Deal with it media: there's no hiding news from the public if you want to survive
Everyone knows what doesn't get in your stories or on your websites - and they want to know why
The Rewrite’s mission is to keep a corrective eye on journalism in order to make it better. So let’s get at it.
Three careers and what seems like a million years ago, I was a copy editor on the Calgary Herald’s news desk.
The job involved writing headlines, editing, merging and trimming news stories to fit. The paper had two editions - the first for readers living in other southern Alberta locations such as Lethbridge and the second for people residing in Calgary proper.
The difference between the two was most often in sports where west coast scores would be added and if a local team such as the Flames was playing, game coverage would be updated with quotes and, frequently, a column.
One night, there was a story breaking out of Africa which appeared to be of some significance in terms of a very large death toll and I was fussing about getting it in the paper for the second edition.
“Don’t worry Peter,” I recall my editor saying. “No one knows what doesn’t get in the paper.”
The same, no doubt, could have been said at that time for radio and TV. Because that was back before the world wide web when all people knew was what we decided they needed to know.
Fast forward a generation and a half and now anyone with an internet connection can find out what doesn’t get reported by mainstream media, a development of which many reporters appear unaware.
Which is why the coverage of how and when hormone blockers are used to suppress puberty in children with gender dysphoria has been brought to The Rewrite’s attention. Some media cover the issue of the blockers’ effectiveness, side affects and at a what age their use is appropriate. Others seem convinced the science is settled while still more appear in limbo, perhaps fearful of the consequences should their reports contradict the often (clears throat) inflexible views of activists.
Controversy around trans issues surfaced in a public way last year when New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs made it clear that when children wish to change their names at school, teachers should not keep that information from the child’s parents. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe took a similar position, one he protected by using Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - the notwithstanding clause.
Coverage of the Saskatchewan experience was analyzed by Professor Dave Snow of the University of Guelph who found that the CBC prioritized “allyship” with the trans community over objectivity by quoting critics of the bill five times more frequently than supporters (opinion polls showed either support for the bill or an even split depending how you chose to read them).
Then, in early February, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith laid out her government’s policy approach to gender dysphoric children. Western Standard asked me to analyze the media coverage of Smith’s announcement and that can be found here. The coverage was overwhelmingly hostile to Smith and included unchallenged and frequently unsubstantiated over the top statements. Activist Kristopher Wells, always reliable when it comes to delivering the “good quotes” journalists crave, said things like “These policies are about erasing the very existence of LGBTQ people in Canada.”
Trustworthy reporting demands that examples be requested when people say things like that as well as this quote attributed to Glynnis Lieb, executive director of the Fyrefly Institute for Gender and Sexual Diversity at the University of Alberta: “Public acts of violence are happening because of this policy.”
But the Edmonton Journal chose not to bother with that by, as is expected of good reporters, asking: “Really? Right now? Where? How? Did you mean that or are you just trying to get a headline?” Not only that, it took matters a step further and displayed the quote for emphasis even though there is no evidence it bothered to investigate whether it was true.
There was also, overall, a lack of fair inquiry into Smith’s claim her government’s decision to disallow puberty blockers for people under 16 years old was influenced by policy decisions in countries such as Sweden and the UK.
The coverage rightly quoted establishment sources such as the Alberta Medical Association, which disagreed with Smith’s approach but, inexplicably, failed to independently investigate the concerns raised in other countries regarding the psychological, physical and other impacts of puberty blockers. I say “inexplicably” because that information, a good deal of it reported by the New York Times, is easily accessed on the worldwide web and, contrary to the world I and my editor lived in 30 years ago, everyone can know what didn’t get in the paper by simply typing “puberty blockers UK Sweden” into their search tool.
Either such a skill is beyond the capacity of some of the journalists involved or they deliberately chose to pretend to their readers that such information does not exist. That, in my view, is not a thought any news organization should want popping into their readers’ heads.
So, when Britain’s National Health Service announced in mid-March that, following a review of research, "we have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of (puberty blockers) to make the treatment routinely available at this time," The Rewrite was curious to see how and if media would report on the development.
No doubt to the surprise of many of its critics, the CBC was, along with Western Standard, out of the gate quickly and with a story that was professionally constructed. I wondered why there was no byline for a minute but the end product was consistent with journalism standards, for sure.
