Professional Association of Trans Healthcare Aotearoa (Patha) who said puberty blockers were a useful way for young people with gender dysphoria to buy time to make a decision about their future. The wide-ranging feature covered the situation in the UK following the Cass Review, global and local responses to the review, the number of young people on puberty blockers in New Zealand and the fact that New Zealand had been waiting for updated official advice on puberty blockers for an “almost farcical” time.
The Complaint
3. Jan Rivers complained under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance that the story contained false statements and lacked balance.
4. Ms Rivers said the article was unbalanced because it used material from nine participants who cast doubt on the Cass Review and only one who was supportive (Professor Charlotte Paul). Focussing on Brian Tamaki’s protest at the beginning of the story made concern about puberty blockers seem inflammatory and unreasonable. The article ignored evidence-based writing expressing concerns about puberty blockers from a number of other sources in New Zealand.
5. Dr Cass was quoted as saying that both sides need to move away from toxicity and vilification. The story said the review had “further emboldened outspoken critics of the transgender cause”. However, Ms Rivers said the story did not do justice to the “both sides” comment. There had been many transgender activists who had vilified the Cass Review, and Ms Rivers gave examples of this, but this perspective was not included in the story.
6. Ms Rivers also said the story was unbalanced in the way it dealt with the closure of the UK’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). The story cited the need for decentralised services as a cause, which it said was already the case in New Zealand, so readers would infer that there was no cause for comparison with New Zealand, Ms Rivers said. The service was unsafe, according to Dr Cass, Ms Rivers said, citing a range of problems reported by the National Health Service (NHS). These issues were highly relevant to New Zealand.
7. Ms Rivers also criticised the reporting of a literature review. The story said the review concluded there are “significant psychosocial benefits” but the source material only made the claim that they were “mostly positive”, and there was no mention of the serious ethical issues noted in the review.
8. The article cast doubt on the higher figures of New Zealand puberty blocker use, saying they appeared to come from a “massive drop-off in the UK after 2020”, however presumably the journalist had a pre-publication copy of a paper by Professor Paul that compared New Zealand to England and Wales from 2008 to 2020, estimating that puberty blocker use was 6.9 times higher in New Zealand.
9. The story quoted a statement from Equality Australia that said: “England’s Cass review ignores the consensus of major medical bodies around the world.” There was nothing to balance this claim, Ms Rivers said. There was no such consensus and other reviews carried out in a number of countries showed evidence for puberty blockers was poor and recommended that their use be curtailed. Ms Rivers included other evidence and articles to back up her views.
10. The story quoted Yale University academics who said the Cass Review contained “serious methodological flaws”. This claim should have been investigated rather than being taken at face value, Ms Rivers said. It was not endorsed by the university or peer-reviewed.
11. Ms Rivers also listed a number of statements in the article she said were inaccurate.
12. The story said that in an interview with the UK’s Kite Trust, Dr Cass said puberty blockers are “not an unsafe treatment”. This was not true, Rivers said. The Trust had published a report of a meeting with the Cass Review team without the endorsement of the Review. It was used to attack the Cass Review and the Review team clarified in an FAQ that “not enough is known about the longer-term impacts of puberty blockers for children and young people with gender incongruence to know whether they are safe or not”.
13. The articles said studies tended to show that between 1% and 3% of transgender people detransition. This was not true. The Cass Review said the number was unknown and Ms Rivers provided other research and reports that showed higher levels.
14. The story said the review referred to earlier was co-authored by Dr Sue Bagshaw, but it was actually performed by a “summer scholar” and supervised by Dr Bagshaw, Ms Rivers said. It was never published.
15. There were important aspects of the puberty blocker debate that the article had not covered, including concerns about Patha, the local organisation dedicated to transgender care, and its parent body, and false claims that had been spread here and overseas about the Cass Review.
The Response
16. The Press said it was confident the article was fair and balanced. Ms Rivers had complained that nine people were quoted on one side of the debate and only one on the other. However, a more accurate way to consider balance was to consider the space given to opposing views. The article is roughly 2500 words long. The number of words broadly in support of the Cass review is about 700 while the number of words opposing aspects of the review is also about 700, the Press said. The remainder of the article can be considered neutral.
17. As far as the introduction to the story went, there was no suggestion Mr Tamaki or fellow protesters are representative of those who raise concerns about medical care for patients with gender dysphoria. The Press considered it a reflection of the often emotive and strongly divided views on issues relating to the transgender community.
18. Ms Rivers considered there were others opposed to puberty blockers who should have been interviewed, but there was no one better qualified than Professor Paul and she was quoted at length. The article sought to inform rather than offer a long list of opinions.
19. The complainant was critical of the story’s brief summary of reasons for the closure of the UK’s GIDS clinic. The story said the clinic closed “following serious issues that included a lawsuit brought by the mother of a former patient”. Many more things could be said about GIDS, including some of the points the complainant listed, the Press said. There had been countless articles, documentaries and even a book written about it. This article was not the place to go into such detail and the summary clearly indicated the seriousness of the concerns raised.
