TL;DR: Two young people are charged with the murder of the transgender teenager in February and are at trial this week. The Daily Mail sensationalised the trial, while the BBC deadnamed the vitcim Brianna Ghey.
The trial of the alleged killers of Brianna Ghey, the 16-year-old transgender teenager, began this week. The suspects are identified only as girl X, from Warrington, and boy Y, from Leigh, because of their age. They both deny her murder.
The trial's distressing details have garnered a great deal of press attention, after news of Ghey’s death united the LGBTQIA+ community and made global headlines.
On social media, a lot of people have been focusing on the exploitative reporting that’s being used to sell papers and drive clicks.
In particular, criticism has been levelled at a Daily Mail podcast, 'The Trial', which is focusing on this case for its third season. Advertisements for it in the paper promised listeners the opportunity to "follow every twist and turn from the courtroom".
The podcast, which we've listened to in its entirety, covers distressing details from the trial without a filter and includes sound design which sees the words of the alleged killers read by actors.
Meanwhile, the BBC was criticised for being the latest news outlet to include Brianna Ghey's deadname - the name she was given at birth - after a reporter quoted directly from the prosecution - PinkNews
What we learned in the first week of the Brianna Ghey trial
Content warning - we've been careful not to include as much of the distressing detail in this summary as has been featured across the rest of the media, but this information is nonetheless very upsetting. Take care if following the links provided.
- The alleged killers 'had preoccupation with torture' and killing techniques that they researched using Tor, the dark web browser - BBC
- The alleged killers discussed killing five other people in the run-up to Ghey's death - 'The Trial', Daily Mail
- One of the alleged killers messaged the other to say that they had an "obsession" with Ghey and claimed to have attempted to kill her before - The Telegraph
- The court heard that Ghey was stabbed an excessive amount of times, including in her head. Plans for this were discussed in detail over messages in the run-up to the stabbing - The Independent
- Dog walkers saw the alleged killers running away after they disturbed them at the scene of the attack - The Guardian
- One of the alleged killers posted a tribute to social media after the attack, calling Ghey "an amazing friend", and attempted to corral the other into corroborating false stories - The Telegraph
The court heard that many of the facts in this case are undisputed. However, both defendants deny murder and blame each other. The prosecution's case has told the jury this is irrelevant, and their case against both defendants shows that they both took actions that led to Brianna Ghey's murder. The trial continues.
Analysis: Tabloid sensationalism at "every twist and turn"
It's crucial not to pass judgement on an active case that is still in court. However, we can already examine the media's role not only in the events that led up to Brianna's death, but also those that have taken place since.
In the wake of her death, the Daily Mail went to great lengths to find and publish Brianna's deadname as part of its coverage of the teenager's murder. Meanwhile, The Times went as far as amending its coverage of the alleged murder, removing the word 'girl' and adding Brianna’s deadname to the article about her death when it became clear she was trans. These changes were eventually reversed amid social media furore - QueerAF
This week, the Daily Mail's ‘The Trial’ podcast, while largely remaining sensitive to Ghey’s identity, is living up to its sensationalised advertising. As promised, it is sharing 'every twist and turn', including practically every horrific detail - plus plenty of ad inserts.
It's a strange moral space to operate in. No doubt, it's the role of journalists to report on court cases. This is a crucial public service. But where is the line - when does that reporting go too far? Advertising revenue incentives are driving journalists to produce sensationalist no-holds-barred content around this trial, no doubt. Are they thinking about the impact their reporting may have on the family?
To say that the LGBTQIA+ community were disappointed by the reporting would be a gross understatement. As for the coming weeks of the trial, if what's happened so far is anything to go by, we can expect more distressing details.
Twitter used to be a place where we could grow this newsletter.
Where we could get our unique offer - understand the LGBTQIA+ news, but skip the doomscrolling - to more people.
To help folks protect their well-being, but feel able to keep across the most important news about our community.
Musk's changes have made that near-impossible. Last week, when we announced Trans+ History Month on Twitter, the algorithm instead sent it the way of transphobes who equated our work with heinous crimes against children.
We're investing in other ways to get our work to more queer people - look out for us on Threads and Post.News - but we need your help to do it.
While the rest of the media relies on rage clicks to drive revenue, we rely on you. We do that because it makes us accountable to you - not clicks.
It means the journalism we provide delivers content because it counts for the community, and has the right impact.
Not everyone is in a position to pay for our newsletter, but if you are - please consider a membership today, and help keep this newsletter free for everyone.
