[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
An Inside View of Why NYT's Trans Coverage Has Been So Bad Julie Hollar ([link removed])


Trans News Network: 'A Directive From Above': Former NYT Editor Lays Out How The Paper Pushes Anti-Trans Bigotry

Trans News Network (1/1/26 ([link removed]) ): Billie Jean Sweeney, a former New York Times editor, "witnessed the highest echelons of the paper's management increasingly push anti-trans bigotry and disinformation."

For several years, the New York Times has baffled journalism watchdogs ([link removed]) as well as trans activists ([link removed]) with its fearmongering, pseudo-scientific, anti-trans coverage (see, e.g., FAIR.org, 6/23/22 ([link removed]) , 12/16/22 ([link removed]) , 7/14/25 ([link removed]) ). A former Times editor has now shed light on the source of the bias, which, she says, comes directly from the top.

In an interview with Trans News Network (1/1/26 ([link removed]) ), Billie Jean Sweeney ([link removed]) , a Times veteran who served as the day assignment editor at the international desk prior to her retirement in mid-2024, traced an ideological change in coverage to the 2022 changing of the guard at the paper.

That's when Dean Baquet ([link removed]) , who had been named executive editor by then-publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. in 2014, stepped down. Sulzberger's son, A.G. Sulzberger ([link removed]) —who took over as publisher in 2018—picked second-in-command Joe Kahn ([link removed]) to replace Baquet, and elevated Carolyn Ryan ([link removed]) to co-helm Kahn's former post of managing editor.

Shortly afterwards, Sweeney explained, the paper published

a series of stories that in hindsight, looking back, were intended to win prizes. It had all the hallmarks of a series of stories that's intended to make a campaign to win a Pulitzer or whatever they had in mind…a series of stories that challenged every aspect of being trans.

Other observers noticed the shift, too—to the extent that both GLAAD (2/15/23 ([link removed]) ) and more than 180 Times contributors (2/15/23 ([link removed]) ) separately wrote letters to Times leadership to raise concerns about the bias they were witnessing. Kahn responded by essentially declaring war on those who would criticize the paper's coverage on the issue (FAIR.org, 2/17/23 ([link removed]) ), warning its own writers that he "will not tolerate" their participation in such criticism, and defending the coverage as "important, deeply reported and sensitively written."


** 'Internal PR campaign'
------------------------------------------------------------
NYT: Youth Gender Medications Limited in England, Part of Big Shift in Europe

The New York Times (4/9/24 ([link removed]) ) framed the anti-trans Cass Review as part of a "big shift in Europe"—but when reports from other European countries, like Germany ([link removed]) and France ([link removed]) , came out in support of gender-affirming care, the Times ignored it.

FAIR (5/11/23 ([link removed]) ) conducted a study of Times coverage from April 2022 through March 2023. We found that, unlike the Washington Post, most of its front-page trans-related coverage cast gender-affirming care as either risky or forced on unwitting youth, or else cast trans people as a threat to others—at a time when trans people had become the focus of a nationwide GOP-led assault on their basic rights.

Sweeney said she wrote Sulzberger "a series of notes…that was focused on the coverage and the lack of trans reporters, and the lack of any trans involvement, input even, in the coverage." She described the Times leadership's response to the pressure from her and other trans Times staffers as little more than an "internal public relations campaign" that ended after two meetings that produced no changes.

When the English National Health Service in 2024 released the Cass Review ([link removed]) —a report on best practices for medical care for trans youth that was heavily criticized ([link removed]) by experts—Sweeney said the international desk assigned a UK reporter to the story. The draft article "put it in the context of being this very contentious, very political sort of document." But once the New York editors saw it, Sweeney said, they killed it, reassigning the piece to science reporter Azeen Ghorayshi ([link removed]) , who had worked on many of the paper's anti-trans articles. (The Times claims
([link removed]) Sweeney's account is "false.")

The next day (4/9/24 ([link removed]) ), the piece was published with a very different slant from the one Sweeney described seeing: "Youth Gender Medications Limited in England, Part of Big Shift in Europe." As Sweeney pointed out, Ghorayshi used examples like Finland and Denmark—which did ([link removed]) not ([link removed]) , in fact, reject gender-affirming care the way Cass did—to frame the Cass Review as part of a broader trend.

And when country reports emerged soon after that were supportive of gender-affirming care for youth—from France ([link removed]) , and from Germany, Austria and Switzerland ([link removed]) —in opposition to Cass, the Times simply didn't cover them.


** 'Conventional wisdom among non-experts'
------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Lake Tribune: Utah lawmakers’ own study found gender-affirming care benefits trans youth. Will they lift the treatment ban?

