New press rules on 'gender identity' are timely and necessary

The revisions are a hopeful sign that the industry will not simply ignore concerns about poor reporting

(Getty Images)

It is just over a year since the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) came into being to replace the Press Complaints Commission, which closed following a process set in train by the Leveson Inquiry. The newspaper industry has hardly been without blemish in the time since, but, for the most part, behaviour has improved since the days of phone hacking.

One of the ironies of the Leveson hearings was that little fault could be found with the Editors’ Code of Practice, which set out the rules that journalists were supposed to follow. It is nonetheless welcome that the code has just undergone its first review since the committee of editors which is responsible for its content was augmented by lay members.

Some of the changes, though small, are significant. Especially notable is the inclusion of “gender identity” in the clause which protects individuals against discrimination. This is overdue recognition of the challenges faced by the transgender community and individuals of fluid gender identity when it comes to tackling negative stereotypes perpetuated in the media.

The case which brought the issue into focus will have been familiar to the code committee since it concerned one of its public members, Dr Kate Stone. She found herself the subject of considerable media coverage when she was gored by a stag, and many reports honed in on the irrelevant fact that she was a transgender woman. Complaints to the Press Complaints Commission were upheld, but they nonetheless exposed a potential lacuna in the code. The closing of the loophole shows the benefit of involving non-editors.

As things stand, The Independent is not a member of the Ipso system, though our journalists adhere to the Editors’ Code even so (as well as our in-house guidelines). These revisions may not be startling, but they are a hopeful sign that the industry will not simply ignore concerns about poor reporting.