CTV didn’t do anything that I could find other than posting a CNN report on its website. National Post was slow to react but followed up with a solidly balanced story by Sharon Kirkey. Global News Calgary’s Paula Tran produced a heavily corrected report that despite referring unnecessarily to Smith as “doubling down” and confusingly noting that the Alberta Medical Association believes “the effects of puberty blockers are not irreversible” (double negative) was far more poised than that bureau’s initial reports on Smith’s plans.
A search for “puberty blockers” on the Calgary Herald and Sun websites found no mention of the NHS decision. The only hits in the Edmonton Journal involved a Feb. 20 report that, two weeks after Smith’s announcements, conceded that “It’s true that the countries Smith cites have taken a second look at their medical guidelines for gender-affirming care for young people amid a surge in demand for treatment, and many have noted a need for more caution, along with more long-term medical research.”
A similar search of the Globe and Mail found that the most recent story to mention puberty blockers was Feb. 7 and involved Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre agreeing with Smith. There was also a Globe editorial that criticized Smith for putting politics and not science ahead of children’s health. But there has been no report that I can find regarding the NHS decision, which was based on science.
The same search of the Toronto Star website produced a March 20 story by Associated Press regarding how the NHS actions impact the debate in the USA. It didn’t make reference to Canada.
Epoch Times Canada was the only publication of which I am aware that took the time to question provinces as to whether the NHS decision had prompted them to review their policies. (The answer was either a resounding no or no reply).
In summary, CBC, Global Calgary, Western Standard, National Post and Epoch Times Canada (one of the platforms for which I regularly write commentary) felt that the matter of the UK raising significant concerns regarding puberty blockers was worth reporting. The Globe and Mail, CTV, Toronto Star, Calgary Herald/Sun and Edmonton Journal did not.
Freedom of the press means those that run news organizations can print, post or broadcast whatever they want. Or not. I have always agreed with and defended that - at least I did until organizations started taking government subsidies.
We’ll come back to that in the future but in the meantime, if newspapers and broadcasters wish to maintain the public’s trust, they’d be well advised to exercise their freedom while remembering it’s no longer 1994. Their readers, listeners and viewers know what they aren’t covering. And they will want to know why.
Journalism is considered to be a “public good” because of its role in ensuring citizens have the information they need to make thoughtful decisions about the organization of their lives. But there’s little if any value in bad journalism that offers unbalanced or incomplete information.
(If you have topics you think The Rewrite should be dealing with or examples of journalism that concerns you, please feel free to send them along. And don’t forget to hit the subscribe button!)
Sir, your third last paragraph ends with, "Their readers, listeners and viewers know what they aren’t covering. And they will want to know why." In that position in your column, it is close to a concluding statement.
That being so, allow me to offer a completely cynical answer to your implicit question. [And a correct answer, I contend.]: Those organs simply have drank the Kool-Aid and have adopted the position of the opposition to ANY consideration of regulation of the treatment under discussion. In other words, they have taken sides. Interestingly, they have adopted the same side as their paymaster in chief, ol' Blackface himself.
I admitted that I was cynical and I asserted that it was a correct answer. My cynicism is, well, understandable in these times but, as to correctness, I despair at that as it simply is a confirmation that the much of the mainstream media, that old MSM, has again taken a political position in their "news" reportage. It matters not to me which side of the discussion one concludes is most praiseworthy (or most damning, if that is one's wont); editorials SHOULD take positions but that is decidedly not the case when reporting NEWS.
So, if one of those organizations had said something like, "The NHS has concluded .... and has adopted .... as it's position after analyzing scientific studies, but we are unpersuaded - or we are persuaded ...." then I would be sanguine about those organizations. They would have acknowledged the issue and provided NEWS about the scientific basis of the issue and then would have provided their own opinion. Good on them - if they had done that. But they didn't.
So, cynicism and my "knowledge" of why they didn't do that.
Oh, and I saw those studies and the NHS referenced when announced and I wasn't even looking for them. Yes, people do wonder why SOME news is and some news isn't reported, but, truthfully, we do know. Cynicism and "knowledge."