Activism disguised as local news
The Indianapolis Star has committed to a side on the gender "culture war"
In late April, I submitted an earlier version of my opinion piece to the Indianapolis Star in support of protecting girls’ rights to play in exclusive same-sex sports. At the time, I’d known that previous coverage of HB 1041 was hardly even-handed (more on this in a bit). Nonetheless, I’d harbored a hope that my unique viewpoint would have a fair hearing since I had twice given in-person testimony in support of the bill. After not hearing back for several days (which I’ve learned is called a desk rejection), my badgering of the editor resulted in a simple and polite “no, thank you.” As I’ll show, the Indianapolis Star has staked out a position in favor of transgender rights. This loyalty is demonstrated by both its news and editorial departments, and benefits its advertising department.
Activism in news reporting
The Indianapolis Star’s coverage of House Bill 1041 has consistently adopted a viewpoint sympathetic to gender ideology. To the Star, HB 1041 is not pro-woman, but anti-transgender. Those affected are not boys, nor are they transgender persons, but “trans girls”. The supporters of HB 1041 have no motives or principles beyond the culture war. Of course, all of this is wrong.
HB 1041 was authored by Rep. Michelle Davis, who is an Indiana women’s basketball hall of fame athlete. Davis used to play against boys in order to have challenging enough competition to improve her skills. Even though she was one of the best on the girls’ team, she could barely keep up with the boys. Davis explained her motivation as wanting to protect the rights of girls to continue to have the same opportunities that she did—to be able to work hard, gain recognition, and have a chance to earn an athletic scholarship.
Here is how Indianapolis Star reporter Arika Herron framed the issue:
The bill’s author, Rep. Michelle Davis, R-Whiteland, said the bill is about protecting girls athletics from the threat posed by transgender girls, who could have a biological advantage that will cause cisgender girls to lose out of the opportunity to play or compete on a even playing field.
I reached out to Davis’ staff to ask whether this was accurate. They told me that Herron was taking liberties with how they’d chosen to paraphrase Davis. Specifically, Davis never used the phrase “transgender girls”, nor did she ever use the word “cisgender”. Davis accurately framed the issue in terms of boys playing on girls’ teams. Herron chose to insert words into the mouth of an elected official in order to reframe the bill as anti-transgender.
Arika Herron was also reported live from the House Committee on Education hearing. Her coverage was unbalanced. Her coverage of Rep. Davis’ introduction was mostly critical. Herron nearly omitted all coverage of proponent testimony, including mine.
Herron’s coverage of the opposition was much more sympathetic. Herron quoted both Indiana ACLU representatives Kit Malone and Katie Blair, Chris Paulsen from the queer-oriented Indiana Youth Group, and multiple parents of youth who identify as transgender. At the end of the marathon sessions, Herron posted a short clip of the opponents of HB 1041, outfitted in pink and blue regalia, shouting profanities at the lawmakers.
I criticized Herron on Twitter for her slanted reporting, and she insisted that she was “covering both sides”. She did cover both sides, but unevenly, and without impartiality. Herron never mentioned the mothers of girls who participate in competitive sport. She omitted my testimony as well, which made headlines in the conservative media. The only coverage I received locally was a five second excerpt on a single television news broadcast.
The Indianapolis Star’s continuing coverage of HB 1041 was often helmed by Herron and maintained its activist viewpoint. Some examples follow:
How Indiana Republican lawmakers changed their sights from gay rights to trans issues (Feb 8, 2022) by Arika Herron and Kaitlin Lang. This story is presented as a straightforward divisive right-wing attack on transgender rights. Among more than 10 persons interviewed, only Davis is shows as taking the issue of girls’ rights seriously:
Sooner or later, Davis said, “biological females” won’t be able to make their school teams and won’t have the same opportunities to play or get scholarships like she did. Her bill, she said, is to protect the integrity of girls sports and “maintain fair competition in girls’ sports, now and in the future.”
Opponents say this narrative is harmful, inaccurate fear-mongering and trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Transgender girls simply aren't taking over girls school sports in Indiana. Even Davis said she's aware of only one case of a cisgender girl being impacted by the participation of a transgender girl, out of more than 60,000 girls playing school sports.
Herron and Lange use context quotes when Davis says “biological females” but then present the term “transgender girls” as though it’s quite natural. And while I’ll concede this problem doesn’t exist yet in Indiana, if it did then nobody would seriously believe that the opponents of HB 1041 would concede their positions.
Among those interviewed in this piece are transgender activists Emma Vosicky (Gender Nexus), Kit Malone (Indiana ACLU), and queer youth activist Chris Paulsen, each who gave opposition testimony for HB 1041.
