I’ve had some criticism for publishing this man’s picture. As I’ve had with similar stories. Apparently, reporting on someone’s publicly stated views and activities is now considered ‘outing’ them. But these men have already ‘outed’ themselves. They’ve published their own names, photographs and details of their activities online. For anyone to see. And when information about their profession or place of work is also publicly available, it hardly takes a detective to join the dots. I haven’t gone digging into their private lives or uncovered some great secret. I’ve reported information they’ve chosen to make public. But here’s the more important point. These are stories of legitimate public interest. In this case, a man publicly announced plans to organise a group to turn up at a parkrun event to give people he calls ‘transphobes’ a fright. In other words, to give women campaigning for fairness in female sport a fright. I recognise he may not be aware that many of these women have already experienced abuse, threats and intimidation. But that doesn’t make his plans any less newsworthy. I also understand this man is employed as a science teacher. Which, if correct, raises further questions about his judgement. As a journalist, my job is to report the facts accurately and give people the opportunity to respond. He was offered the chance to comment. He didn’t take it. Suggesting that legitimate public-interest reporting is somehow unethical is just another way of trying to silence journalists. Are we supposed to anonymise people who have already publicly identified themselves to protect their ‘feelings’? Or simply not report the story? This is how you create a chilling effect on journalism. And that should concern anyone who believes in a free press. The purpose of journalism isn’t to protect people from scrutiny. It’s to report matters of public interest - even when the people involved would rather we didn’t. That’s how a free press works. Read story below 👇