The complaint concerns an article The Spinoff published, headlined ‘What access to puberty blockers mean for trans young people and their whānau’.
The Media Council upheld one aspect of the complaint that the article contained a factual inaccuracy about research relied on by the 2024 UK Cass Review. The Council has not upheld all other aspects of the complaint.
The article was an opinion piece written by Dr Julia de Bres. It reported the NZ Ministry of Health had delayed the release of its new evidence brief on puberty blockers and was reportedly taking the Cass Review into account when formulating the brief. The article quoted those with first-hand experience of puberty blockers talking positively about their use and their fears puberty blockers might be taken away. The article said trans advocates had criticised the Cass Review for its approach to evidence, such as dismissing almost 100 studies because they were not randomised control studies, even though such studies would be unethical.
Complainant Jan Rivers said this statement about the research studies was incorrect. She cited a news article and documentary where Dr Hilary Cass, author of the Cass Review, refuted these claims.
The Media Council considers most of the factual matters Ms Rivers complained about in the article could be seen as open to interpretation rather than factually incorrect. Similarly, other matters Ms Rivers complained about were to some extent matters of opinion, so the Council decided there was no significant factual inaccuracies in these matters.
Where the Council had concerns was the article’s statements about the Cass Review’s use of research, particularly The Spinoff’s lack of action once alerted to this potential error. The fact that a statement about almost 100 studies being rejected because they were not randomised control studies had been rejected by the report’s author and had been the subject of an apology in the UK Parliament should have given The Spinoff pause for thought. While the writer is entitled to her opinions about the Cass Review, the facts she used to back up her opinion must be accurate. When The Spinoff was made aware this particular aspect of the article was incorrect, they ought to have taken steps to correct it.
The full Media Council ruling can be found here.