Indiana Republicans push social issues in legislature as heavily contested primary nears (Feb 23, 2022) by Arika Herron and Kaitlin Lange:
In many ways, the legislative session has been hijacked by social and culture issues, from transgender rights to vaccine mandates to bills inspired by the debate over whether critical race theory is being taught.
The legislature cannot “hijack” its own agenda. House Bill 1041 is pointedly about women’s and girls’ rights, and it is a defensive move that is only necessary because of the zero-sum pursuit by transgender rights activists to dismantle sex-based rights.
Despite Indiana governor's veto of banning transgender girls in school sports, it will be law (May 24) by Arika Herron
Supporters want to protect girls' sports
Finally, after the dust had settled, an IndyStar article conceded that maybe the supporters of HB 1041 had something other than nefarious motives.
ACLU and the Indianapolis Star
On January 24, the ACLU ran a full, back page advertisement in the Indianapolis Star. Even though the Gannet-owned Star is an anemic husk of its pre-digital heyday, a full back page ad is a hefty buy for any advertiser.
The ACLU was the major force behind opposition to HB 1041. The ACLU held multiple rallies at the statehouse, and each of them were covered by the Indianapolis Star. ACLU advocacy strategist Kit Malone is repeatedly cited and is practically the face of the opposition to HB 1041.
On May 22, the ACLU once again purchased a full back page, full color advertisement from the Indianapolis Star. Had the order for this already been placed when I’d submitted my op-ed which advocated for the other side?
Is the Indianapolis Star doing anything untoward or against journalistic ethics? The ACLU is definitely a large part of this story. However, the ACLU has also had so much positive coverage that I honestly wonder whether the Indianapolis Star’s news and editorial departments have been given reminders of how deep the ACLU’s pockets go.
Activism on the opinion page
I directly contacted the Indianapolis Star editor Bro Krift on April 30, 2022 to submit my op-ed, and then again via a different email address on May 3, 2022. Krift declined the piece late in the evening on May 3rd. Four days after my original submission, the Indianapolis Star published an op-ed by HB 1041 opponent and transgender activist Emma Vosicky, who the Star had previously quoted in its coverage of HB 1041. Vosicky’s story is largely autobiographical. The only mention of HB 1041 on Vosicky’s op-ed is within a photo caption of protestors sitting at the January 24th committee hearing. The timing could be coincidental, but given the rambling nature of the op-ed and four days between my submission and the publication of a pro-transgender piece written by someone who directly opposes my viewpoint, I really do wonder.
The Indiana legislature overrode Gov. Eric Holcomb’s veto on May 24, 2022. Since then, the Indianapolis Star has produced four stories and two op-ed pieces in reaction. One op-ed is by Star regular opinion writer James Briggs, who, to his credit, handles the matter with some judgment.
Actually, there is good reason to think that, if a trans-female athlete has gone through puberty, they might perform at a higher level. Progressives lose credibility when they refuse to acknowledge well-founded concerns people might have.
These issues, including questions of support and affirmation for transgender youth, warrant serious and honest discussion. That didn’t happen in Indiana, where Republicans intentionally punted on real-world matters in order to score cheap points on hypothetical scenarios that fire up conservatives.
What Briggs ignores is that there was an attempt at serious and honest discussion. The ACLU was not interested in it, nor were any of the reporters at the Indianapolis Star. My testimony and my attempted op-ed both spoke to the issue sensitively and from the perspective of someone who transitioned as a teenager. Brigg’s own institution is part of the problem. As Brigg’s has owned up to his mistakes in the past, it’s my hope he’ll read this one day and agree that the Indianapolis Star dropped the ball.
The second op-ed is by Drew Anderson, who identifies as LGBTQ and is the communications director for the Indiana Democratic Party. Anderson’s appeal is “trust LGBTQ adults like me”. In his op-ed, Anderson speaks about his experience being bullied in high school, culminating in this horrifying anecdote:
But the most horrifying moment I’ll never forget: Someone shouting “Drew’s a queen” when I was recognized as my school’s homecoming king.
It is hard to imagine the horror of one’s shining moment being acknowledged as the most popular boy in class ruined by having someone shout out (what turns out to be a true) an accusation of one’s sexual orientation. I have a lot of sympathy. This must have been ruinous to Anderson’s reign as king.
Ignorant of Briggs’ call for serious and honest discussion, Anderson offers his take on why anyone supported HB 1041:
It must be said: The legislation they are passing is out of hate Overriding Holcomb’s veto makes the Indiana lawmakers look more like persecutors and less like public servants.
I’d like to see Briggs square his newspaper’s editorial practices in the opinion pages with his own advice.
Thank you for this excellent expose, Corinna! It obviously required significant time and effort. I love it that you chose to use your own platform here to bring to light this blatant example of shoddy journalistic practices. The ACLU has much to answer for, as do the many editors and journalists across the country who bow, unquestioning, to their attack on women's rights.