Kulturkampf

[Alpacx]

The NYT published their response:

Factually inaccurate criticisms of New York Times journalism present a false picture and promote misunderstanding of our coverage on gender identity.

A recent post from Trans News Network included numerous falsehoods about New York Times stories on gender identity and maligned some of the journalists involved in the work.

Our coverage is guided by facts and questions, and reflects the experiences of those we interview. Our work has deeply and accurately covered the lives of trans people and the bigotry they face. Discussions about the cultural changes around gender are part of our coverage, too, as well as fiercely contested medical and legal debates about interventions for adolescents. In all of this work, our journalists are dedicated toward one aim: fair-minded, fact-based reporting.

The post from TNN featured an interview with a former editor on the International desk at The Times who was not involved in these coverage decisions. Despite numerous inaccurate statements, the author conducting the interview did not seek comment or check facts with The Times before publication and has refused to make substantive corrections or include a statement that The Times provided about the interview. Though presented as news, it did not meet the most basic journalistic standards of fairness or accuracy.

Here is a small sampling of inaccuracies, which range from easily disprovable facts to wholly invented conspiracy theories:

—The post claims multiple times without evidence, including in the headline, that upper leadership at The Times issued directives to attack trans people. This is false. It also claims these stories were done to please the Trump administration. This, too, is false.

—It claims that a 2023 article about parental rights did not directly quote the young person at the center of the story. This is false.

—It claims that The Times responded to a protest by publishing an Opinion column the next day. This is false. Columnists voice their own opinions, and their columns are generally written and scheduled days in advance, as this one was.

—It claims that a UK reporter was assigned to cover the Cass report and wrote a draft that was killed because the story was given to the Science desk. This is false. No UK correspondent was assigned or drafted a story about the Cass report. The Science and London teams had discussed and coordinated coverage of the Cass report in the weeks before its expected release, and had agreed that the news would be covered by science.

There are numerous other errors of fact as well. The article also falsely says that the first person quoted in a 2024 story about transgender activists was J.K. Rowling. Additionally, Virginia Hughes is wrongly identified as “co-head” of the Investigations desk; that is not her role.

https://www.nytco.com/press/fact-checking-false-claims-about-our-gender-identity-coverage/

Big shocker that they didn't call "the existence of trans people a fiercely contested medical and legal debate" but whether adolescents should receive hormones etc.

.
Cum #Fat4All

Edit:trawling Blue sky

The former editor in question:

Full thread:

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

Dear @nytimespr.bsky.social. Your press release re comments I gave to @transnews.network includes many errors but one assertion is true: “TNN featured an interview with a former editor on the International desk at The Times who was not involved in these coverage decisions.”

That is the problem

No trans journalists is ever involved at any level in nyt news coverage about trans ppl; we are purposely excluded. The nyt has not hired or assigned a trans journalist to cover trans news for at least five years. Your publisher and top editors are well aware of that.

Your editor shut down all avenues of internal discussion about trans coverage in ‘24. Your animus has repeatedly driven trans employees out of the company. The same day I resigned in mid ‘24, another trans newsroom staffer also left. @translash.org
documented a top trans journalist who left in ‘23.

This assertion is false: “No UK correspondent was assigned or drafted a story about the Cass report.”

I read the story as it was being written. It was placed on the budget and then pulled off. I know this bc it was my job to know what was being covered, how and by whom. Your publisher knows this.

Some of your assertions ask ppl not to believe their own eyes. You did in fact publish an opinion piece “In Defense of JK Rowling” immediately after hundreds of your own contributors protested your growing bias. That is a fact.

You did, in fact, cite a derogatory quoted phrase from the UK’s Rowling 1st, in graf 4, of your Nov ‘24 piece about US politics. The story had a highly biased lede that I’ll leave here for all to judge

“To get on the wrong side of transgender activists is often to endure their unsparing criticism”

Your publisher is well aware of my growing concerns about bias in coverage and staffing at the nyt. We exchanged lengthy emails on seven occasions in ‘22 and ‘23. In Dec ‘22, I detailed how a series of tendentious stories sought to sow suspicion about every aspect of being trans.

Today trans ppl’s lives and livelihoods are in danger, our freedom of movement and association are restricted, and our medical care is threatened, all of turned into a political chit in no small part bc of the nyt.

The nyt preyed on trans ppl, a vulnerable minority that poses no threat to anyone,

But its leaders also preyed on the general public’s lack of knowledge about us to foment disinformation, doubt and discrimination.

They turned their back on their professional duty to cover us fairly,

Your press release @nytimespr.bsky.social exudes grievance … but who has suffered harm here? A powerful institution whose coverage has been questioned, or the vulnerable ppl who have suffered from it?

Who really has “endured” harm?

I invite your response @nytimespr.bsky.social