Press deserves the right to explore difficult topics

The great strength of liberal democracy is its belief in free speech, the rule of law and a press that is empowered to interrogate issues without fear or favour. Properly investigating sensitive topics can be a messy affair. One of the challenges is not to be captured by the dictates of special interests, however well meaning, that are not interested in alternative points of view. There are legal frameworks, including the laws of defamation, that are designed to keep media intrusions in check. On top of this there are regulatory bodies that are there to keep an oversight of media behaviour. Just as media practitioners must be alive to capture by social advocates wishing to stifle alternative points of view, regulatory bodies must do likewise and guard against putting undue limits on freedoms that define a free society.

In ruling in favour of British media personality Piers Morgan this week, the UK’s media watchdog has defended his right to criticise. Morgan’s comments raised particular outrage because they touched on the sensitive subject of mental health. The regulator, Ofcom, ruled that despite Morgan’s remarks potentially being “harmful and offensive” to some viewers, restricting his views would be a “chilling restriction” on free speech.

On Friday we publish an adjudication from the Australian Press Council on our reporting involving sensitive issues surrounding the welfare of vulnerable youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The APC defends much of our reporting but partly upholds a complaint by Dr Michelle Telfer, who runs the gender clinic at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne. The question is whether the council’s stance will further constrain legitimate scrutiny of gender clinics and stand in the way of good journalistic practice and free speech. It can be argued the APC has been swayed unduly by a concerted campaign by activists not interested in this issue receiving the public scrutiny it deserves. We contend that closing debate in this way will have a chilling effect on free speech. The APC dismissed claims of inaccuracy in our reporting, agreeing there was apparent conflict in research material relating to regret rates for hormone therapy, and high rates of de-transition and social contagion. But the APC found we were wrong to say the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists had abandoned the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents. It said while the professional body had removed reference to the standards in official advice, the issue was still under review. On fairness and balance, the APC found we had taken steps to try to achieve a measure of fairness and balance in an area of social uncertainty. While the council accepts that many in the medical community would consider that only transgender treatment specialists are regarded as experts, there is no requirement for the publication to rely only on such experts. But the APC said we had not made clear enough the field of expertise of the experts we quoted. The APC said despite the fact our articles were likely to and did cause substantial distress to Dr Telfer, there was undoubted public interest in a journalistic analysis of the debate on the many issues connected with transgender issues and people, and associated healthcare.

On the most substantial issue of public interest, the APC ruled in our favour. It said the council recognised that such a series of articles was likely to cause offence, distress and prejudice affecting gender-diverse persons and their families. But it said even medical treatment accepted as appropriate by a specialist part of the medical profession was open to examination and criticism, and the difficult issues connected with treatment of gender dysphoria needed to be debated to allow society to move forward. The substance of our reports was deemed “sufficiently justified in the public interest”.

At the heart of the APC complaint and ruling is the hurt feelings of an individual who has held themselves out to be the expert in this field. Far from being media-shy, the complainant has put themselves out willingly to be profiled in a sympathetic way and as an advocate on numerous occasions on the ABC and elsewhere. The APC found we did provide adequate opportunity for Dr Telfer to be interviewed and for a response to be published. But it said public interest did not justify the extent of references to the complainant in so many of the articles or implying that the healthcare practised at the Royal Children’s Hospital Gender Service was out of step with mainstream medical opinion. We believe this part of the ruling is wrongheaded and sets a dangerous precedent. As we argued before the APC, most of the references to the complainant were not critical but involved statements made to media outlets and forums sympathetic to the cause across several years. The complainant’s comments were included to ensure balance in the coverage. The catch-22 in the APC ruling is that had Dr Telfer not been quoted, we would have been accused of sins of omission.

The APC adjudication is the first real test of its new guide for journalists covering LGBT issues. That 2019 guide mirrors the “affirmative” world view of the gender clinics. Like the RCH treatment guidelines, the council’s document states children are “assigned female or male at birth”, as if biological sex is easily mixed up in the maternity ward. The council’s guide encourages journalists to use activist lists of language taboos. For example, we are told it’s “problematic” to refer to a woman as “biologically female”.

It is possible to conclude that the complaint made to the APC is another example of the cancel culture tactics used to stifle debate. We will not shy away from uncomfortable topics that deserve attention. Our loyalties will always reside with our readers and our dedication to seeking the truth. We will never stop asking questions that hold those in positions of authority to account. This is particularly so when the health and wellbeing of vulnerable children are at stake.