The guidelines on impartiality say news reports such as this one should give “due weight to events, opinion and the main strands of argument”.  It is not always necessary to cover the range of views or opinions in equal proportions but the guidelines recognise the omission of views can jeopardise impartiality.  In the case of this article, there was an editorial justification for reporting the reaction of those fearful of the possible impact of the High Court ruling.  However, as the ruling represented a critical juncture in a sharply controversial debate, the ECU considered the article should have done more to reflect the arguments of those who have legitimate reservations about the use of puberty blockers and upheld this element of the complaint.

In relation to suicide,  the ECU noted that the article included contributions from a 14 year-old trans boy who had attempted suicide and his mother; from the mother of a 12 year-old trans girl who fears her daughter “will not make it” through male puberty; and from an unnamed clinician who said she knew of several young trans people who had “tried to take their lives, some successfully”.  While the ECU thought it appropriate to reflect genuine concerns about suicide in an article of this kind, in the light of the guidelines’ warning that factual reporting of suicide has “the potential to make such actions appear feasible and even reasonable to the vulnerable” it concluded on balance that the repeated references to suicide went beyond what was editorially justified in the context.  This aspect of the complaint was also upheld.

Upheld