Sweeney alleged that between 2023 and 2024, a \u201cmilitant anti-union\u201d and \u201cpro-management\u201d group of employees began leaking stories accusing the Times union of pro-trans stances. By the end of 2023, Times management announced a new communication policy \u201cthat essentially shut down all avenues for internal discussion.\u201d<\/p>\n
By 2024, the Times\u2019 anti-trans bias informed coverage of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, according to Sweeney. She told Trans News Network that Sulzberger told reporters to treat both Democrats and Republicans \u201cas having equal weight, in terms of factual basis, in terms of their viewpoints.\u201d That meant giving equal weight to Republicans\u2019 widespread embrace of misinformative, anti-trans rhetoric throughout the 2024 election cycle (a Times analysis<\/a> found that GOP campaigns in over a dozen states spent over $65 million on anti-trans ads between August and October 2024).<\/p>\n Sweeney also pointed to the Times\u2019 response to the infamous Cass Review<\/a>, an April 2024 U.K. report on gender-affirming care for minors which claimed that evidence in support of medical treatment like puberty blockers is \u201cshaky.\u201d The report has faced<\/a> condemnation<\/a> from advocates, professional medical groups, and researchers for its \u201cdeeply flawed\u201d methodology.<\/p>\n According to Sweeney, her international desk counterpart in London initially assigned a U.K. correspondent to cover the Cass Report\u2019s publication. Although the correspondent\u2019s reporting acknowledged that the Cass Review was a \u201cvery contentious, very political\u201d document, within a few hours, Times editors reassigned the story to the science desk \u2014 more specifically, to Azeen Ghorayshi, \u201ca key reporter in a lot of other anti-trans coverage.\u201d<\/p>\n Of the Times\u2019 management, Sweeney pointed to Sulzberger as the main proponent of the paper\u2019s anti-trans shift.<\/p>\n \u201cI think he saw this as a political project, that he could take a stance that the hard right would like, that the Trump campaign might like,\u201d she said. \u201cHe thought it was something there\u2019d be no cost for\u2026 except for trans people\u2026 no cost to [the Times\u2019] broader reputation.\u201d<\/p>\n She added that, in her view, the Times \u201cput a stamp of legitimacy on medical falsehoods\u201d and \u201clegitimized anti-trans hate, really.\u201d<\/p>\n In the meantime, Sweeney stressed the importance of independent news outlets covering trans news.<\/p>\n \u201cI think [I\u2019d like readers to know] that independent news sources are really vital, and that maybe just reading the Times and subscribing to the Times isn\u2019t really the best investment of your money or your time,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n