Utah state medical experts concluded that "overall, there were positive mental health and psychosocial functioning outcomes” from gender-affirming care (Salt Lake Tribune, 5/22/25 ([link removed]) ). The New York Times didn't find this newsworthy.

Sweeney also pointed to a report out of Utah, where a 2023 bill that placed a moratorium on gender-affirming medical care for youth had also commissioned an independent study by the Drug Regimen Review Center of the University of Utah on the impacts of such care. The more than 1,000-page report ([link removed]) was released in May 2025, and its conclusions were striking. They began:

The conventional wisdom among non-experts has long been that there are limited data on the use of GAHT [gender affirming hormone therapy] in pediatric patients with GD [gender dysphoria]. However, results from our exhaustive literature searches have led us to the opposite conclusion.

And they ended:

It is our expert opinion that policies to prevent access to and use of GAHT for treatment of GD in pediatric patients cannot be justified based on the quantity or quality of medical science findings or concerns about potential regret in the future, and that high-quality guidelines are available to guide qualified providers in treating pediatric patients who meet diagnostic criteria.

Finding those conclusions inconvenient, Utah lawmakers ignored ([link removed]) the report—as did the New York Times. But if a review of gender-affirming medical care for youth from another country was important enough to warrant an article ([link removed]) , a 2,300-word interview ([link removed]) and several ([link removed]) prominent ([link removed]) subsequent ([link removed]) mentions
([link removed]) in the Times, why does the review from a US state merit not a single mention in the paper?

If the Times is truly interested in "the facts," ([link removed] reject the claim that,a statement to Vanity Fair.) no matter where they point, why do they consistently highlight the minority of European countries that have restricted—not banned—gender-affirming care for youth, rather than acknowledge that the majority ([link removed]) allow access to both puberty blockers and hormones?


** 'Acknowledged the uncertain evidence'
------------------------------------------------------------
NYT: What Has Medical Research Found on Gender Treatments for Trans Youth?

The New York Times (6/18/25 ([link removed]) ) cherry-picks the medical reviews it likes to defend a ruling that Clarence Thomas ([link removed]) saw as justified by Times reporting.

Less than a full month after the Utah report was released, the US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Skrmetti in favor of Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. As one piece of its coverage, the Times published an article by Ghorayshi (6/18/25 ([link removed]) ) purporting to provide context for this anti-trans ruling, under the headline "What Has Medical Research Found on Gender Treatments for Trans Youth?"

Certainly the recent Utah review would seem to be relevant, but Ghorayshi only told readers that "systematic reviews commissioned by international health bodies have consistently found that the evidence of the benefits of the treatments is weak, as is the evidence on the potential harms."

She pointed to four countries across the Atlantic that "have limited the treatments to extreme cases or allowed them only in clinical trials," and only one—Germany—that "recently acknowledged the uncertain evidence but cautiously endorsed the treatments." (Notice she offered no such qualification regarding the restrictions, though they also acknowledged "uncertain evidence.")

As trans journalist Erin Reed (Erin in the Morning, 6/19/25 ([link removed]) ) pointed out, Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in the Skrmetti ruling cites the Times seven times. The right has repeatedly ([link removed]) used the paper's reporting to support its legislation and legal cases against trans rights.


** Not true, not important
------------------------------------------------------------
CJR: Journalism's Essential Value

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger (CJR, 5/15/23 ([link removed]) ) rejects the view that "when journalists report information that makes a negative outcome more likely, they are complicit in that outcome." As Tom Lehrer sang ([link removed]) : "That's not my department! says Wernher von Braun."

Sulzberger, in an essay in the media review CJR (5/15/23 ([link removed]) ; FAIR.org, 5/19/23 ([link removed]) ), scoffed at those who would say that is evidence of the harm the Times' journalism is causing:

In general, independent reporters and editors should ask, “Is it true? Is it important?” If the answer to both questions is yes, journalists should be profoundly skeptical of any argument that favors censoring or skewing what they’ve learned based on a subjective view about whether it may yield a damaging outcome.

Of course, as FAIR (5/19/23 ([link removed]) , 5/28/24 ([link removed]) ) and other critics have extensively documented over and over, the paper's most prominent coverage is telling neither "true" nor "important" stories about trans people. It's telling stories that paint a highly skewed picture of the dangers of transition and prioritizing the perspectives of those who wish to exclude trans people over those of trans people themselves, whose rights and very existence are under attack.

It has always felt clear that such coverage, which deviates ([link removed]) markedly ([link removed]) from typical centrist media coverage of trans people, is a very deliberate choice by Times leadership. Sweeney's account gives new insight into that choice.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .