JAN RIVERS AGAINST THE SPINOFF
Case Number: 3529
Council Meeting: 29 July 2024
Decision: Upheld
Publication: The Spinoff
Principle: Comment and Fact
Ruling Categories:
Gender
Data
Overview
- Jan Rivers complains under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest about an article published by The Spinoff on 19 April 2024 headed What access to puberty blockers means for trans young people and their whānau. One aspect of the complaint, that it contained a factual inaccuracy about the research relied upon by the UK Cass Review, was upheld under Principle (4). All other aspects of the complaint were not upheld.
The Article
- The Spinoff article by Dr Julia de Bres reported that the Ministry of Health had delayed the release of its evidence brief on puberty blockers. The introduction said the writer had spoken to those with first-hand experience of puberty blockers. The story said puberty blockers were a form of gender-affirming healthcare, that puberty blockers gave young people time to make decisions about other interventions, such as hormones, and that they could be stopped at any stage and puberty would recommence. Young people and their parents were quoted, talking positively about puberty blockers.
- The story said that when formulating its new evidence brief, the Ministry of Health was reportedly taking into account the UK Cass Review released in April 2024. This had been criticised by trans advocates and clinicians. Concerns were based on the report’s approach to evidence, for example dismissing almost 100 studies because they were not randomised control studies, even though such trials would be unethical. Also concerning was the lack of inclusion of any trans people or clinicians with experience of gender-affirming care in the final decision-making related to the review.
- The wait for a NZ Government response was harming trans young people and their parents reported being scared that puberty blockers would be taken away. When talking to a parent support group, no one reported a negative experience with blockers, echoing the Cass Review finding “that there is less evidence of harm from blockers than benefits”. The story linked to information sheets about puberty blockers.
The Complaint
- Jan Rivers complained under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and Principle (10) Conflicts of Interest. Ms Rivers said the story was not marked as an opinion piece. It contained factual inaccuracies and the Spinoff failed to provide balance over time.
- The statement “Community concerns are based on the report’s approach to evidence, for example dismissing almost 100 studies because they were not randomised controlled trials, even though such trials would be unethical in this field,” was incorrect, said Ms Rivers, citing a news article and documentary where Dr Cass refuted these claims. Sixty out of 103 studies were rated high or medium quality and included in the results synthesis. Ms Rivers said: “43 studies were dismissed but not because they were not RCT [randomised control trials], because they were unreliable and it would be unscientific to base an overall evidence assessment on studies that are likely to be biased.” In a BBC interview Dr Cass stated that “This particular body of evidence is uniquely poor compared to almost any other body of evidence that the University of York has looked at.”
- This article was part of a concerted attempt to undermine the findings of the Cass Review, which involved three and a half years of work, and was the most comprehensive medical review ever undertaken, Ms Rivers said. A British MP had apologised in Parliament for making the same claim about the research studies as Dr de Bres did.
- Ms Rivers also disputed the statement in the story that autonomy over bodies was mandated by a Māori health framework, Te Pae Mahutonga. This was false – it was directed to communities not individuals.
- Saying that no trans people or clinicians with expertise in gender-affirming care were included in final decision making for the review was also false, said Ms Rivers, citing a section of the Cass Review.
- The statement that when puberty blockers were stopped puberty started again was also false. There could be permanent effects on sexual function and bone density, for example.
- The story said puberty blockers gave young people “time to think” but the evidence showed the vast majority went on to hormone treatment and, before puberty blockers, most “gender incongruence” resolved by puberty.
- It was also highly misleading to say that the Cass Review found that “there is less evidence of harm from blockers than benefit”, Ms Rivers said, quoting a number of statements from the report. She also cast doubt on the story’s statement that gender clinicians were really interested in understanding more about puberty blockers.
- Ms Rivers said Dr de Bres did not declare conflicts of interest; the information sheets she cited were a project she was associated with, she has received funding to do the research she cites and is a participant in the group of parents of transgender children she quotes. The article was part of a one-sided series of articles about transgender issues. The Spinoff’s stated position made it clear it would not provide balanced coverage of these issues, Ms Rivers said.
The Response
- The Spinoff said the article had initially carried an opinion label, which was inadvertently dropped when a spelling correction was made and reinstated when Ms Rivers' complaint was received.
- Regarding the concerns expressed about the Cass Review’s approach to research evidence, the Spinoff said the article was reporting the concerns of young trans people and their parents, not debating every detail of the Cass Review. The report’s methods had been disputed internationally. It was common for routinely used medicines to lack “high quality” evidence. The Cass Review had changed its protocol for reviewing evidence, which may indicate bias.
- The Te Pau Mahutonga framework was relevant and was used by the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa and others. Although Dr Cass consulted with trans people and clinicians they were not involved in the recommendations.
