‘Who Can I Talk to That Has a Human Heart?’: New York Times doubles down on harming trans people
The mom of a trans girl pleaded with a New York Times producer not to use audio captured in a vulnerable moment. Against her will, the company is slated to use the clip for its new podcast.
by Evan Urquhart
A New York Times podcast on transgender youth health care, released June 5, features the mother of a trans girl against her will after producers caught a vulnerable moment on tape.
The teaser for the podcast, The Protocol, says that it will examine the history and politicization of gender-affirming care for youth. But Assigned Media has learned the six-episode podcast is slated to include audio from the mother of a trans girl who begged producers not to include it in the show. It comes at a time of rising anti-trans hate incidents, with trans and gender-nonconforming people most targeted by discriminatory violence in the past year.
In light of the NYT’s own record of biased coverage of trans youth, as highlighted by activists and even many of their own contributors, the decision to play hardball with the parent of a trans young person suggests that The Protocol will double down on harming trans people rather than chart a new path.
The audio clip captures a confrontation between Heidi, the mother of a trans girl, and Jamie Reed, a former Missouri gender clinic staffer-turned-activist whose sworn affidavit misrepresented the medical history of Heidi’s daughter, Grace.
Although Heidi refused to be interviewed for the podcast, the New York Times senior vice president of external communications, Danielle Rhoades Ha, maintains the paper is within its rights to use the audio. Via email, Rhoades Ha stated that Heidi “was aware that the Times was recording for the purposes of audio journalism” and the audio was recorded at a public courthouse, “where news media were allowed to attend and record.”
The Protocol’s trailer says the show was two years in the making. That’s when Heidi’s experience with NYT journalists began, an episode she now calls a “nightmare.”
Early experiences of being dismissed by the NYT
Heidi had contacted NYT reporter Azeen Ghorayshi back in August 2023. Ghorayshi was reporting on Reed’s highly publicized allegations of wrongdoing against the St. Louis gender clinic where she’d once worked. By that time, many families had come forward to other news outlets to say those allegations bore no resemblance to their experiences seeking and receiving care. Some of those families also spoke with Ghorayshi.
Heidi’s evidence went further. Using emails and medical records, she proved to Ghorayshi that Reed had misrepresented Grace’s treatment in both an op-ed and a sworn affidavit to the Missouri attorney general alleging wrongdoing on the part of the clinic. Through the compiled documents, she showed that Reed’s account was a distorted version of events falsely blaming Grace’s gender-affirming care for a liver reaction caused by a different drug, and misrepresented their family’s gratitude as rage at the clinic over this putative harm. Reed later claimed she got Grace’s entire story secondhand.
While an internal investigation of the clinic found no wrongdoing and the attorney general has brought no charges, gender-affirming care was banned for all Missouri youth soon after Reed began making her claims. Ghorayshi’s coverage of Reed has since been cited in briefs supporting bans on care submitted to the Supreme Court, including by the Family Research Council.
This misrepresentation of Grace’s medical history — and its use to fuel bans on care — has been devastating to her and her family.
“It was really hard, having her knowledge of my medical info being used to keep my friends from care they could have reached,” said Grace, in an exclusive interview with Assigned Media.
Grace, who is now a legal adult, has stayed in touch with other young trans people impacted by these bans on care.
“I caught up with someone’s sibling and they’re starting to get to the age where they’re not affected anymore,” she said. “That’s three years that they’ve been affected by this. And that hurts to think about.”
The Protocol will include an interview with Reed, but it won’t include Grace’s hurt. Heidi’s name is never mentioned, and her anger will be present only through an audio clip, captured in public at a Missouri courthouse, where an NYT producer recorded her personally confronting Reed.
Although Heidi was asked repeatedly by Ghorayshi to participate in the podcast, she said she had no wish to do so because Ghorayshi and the paper had already betrayed their trust.
Heidi believes Ghorayshi’s August 2023 story played down core questions about Reed’s veracity by relegating the fact that her affidavit contained at least one false allegation to the bottom third of its long account. She says the coverage story simply confirmed incidental details about the clinic’s practices — details that implied no wrongdoing — as a springboard to paint a misleading picture of whether Reed’s accusations were true.
