The Economist tweeted, “Should transgender people be sterilised before they are recognised?” That is the first line of its March 14 story headlined, “Japan says transgender people must be sterilised.”

Then, the Economist deleted that tweet, saying it “mischaracterised our article on transgender rights in Japan,” and said “sorry” to readers.

“The article explores in detail a question that was put to Japan’s Supreme Court,” a follow-up Economist tweet read. “Our tweets often use a line from the articles they link to. We were wrong to use the first line of this article out of its context. Sorry”

iMediaEthics wrote to the Economist for more information about what went wrong. A spokesperson pointed iMediaEthics to the Economist’s blogpost about the tweet, which explained the Economist’s staff drafts several tweets per story for promotion on social media.

“This process still produced a poorly judged tweet this week, about the transgender article above,” the blogpost read. “We used the first line of the article, a question, as the tweet. Sometimes questions can give an idea of what’s in the article; in this case, the tweet implied that we thought it was a fair question open for debate, rather than a question asked of Japan’s court as part of a suit brought by a transgender person. We sincerely apologise.”

The Economist continued, “That error of judgment was compounded by an error of process: the tweet was not checked by two people. We have since reviewed our processes and made changes to them to ensure that social-media posts are appropriately checked.”

The article explores in detail a question that was put to Japan's Supreme Court. Our tweets often use a line from the articles they link to. We were wrong to use the first line of this article out of its context. Sorry

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) March 20, 2019

Despite the tweeted “sorry,” many readers were upset saying it was “100% irresponsible journalism.”

You know full well that the question is itself an ideological position. And your 'sorry' is really gross here. You should delete this tweet too.

— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) March 20, 2019

That was 100% irresponsible journalism. Using eugenics as a clickbait headline is violence. Using quotes and violent ideas as headlines directly imbues those ideas into the public consciousness. We both know more people will read & think about headline than open the article.

— erika (@erikahans_n) March 20, 2019

Here's how not to apologize for making your news outlet appear as if it is legitimizing & advocating for the sterilization of transgender people and inviting bad faith debate. You don't accidentally do that.
That tweet was appalling. There is no recognition of the problem here. https://t.co/qJ5hxK1B6G

— ashley dye (@ashleycdye) March 20, 2019

This is an unacceptable and sloppy apology. AND, as digital content specialists, YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO PULL QUOTE OFF THE ARTICLE WITHOUT EVALUATING CONTEXT.

— Marissa Smith (@marissagsmith) March 20, 2019

This is neither accurate, nor good enough. By deleting, reposting and deleting again it’s clear that you’re aware how seriously you’ve messed up. You pushed out a harmful and shockingly inaccurate narrative to encourage anti-trans debate. So when’s the proper apology coming?

— British LGBT Awards (@BritLGBTAwards) March 20, 2019

Hat Tip: Steve Bien-Aime