The way the legacy media covers controversial issues is broken.
Whether it’s Palestinian self-determination, transgender rights, immigration, Covid, Islamism, Ukraine, gender equality, racism, Jew-hatred, the far right, Indigenous affairs or any other hot topic, news reports are often either hyper-cautious (terrified of being seen as on ‘the wrong side’ of an issue) or hysterical (pandering to their base). It’s rare to find coverage that’s fearless, rigorous, unexpected and plainspoken.
Take, as an example, an article by the nation’s public broadcaster, covering President Trump’s executive order on biological sex. It’s a masterclass in how confusing things can get when reporters engage in activist journalism.
To lay cards on the table: Trump’s gender order was muddleheaded, harsh and uncaring. Like much that President Trump does, it’s too brutal and too blunt.
I am a man, married to a man. I have close friends who are transgender. I am a child of the Left and a defender of the ABC. The public broadcaster deserves our support in reflecting the country’s diversity of views. That is a duty enshrined in its charter.
But on the particular issue of sexuality and gender, as the ABC’s own watchdog, Media Watch, has pointed out, there is a troubling pattern of ideologically-driven coverage.
The piece in question was among the ABC app’s most-read articles, explaining the new gender order with a clickbait headline: ‘Cruel and Inhuman: Queer Community Reacts to Trump’s Order’: ‘Donald Trump’s executive order on gender is "cruel", US queer community says’. It begins:
President Donald Trump's decision to recognise only two sexes — male and female — has sparked growing concern and confusion among the LGBTQIA+ community in the United States.
Mr Trump signed an executive order recognising only male and female sexes and declaring they cannot be changed, shortly after being sworn in as president.
He also revoked orders from the Biden administration aimed at preventing discrimination based on gender identity or sexual discrimination.
And just this week, he signed an executive order to end federal funding for gender-affirming care for children under 19 across the US.
The first thing to notice is the use of the term ‘gender-affirming care’. Previously, this treatment might have been referred to as ‘gender-transition care’ (or, earlier still, ‘sex changes’). Changing the terminology from ‘transition’ to ‘affirmation’ was a rhetorical switch pushed by activists. It’s a way of implying that anyone whose gender identity differs from the gender they were assigned at birth, based on their biological attributes, is