By then, two local Missouri news organizations had already published stories saying Reed’s allegations had been contradicted by family accounts. To date, Grace has the only patient history to have been definitively linked to a specific allegation of Reed’s.
“All sources do not have the same degree of power”
Now, Heidi and Grace say the harm is being compounded by the Times’ determination to use audio captured by producer Austin Mitchell outside the August 2023 court hearing where both Reed and Heidi were present. At the time, Heidi says, she never anticipated the vulnerable moment could be exploited and used against her will.
Heidi first learned this was a possibility in April 2024. During a phone call with Mitchell, Heidi asked the producer how her audio could be included if she had refused to participate in the podcast. Mitchell explained that the recording had been taken in a public place.
Legally, experts say, the use of audio of Heidi confronting Jamie Reed is likely on solid ground. Americans don’t have an expectation of privacy in public places, which means reporters are within their rights to capture and exploit people’s public actions. (In addition, Missouri is a one-party consent state.)
But others say journalism has a moral responsibility to treat sources with dignity and respect. One such expert is Anita Varma, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin whose work has focused on solidarity journalism.
Varma says she’s seen a lot of variability in how newsrooms and journalists approach questions of what is appropriate to use when the source doesn't want something to be included, “ especially if the source has already gone on the record or if it is a comment that was made in public.”
“Some news organizations and journalists take the stance that whatever is on the record is on the record, and that applies equally to all sources, whether it's the governor of the state or someone who has no official status,” she said. “But this 'one-size-fits-all' approach ignores the reality that all sources do not have the same degree of power. The situational context matters, especially for vulnerable sources.”
Despite the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethics code emphasizing journalists “do no harm,” journalism still grapples with the question of whether there’s an ethical duty to treat vulnerable sources considerately. However, in journalism, as in most professions, there is a norm that an unhappy client, customer, or source would usually be given an avenue to complain.
In their treatment of Heidi, the NYT’ reporters diverged from this norm. During the phone call with Mitchell, once it was clear that the producer was determined to use the audio, Heidi then asked if there was someone else at the NYT to whom she could appeal.
She asked once, and Mitchell refused to offer anyone else who she could speak to.
In tears, she asked again: “Who can I speak to who has a human heart?” Mitchell, again, stayed quiet.
Heidi later found the email address for an editor at the NYT’ Standards Desk. Last April, she wrote to the standards editor to describe her treatment by the NYT and ask again that her audio not be included. She said the response was unsatisfying, but it left open the possibility that the final cut of the podcast might not include the clip.
As weeks and months passed without a podcast, Heidi hoped this meant that her objections had been heard and taken seriously. A subsequent attempt by Ghorayshi to find new families of trans youth in Missouri to interview gave her more hope that the paper would find an alternative to using her audio without permission. However, late last month, she was contacted by a fact-checker who confirmed that her exchange with Reed would be included in The Protocol.
“There’s nothing I can do,” Heidi told Assigned. “There’s nothing I can say. I was very clear that I did not want to be part of the podcast, but they found a loophole and there’s nothing I can do.”
Advocates say the NYT has a consistent history of bias in its coverage of youth transgender care.
“If the New York Times were serious about standing behind their claims of their trans coverage being unbiased, empathetic, and accurate, they would listen to the families that regret speaking to Times reporters,” a spokesperson from GLAAD told Assigned. “They would meet with leaders from the trans community to hear and address valid critiques of the coverage coming from the community, journalists, and allies alike.”
For two years, GLAAD has been calling for the newsroom to improve its coverage of trans people.
“It’s not ‘empathetic’ to ignore the community your coverage is harming, or to try to profit off of the coverage that has been roundly critiqued as inaccurate and biased,” the GLAAD spokesperson said.
Whether The Protocol will continue this pattern has yet to be seen. The podcast is scheduled to be released June 5.
Evan Urquhart is the founder of Assigned Media.