The Times - Hannah Barnes: My Tavistock exposé scared off 22 publishers
Hannah Barnes: My Tavistock exposé scared off 22 publishers
Since The Sunday Times previewed and supported Time to Think, I have been overwhelmed by the reaction – a little negative, but overwhelmingly positive – I and the book have received. It tackles one of the most controversial topics of our time – the medical gender transitioning of children. It chronicles, in detail, the work of the NHS’s only specialist gender clinic for young people in England and Wales: the Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) at London’s Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. What went right, and what went wrong.
But there was a time in spring 2021 when I thought this would never happen.
My book proposal had been sent to 22 publishers, but none had offered to take it on. That isn’t unusual. Proposals are submitted and rejected all the time. But it was the responses, or rather lack of them, that were most surprising.
The proposal was detailed. I’d spent months writing it in the evenings, after working during the day at the BBC’s Newsnight, where this story started, and at weekends. The proposal ran to 17,000 words and set out clearly the feel of the book, and a good idea of how the chapters might break down. (That later changed as my research ballooned; my initial manuscript clocked in at 160,000 words.) It explained that I would be taking an evidence-based approach, as we had done at Newsnight, and summarised my journalistic background in handling sensitive source material and standing up stories with documentary evidence. I explained that where there was uncertainty, it would be stated. The book being proposed – and the one that is now published – was not a polemic, but rather a balanced work of reportage about the care provided to deeply vulnerable children and young people, some of whom have been helped, but some of whom have been harmed. Perhaps I should have anticipated the response. After all, the nature of discussion about the subject at the time meant that my Newsnight colleagues and I received significant criticism and came under significant external pressure throughout our investigations. Yet the programme remained convinced of the public interest value of our journalism and we continued to investigate, carefully but undeterred.
But still, after all the work we had done, I didn’t expect what happened next.
Of the 12 who responded, all via email, not one publisher said anything negative about the proposal. In fact, several praised it, saying that it was an important story that should be told. But, essentially, not by them. Some mentioned that other authors they published would be “sensitive” to the material, others hinted that it would be difficult to get it past junior members of staff.
Another, who wanted to publish the book, had to take the decision all the way to the chief executive, who then declined, saying it was too controversial. Neither I nor Newsnight’s reporting has ever questioned the identity of young people or the right of people to transition. But, it was as if questioning the care provided to a group of young people could not be seen as legitimate in its own right.
Ten other publishers did not respond to my proposal, something my agent tells me is very unusual. He would usually expect an acknowledgment of a proposal and messages either declining or accepting a book from 90 per cent of recipients. This time it was a little more than half. These emails always tend to give some kind of reason for passing. It might be that some thought it easier not to respond, but it’s impossible to know for sure.
But, on April 13, 2021, I met (virtually – Covid was still in the air, and I was eight months pregnant) Mark Richards and Diana Broccardo, the owners of the small, independent publisher Swift Press. We talked, and they understood what the book would be about, and, importantly, what it would not be about. It was about healthcare, not ideology. Later that day, Swift — the 23rd publisher — made an offer, and here we are.
With the news last week about the rewriting passages of Roald Dahl’s books, I can say that Swift did not require my manuscript to be scrutinised by sensitivity readers, nor did they ask me to change a word. Just maybe cut it down a bit. But they have told me of their experience of taking the book to internal sales conferences, where people dared not ask a question in the public forum but grabbed them one-on-one in the coffee break afterwards. Staff were interested in the topic and wanted to know more, but were equally worried that there would be negative publicity for Swift.
I am thrilled that Time to Think has been reviewed so favourably by publications of all political stripes. It will be available in well-known bookshops – or at least in some. Perhaps the tide is turning. Perhaps the publishing industry is coming around to the view – held so strongly by me and my colleagues at Newsnight — that there is always a place for impartial scrutiny and robust evidence-based journalism, even if it exposes uncomfortable truths in contentious areas. And if so, that can only be a good thing.
Comments
Post a Comment