NYT Takes Victory Lap After MO Clinic Closure
The paper, which amplified dubious allegations from a former clinic staff member despite catching the staffer in a lie, has consistently exaggerated the extent of the medical questions around gender-affirming care for youth.
by Evan Urquhart
The New York Times today covered the cessation of treatment for gender dysphoric minors at a clinic in St. Louis, seeming to take a victory lap in their crusade against gender-affirming care. The story by Virginia Hughes, an editor at the NYT’s health and science desk, continues to amplify the questionable claims of a former clinic staff members whose credibility issues have been well documented across multiple outlets. In a previous story the an NYT reporter found that former staffer Jamie Reed included false and mislading information in a sworn affidavit but, bizarrely, chose to downplay that fact.
This story continues a trend by the paper of attributing unjustified credibility to former clinic staffer Jamie Reed, whose allegations fell apart under scrutiny by the NYT and local papers.
screenshot from the New York Times
The NYT’s strange reluctance to tout their own reporting undermining Reed’s credibility has reignited criticism that an editorial bias at the paper is interfering with their objectivity on issues relating to trans people and trans youth. It also brought up new questions about their reporters professionalism and objectivity as stories came to light of NYT reporter Azeen Ghorayshi’s bizarre behavior towards parents of trans youth she interviewed for that piece.
Today’s story strikes an almost triumphant tone, echoing a claim in Ghorayshi’s piece that the clinic had been “overwhelmed” by an influx of patients. While the story implies that Reed’s allegations included this charge, it is not found in either the sworn affidavit or the essay Reed wrote in the Free Press. It is instead found in an email by the head of the clinic characterizing both the clinic and the field as a whole. It seems likely that the center’s closing will further exacerbate this issue, which is not mentioned in the NYT story.*
The story today goes even further, claiming the clinic struggled to give thorough psychological evaluations to patients with serious mental health problems. The NYT reporting does not back this claim up, instead finding that the clinic used evaluations of outside therapists which is a standard practice in the field.
screenshot from the New York Times
It remains unclear why or how the NYT’s vaunted objectivity has been lost when it comes to stories dealing with gender-affirming care for youth, but what is clear is that the paper is struggling to provide readers with an accurate understanding of events around one of the most contentious issues of the moment.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story erroneously stated that the “overwhelmed” claim in Ghorayshi’s story was unsourced. It was not sourced to Jamie Reed, but the phrase “disastrously overwhelmed” showed up in an email by the head of the Transgender Center characterizing both the clinic and the field as a while. Assigned regrets the error.