- The Spinoff said Ms Rivers’ concerns about puberty blockers did not dispute that puberty started again. There were known effects of puberty blockers which were discussed with parents and those taking them. On Ms Rivers’ contention that it was wrong to say that puberty blockers provided “time to reflect”, the Spinoff said there were two interpretations of the fact that the majority of young people who took puberty blockers went on to hormone treatment. One was that they were trans and had decided to continue their medical transition. The other was that they were locked into this path by taking puberty blockers. Anti-trans people preferred the latter interpretation, but the former was just as likely, the Spinoff said.
- Regarding the story’s statement that the Cass Review found “there is less evidence of harm from blockers than benefit”, the Spinoff disputed Ms Rivers’ interpretation of statements she quoted from the report, saying they did not provide evidence of harm, or were speculation.
- Regarding the statement about clinicians and parents welcoming more research, the Spinoff said this was simply a disagreement.
- The Spinoff did not see the need for a conflict of interest declaration. The writer had an interest in the area, which was why she wrote about it. In a later response, the Spinoff elaborated, saying that they did not include a “disclaimer” that Dr de Bres was a member of a trans parent group as such disclosures had led to abuse and vitriol.
- The Spinoff said it was a small publisher and often only published one or two articles on a subject under wider discussion elsewhere, seeking to publish perspectives they felt were missing. The Spinoff was seeking to balance wider coverage by speaking to trans whānau about a topic that affected them. As a general comment, the Spinoff said it was unlikely that Ms Rivers’ complaints could ever be resolved as they fundamentally disagreed on trans issues.
- The Spinoff said it agreed that the science around puberty blockers was evolving and would be open to a story about safety concerns but had yet to receive a pitch for such a story without clear ties to the belief that puberty blockers are dangerous because they aid transitioning.
The Discussion
- The Media Council sees no reason to doubt The Spinoff’s assertion that it initially included an opinion label, which was inadvertently dropped then reinstated when the complainant pointed out that it was missing. Even without the opinion label, the Council believes that readers would have realised this piece was coming from the point of view of those advocating for trans rights. The headline and introduction to the story made it clear that the writer was presenting the point of view of trans young people and their families.
- For this reason, the complaint was considered under Principle (4) which covers opinion pieces and states in part: “Material facts on which an opinion is based should be accurate.”
- The Media Council considers that most of the factual matters complained about could be seen as open to interpretation rather than factually incorrect – for example whether Te Pae Mahutonga was directed to communities not individuals and to what extent trans people or clinicians with expertise in gender-affirming care were included in decision making for the Cass Review. Similarly, Ms Rivers’ concern that the statement that the Cass Review found that “there is less evidence of harm from blockers than benefit” was misleading, seems to also be a matter of interpretation and is one the Media Council does not have the expertise to determine. Questions around whether puberty restarted after blockers were stopped and whether puberty blockers gave young people “time to think” were also less clear-cut and to some extent matters of opinion, so the Council decided there were no significant factual inaccuracies in these matters.
- Where the Council had concerns was the article’s statements about the Cass Review’s use of research, particularly The Spinoff’s lack of action once this potential error was pointed out to them. The fact that a statement about almost 100 studies being rejected because they were not randomised control studies had been rejected by the report’s author and had been the subject of an apology in the UK Parliament should have given The Spinoff pause for thought. From the evidence presented by Ms Rivers – quoting the report’s author and others – it seems clear this statement is misleading. While the writer is entitled to her opinions about the Cass Review, The Spinoff should have taken more care that the facts she used to back up her opinion piece were accurate, and when it was pointed out to them that this particular aspect was incorrect, they should have taken steps to correct it. The Council finds that on this point the article breached Principle (4) because this important fact was incorrect.
- On the broader issue of balance, the Media Council observes that The Spinoff and Ms Rivers have diametrically opposed views on the subject of puberty blockers and whether it is advisable to prescribe them to children. The Council notes that this debate is ongoing and is pleased that The Spinoff accepts that the scientific debate around puberty blockers is evolving, and that it would be open to running stories about this as it unfolds, which could provide balance to articles such as the one under consideration. However, this particular article is an opinion piece and Principle (5) states that balance is not essential, so the complaint about balance is not upheld.
- On the Principle (10) complaint about conflict of interest, the Council considers that it would have been desirable for information about the author’s relevant research to have been made more explicit, but it can understand The Spinoff’s reluctance to reveal her personal circumstances. The conflict of interest complaint is not upheld.
- In summary, the complaint that a statement about almost 100 studies being dismissed by the Cass Review because they were not randomised control studies was incorrect is upheld under Principle (4). All other aspects of the complaint are not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Alison Thom, Ben France-Hudson, Clio Francis, Hank Schouten, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Rosemary Barraclough, Scott Inglis, Katrina Bennett, Richard Pamatatau and Tim Watkin.