20. Ms Rivers said the story did not give a balanced view of the literature review, however the Press believed Ms Rivers had miscategorised the concerns as being those of the reviewer, when they were listing concerns that were being “debated by experts”. Dr Bagshaw was quoted as having some concerns, which added balance.
21. Regarding Ms Rivers' concerns about the comparison of prescribing rates in New Zealand and the UK, the Press disputed Ms Rivers’ figures, saying the article's figures were more accurate.
22. Ms Rivers objected to the statement, “England’s Cass review ignores the consensus of major medical bodies around the world,” but this was a quote, and the story went on to say that many were waiting for a New Zealand health authorities response to the Cass Review, which might be different from the view quoted. Similarly, Ms Rivers objected to the quote from Yale, but the article was seeking to represent disparate views, said the Press, quoting statements in the story that cast doubt on the lack of evidence about the safety of puberty blockers.
23. The Press then responded to the inaccuracies alleged by Ms Rivers. The statement by the Kite Trust was clearly their own interpretation, and the article provided ample context about the uncertainty around puberty blockers’ use. The detransitioning figure in the story aligned with the majority of reporting in credible media. The words “tend to show” indicates there is a lack of precision.
24. In summary, the Press said the complainant included a long list of suggested alternative voices and information which could have been included. A single article on a complex issue where new evidence is continuing to emerge could not hope to cover every aspect nor interview every interested party, the Press said. “We stand by this article as a careful, accurate and balanced account of a controversial and emotive topic. We believe it adds to readers’ understanding of the conflicting views and limited evidence available on the use of puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria and meets Media Council principles for accuracy, fairness and balance.”
The Discussion
25. Ms Rivers complained under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance that the story was unbalanced and contained factual inaccuracies.
26. Ms Rivers claimed that beginning the story with a report of Mr Tamaki’s protest contributed to what she saw as a lack of balance, as it painted opponents of puberty blockers as unreasonable. The Council could see no problem with opening the story in this way. It was a factual report of a protest and illustrated the point that this is a highly charged debate.
27. Ms Rivers complains that nine voices in favour of puberty blockers were included but only one against, and that there were other local sources who should have been interviewed about their concerns about puberty blockers. The Press on the other hand argues that a roughly equal amount of space was given to both sides of the debate.
28. Ms Rivers has taken issue with a wide range of detailed points in the article, but the Media Council finds that on a broader reading of the story, it is balanced. For example, the story has clearly put the Cass Review’s concerns about puberty blockers. The story quotes the review as saying: “because puberty blockers only have clearly defined benefits in quite narrow circumstances, and because of the potential risks to neurocognitive development, psychosexual development and longer-term bone health, they should only be offered under a research protocol”. Later the article includes the statement from the review that despite the “lack of any positive measurable outcomes” puberty blockers quickly became more routinely available. It also reported the review’s findings that the evidence for puberty blockers was remarkably weak. As the Press has pointed out, Professor Paul, who is sceptical about the use of puberty blockers, is quoted.
29. Ms Rivers may not believe those quoted who criticise the Cass Review and its more restrictive approach to puberty blockers are correct, but the reservations expressed are clearly set out as opinions of various groups and individuals, and they are entitled to have their opinions reported on an important matter of public interest.
30. Similarly, Ms Rivers might have liked other aspects of the controversy to be included, for example the behaviour of some trans-rights activist groups. But as long as the story contains a reasonable amount of balance, it is up to the journalist to decide what aspects of the story they will cover – particularly one as complicated and wide-ranging as this, where it is impossible to cover every aspect of the debate in a single article. The complaint about lack of balance is not upheld.
31. Ms Rivers also complained about a wide range of factual matters, but the Council believed these were generally matters of interpretation, or surrounded by uncertainty, and could find no significant factual inaccuracies.
32. For example, when discussing the number of young New Zealanders taking puberty blockers, the story quotes Chief Medical Officer Joe Bourne, who says that a detailed comparison with other countries is not possible due to variability in data collection methods, so it is obvious that the figures quoted are open to debate.
33. Regarding the number of people who detransition, the story says studies “tend to show” that between 1% to 3% detransition, indicating that this is not a definite figure. The Press stood by this statement, which they said aligned with the majority of reporting in credible media. Although there is some uncertainty around these figures, it was not unreasonable to report them in this way.
34. Regarding the literature review, Ms Rivers objected to Dr Sue Bagshaw being described as co-author rather than supervisor, but the Council does not see this as of significance and noted that as well as the positive statements about puberty blockers quoted by Ms Rivers, the article includes concerns about the negative effects of blockers raised in the review.
35. The subject of transgender healthcare and puberty blockers is a complex and contentious issue, where parties on each side of the debate have strongly held opinions. However, in this case, the Media Council believes The Press has made a genuine attempt to present a story that provides a range of views, and that no inaccuracies have been proven.
36. The complaint under Principle (1) is not upheld.