‘Canadian police have identified the suspect as an 18-year old woman with a history of mental health problems’

This is a very serious lie about a shattering event. He was male, and trans. It’s not a point-scoring exercise to say so: it’s not stigmatising to notice and explain the lie.

Journalist convention is to explain the bones of the story in the first four paragraphs. This developed from the understanding that people don’t always read down: they may click, but they don’t scroll. Engagement tapers.

Not only that, at this point, the facts that the killer was a man (contra earlier reports) who ‘identified’ as trans (previously dismissed as speculation) are the newest lines, a fresh top.

It defies all natural editorial instincts to bury in the tenth paragraph the newest line and the explanation that its first sentence is untrue. It will know by its own data that a percentage of readers will just bounce off after reading the lie, and increasing numbers drop off by a third or half of the way down. Certainly before reaching the truth. Which turns out to be not so sacred after all.

The madness of this slavish, unquestioning devotion to the lie is puzzling and very worrying. There’s a defiance with which the paper sacrifices itself to the service of identity affirmation.

Telling these devoted outlets that they’re wrong has a cantilever effect. It just bolsters their self-righteousness.

But choosing to comply with the false claims of a child killer, and assuming virtue in doing so, should never not shock us. Is there nothing that will jolt these editors out of such servility? We saw it too with the Canadian police: the complacency with which the spokesman pronoun corrected a reporter who used accurate language.

Sky News and Reuter have also been perpetuating the unqualified lie overnight, hours after being proved wrong.

It seems that while there are enough people with money who want them to do it, that’s all that counts. Not principle, or the instincts that led them into the profession. Enough people to pay them to prioritise a murderer over his child victims.

Reason, and appeals to professionalism and conscience, are likely misplaced. A man killed children, and if you’re ready to doff your cap and obey his demands, what difference does it make when someone points out that a long time ago you promised to tell the truth. None at all.