What happens when empathy overrides accuracy in news reporting? How does withholding facts affect public trust and democratic debate? What lessons can journalists learn from the Casey Report on grooming gangs? How should newsrooms approach contested language in gender identity cases? Can empathy coexist with impartiality without compromising truth? Why must accuracy remain the foundation for ethical journalism in an era of polarisation?
Draft Briefing Paper: Accuracy Over Empathy in Controversial News Reporting
At a time when public confidence in media institutions is being questioned, and when debates on contentious issues are becoming more polarised, whether accuracy or empathy should take precedence in news reporting is not a theoretical one. It is central to the role of journalism in democratic life. Empathy and kindness remain essential to ethical reporting. They shape the tone of stories, influence language choices, and ensure that harm is minimised. However, when empathy begins to outweigh accuracy, the consequences for public trust and informed debate can be severe. This is not an argument for insensitivity or indifference; rather, it is a recognition that the primary responsibility of journalism is to present facts truthfully and impartially.
The Ofcom Broadcasting Code makes this clear: “News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.” Similarly, the BBC Editorial Guidelines state that the BBC is committed to achieving “due accuracy” and that this principle is fundamental under its Charter obligations. These requirements exist because accuracy underpins everything else. Without it, journalism fails in its most basic democratic function, which is to equip the public with the information they need to make decisions, scrutinise authority, and engage in meaningful civic dialogue.
Empathy still has an important role to play, but its proper place is in shaping how the truth is conveyed, not in deciding whether the truth is told. The distinction is crucial.
When Facts Were Withheld: Lessons from the Casey Report
One of the most significant recent examples of what happens when accuracy is compromised in the name of sensitivity is the Casey Report, published in 2025. The report examined the failure of public authorities to address group-based child sexual exploitation, often referred to as grooming gang cases. Its findings were stark. For years, some local authorities and police forces avoided collecting or publishing data on the ethnic background of offenders. This was motivated by fear—fear of being accused of racism and fear of inflaming community tensions.
In some cases, this caution extended to the deliberate removal of key information. Baroness Casey described how the word “Pakistani” had been “tippexed out” of archived child protection files. She condemned this practice as misguided, warning that “if good people don’t grasp difficult things, bad people will.” Her point was clear: when facts are concealed, they create a vacuum in which harmful speculation and extremist narratives flourish.
The consequences of this misplaced sense of empathy were profound. Victims were failed, perpetrators evaded justice, and communities lost confidence in the very institutions tasked with protecting them. Far from promoting cohesion, these omissions deepened mistrust. They also offered an opportunity for groups such as the English Defence League to exploit the issue for their own ends. The short-term aim of avoiding offence created long-term harm, a pattern that should serve as a warning for journalists.
The lesson here is not that ethnicity should dominate reporting on crime, but that relevant facts must not be omitted. Casey was explicit that acknowledging these realities is not racist: it is necessary for understanding patterns of offending and for developing effective responses. Journalism has a parallel responsibility. When reporters gloss over or obscure material facts, they deny the public the opportunity to engage with reality. In doing so, they weaken the basis for informed debate and allow others—often those with malign intentions—to control the narrative.
Language and Contested Realities: The Sandie Peggie Tribunal
The tension between accuracy and empathy is not confined to the reporting of crime. It also surfaces in areas where language itself is contested, such as gender identity. The ongoing employment tribunal involving Sandie Peggie and Dr Beth Upton illustrates the difficulty. At the centre of this case is a question that journalists increasingly face: should reporting prioritise a person’s self-identified gender or their biological sex when both appear relevant to the story?
In the tribunal, counsel for the claimant consistently referred to Dr Upton as male, arguing that this was both factually correct and material to the case, which concerned access to a female-only changing space. The opposing side viewed this language as offensive, citing professional guidance that recommended the use of preferred pronouns or gender-neutral terms to minimise harm.
For journalists covering such cases, the dilemma is clear. Avoiding any mention of sex may seem empathetic, but it risks omitting context that helps audiences understand why the case exists at all. Conversely, referring only to biological sex may be read as hostile or biased. Ofcom and BBC guidance provide broad principles—accuracy, impartiality, and fairness—but not prescriptive rules for these situations. The challenge is to navigate this complexity in a way that informs rather than inflames, and that neither conceals material facts nor disregards human dignity.
Why Public Trust Depends on Accuracy
When news organisations allow empathy to override accuracy, they jeopardise their credibility. Audiences quickly detect omissions, euphemisms, or selective reporting. Once trust is lost, people turn elsewhere for information, often to sources that lack editorial rigour and that may prioritise outrage over accuracy. This does more than damage individual news brands; it weakens the shared information environment on which democratic life depends.
Watchdog groups such as Seen in Journalism have warned that some newsrooms, perhaps out of fear of backlash or a desire to appear progressive, have adopted ideological framings that present contested ideas as settled fact. This approach may satisfy activist expectations in the short term, but it erodes public confidence in the long run. Ofcom’s own research shows that impartiality and accuracy are the strongest drivers of audience trust. Empathy cannot compensate for their absence.
Accuracy is not an abstract virtue. It is the means by which journalism serves the public interest. Without it, the media ceases to act as an independent check on power and becomes a vehicle for advocacy—sometimes well-intentioned, but ultimately damaging to informed debate.
Why This Discussion Matters Now
The draft briefing paper that informs this blog argues that accuracy and empathy are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they equal. Accuracy must take precedence because it is the foundation on which everything else rests. Empathy influences tone, context, and framing. Accuracy determines whether the story the public receives reflects reality.
These issues matter because they go to the heart of what journalism is for. In a climate of polarisation, where public confidence is fragile and misinformation is rampant, the media cannot afford to compromise on truth. Doing so in the name of kindness or caution may feel virtuous in the moment, but as the Casey Report shows, the cost of concealment is high.
The purpose of circulating this paper is to encourage dialogue among journalists, policymakers, and civic leaders about how these principles are applied in practice. Newsrooms face real pressures—from social media outrage to legal risk—but those pressures must not be allowed to erode the standards that give journalism its democratic value.
We invite comments, reflections, and constructive criticism. The goal is not to diminish the role of empathy, but to ensure that kindness does not become a substitute for honesty. Facts must remain the foundation for public conversation. Only then can journalism fulfil its purpose as a source of reliable information and as a safeguard for democratic life.