Sky News changes its coverage following lobbying by Mermaids

[jadefinch]

Mermaids contacted Sky and other media outlets over the story on Keira Bell taking the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust to court over the poor treatment she received for gender dysphoria, and demanded that they included coverage of teenagers who are happy with the gender reassignment work they've experienced.

news.sky.com/story/woman-says-rushed-gender-reassignment-treatment-left-her-suicidal-11946763

I'd argue that this is isn't relevant to the story but the media manipulation is worse than this: They got Sky to state:

'Most gender reassignment stories are positive'.

It's not detailed either what this actually means or what evidence there is to support this

That's very strange, Datun because there are reliable longterm studies that followed children diagnosed with GD that showed a very high rate of desistance under international best practice ie the Watchful Waiting approach.

What they haven't got is any longterm studies providing any evidence of the Affirmation approach leading to better outcomes than Watchful Waiting.

They've got 'stories' charlie.

I'm unsure who was the genius who decided that talking about 'stories' rather than stats or studies wouldn't immediately alert anyone who read it to their lack of cred, but there you go.

Lets just remind ourselves of this
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mermaids-uk-charity-ban-as-boy-forced-to-live-as-girl-dvx3j99cn

There have been NO (as in zero, zilch, nada, none) reliable long-term studies that follow transgender kids over time in order to determine how many of them “change their minds.”

Very professionally worded.

Mermaids are terrifying and talk twaddle. But journalism should offer both sides of a story for balance so I don’t see an issue with including both perspectives from a journalistic POV.

But journalism should offer both sides of a story for balance

By all means print a separate positive story. But I see no reason to shoehorn a happy ever after story plus mermaids' propaganda into Keira's story. Her story is her story and worthy of respect in its own right. She doesn't deserve to be undermined this way.

If the story was about new owners if a new build house with lots of faults you wouldn't expect to have a bit about happy new owners in their perfect house along with a reassurance that most new build houses are perfect and their owners very happy would you?

The interview with the Green woman so obviously irretrievably invested in transing children without too much scrutiny is doing the rounds now.
Let's hope some journo worth their salt works out that her despicable actions might be worth a counterbalance.

The BBC and Sky are meant to be reporting news, not writing advertising features for a lobby group!

What evidence do they have that "most gender reassignment stories are positive"? And what is the source of their evidence? I suggest they have no evidence at all.

What has the BBC become, to put an unverified claim into a news story as if it was a fact? A claim made by a very controversial lobby group with every interest in keeping inconvenient facts out of the news.

Stories aren't statistics and 'most' is meaningless in this context. This kind of assertion is going to cut no ice in a judicial review. It is heartening to see Mermaids bounced into damage limitation mode.

The BBC report was worded cagily around the legal action why not name what's happening rather than leave the public thinking that Keira is suing for money?

Very professionally worded.

The over friendly tone was because it was an anecdote from one of their clientele. I have zero doubt that every single dot and comma on the website, is scrutinised up

...the wazoo

(Sorry pressed post too soon).

This kind of assertion is going to cut no ice in a judicial review

Or anywhere. The opposite actually. People easily see through the disingenuity.

This is not balance.

It is like "balancing" a story about a couple whose baby died in hospital with a story of a couple with a live baby.

It is actually pretty bloody heartless and cruel.

It is actually pretty bloody heartless and cruel

And we're all knocked down with shock at that, aren't we?

Is there any chance SkyNews doesn't want to upset Starbucks and their Mermaid cookies?

It is actually pretty bloody heartless and cruel

I'm so used to the politicising of this issue, and the 'of course mermaids are going to diss someone who wants to challenge handing out puberty blockers to children' that I completely missed out on how cruel and hypocritical this really is.

For a charity who profess to support transitioning children, they sure can't wait to stick the boot in if these children have made a mistake.

Is there any chance SkyNews doesn't want to upset Starbucks and their Mermaid cookies?

Derail alert. But I asked past our local Starbucks today and was pleased to see it has closed down.

*walked. I walked past.

Part of the issue here is that Mermaids and others have been able to frame a narrative around the term 'transgender children'. Ditto for 'drag kids'.

It's hugely irresponsible when talking about or reporting on children although I think we've mostly all fallen into using it as common parlance. I know I'm guilty of that because trans kids rolls of the tongue easier than the (more factual) alternatives.

We should be talking about children who have a gender dysphoria condition or similar. Immediately labelling any child who feels discomfort or incongruence as trans sets up future expectations and points down one pathway only. A bit more difficult with older teens perhaps as they are more likely to self label but certainly with very young children and pre teens.

We see a similar thing happen with the term 'child pornography'. It's lazy shorthand that handily obfuscates what is really happening and implies consent in young children.

Sorry to derail with my question FannyCann

I was just thinking that perhaps if Sky is making money off of running particular advertisements (such as a Starbucks campaign with Mermaids), they might be slightly less keen to properly examine the actions of this highly influential lobby group which advocates for children to undertake irrevocable pharmaceutical/surgical steps (resulting in lifelong medicalisation) in order to "affirm identities."

No the derail was mine ReinstateLangCleg ! I just can't stay on topic.

But journalism should offer both sides of a story for balance

The story is former patient in legal challenge against medical centre that treated her.

Such a story first reports on who is the patient and what does she allege has gone wrong. Balance is provided by giving the medical centre the chance to reply to the allegations.

That would have been unbiased, at least on the surface (you can easily manipulate the audience response by how much airtime you give to each side, how you describe both sides and who gets the last word).

Seeking to undermine this former patient's allegations by featuring - however briefly - the story of a much younger patient currently being treated, whose case is not connected to the former patient's one in any way and which may not even be connected to the clinic in question (we are not told) upends this balance.

One could restore the balance by for instance referencing a medical expert who prefers a different treatment approach explaining how this might have avoided the harm this former patient suffered. (This would have been pertinent information to the audience in any case, who are not told that there is a second treatment approach considered to be best practice internationally, backed up by empirical evidence not available for the treatment approach used for this former patient.)

It is not entirely unwarranted to provide such additional details as the audience might need to understand the case, but it should be finely balanced.

A claim of "However, most gender reassignment stories are positive." without providing statistical evidence is neither good journalism nor balance, but emotional manipulation of the audience instead.

Well even if such research had been done and even if these were statistics rather than stories and even if it was the "majority", that still wouldn't mean a whole lot... I mean, most people hear the word "majority" and interpret it as meaning a large majority, but it could mean 50.01%. It could mean that half of them go badly and are regretted. And that's if it's even true in the first place.

I am willing to see journalism attempt balance, and it's not always easy.

However, I do not think this is quite how they would approach balance for another similar type of medical review story, if for no other reason than it's not clear how accurate it is.

It might be fair, in a longer treatment article, to talk to someone with a successful transition, or to talk about that in a complimentary article. But a big part of the problem being addressed with the need for the review is that lack of real data to answer these questions - so how can you state that we know?

It's irrelevant to show people happy with the effects. What about all the people who are unhappy? They are the real victims in all of this. They feel their lives have been ruined.