Court reporting has always been highly regarded in traditional journalism because it opens a window into parts of our society that might otherwise remain closed.

As long as the reports of the proceedings of the law courts are fair and accurate, it is pretty much open slather for reporters to write with impunity about what is disclosed.

And the public’s interest in news from the courts is strong.

Apart from the prurient interest, courts should be open so they are seen to operate fairly and that sentences are in line with community expectations.

But it would be disingenuous to obscure the reality that they are a great source of stories for journalists, exposing to the public how society — often at its lowest ebbs — is behaving.

At its core, this column is about political correctness. And it’s about how that blight affects modern journalism.

There is a court case under way in Sydney that is almost straight out of a tabloid newspaper stereotype — a random axe attack in a convenience store in which two customers received life-threatening blows from a stranger.

What made the incident even more salacious is that the alleged attacker is a young woman.

In traditional media terms, this is a story that sells itself. I first stumbled on it while scanning my regular news sources on Tuesday.

Under the anodyne ABC Online heading “Sydney 7-Eleven axe attack accused Evie Amati caught on CCTV” was a link to video produced as evidence.

It began with the accused entering the store and stopped when she swung the axe she was carrying at the head of her first victim.

It is gripping, chilling and ultimately terrifying vision.

Camera Icon Evie Amati walks into the 7-11 store. Credit: ABC

The following report is 28 paragraphs. In newspaper terms, that’s long for a court report, but one of the luxuries of online journalism is that space is not at a premium.

The first 21 paragraphs are pretty standard fare describing how the incident unfolded. It is noted Amati didn’t dispute the attack happened but pleaded not guilty on the grounds she was mentally ill at the time.

The 22nd paragraph reported the prosecutor telling the jury that Amati had previously spoken about fantasies of killing people.

Two paragraphs later, defence counsel Charles Waterstreet — on whom the ABC TV series Rake was said to have been based — introduces a matter which was startlingly buried so deep in the report:

“He added that she was in a state of psychosis at the time of the attack, which was caused by her mental illness and a ‘toxic mixture’ of gender transition hormone medication, cannabis, amphetamines and alcohol.”

The 26th paragraph contained the only other transgender mention:

“Ms Amati cried as the jury was told about her gender dysmorphia, depression and the difficulty she had following gender reassignment surgery from man to woman.”

One of the first things I was taught during my journalism cadetship was an old golden rule — don’t bury the lead.

In other words, things that would most interest readers and particularly things that were at the heart of the issue at hand demanded prominence.

A traditional lead to that story might have been:

“A transgender woman allegedly suffering under the effects of her hormone medication and other drugs attacked two people with an axe in a Sydney convenience store, the NSW District Court was told today.”

I started questioning whether misplaced sensitivities had prevented the public benefiting from a fuller understanding of the complicated factors at play.

When gender is forced into centrality in so many political debates, why in this case was it so clearly played down?

In this purportedly unshackled LGBTI world, will the downsides of transgenderism be airbrushed by political correctness?

Realising this was day two of the hearing, I searched out the ABC’s previous report.

The journalist again filed 28 paragraphs with the issue of “gender dysphoria” arising first in a passing mention by the prosecution in the 13th.

In the 22nd paragraph it is clear that Waterstreet’s mention of a “toxic mixture” including gender transition hormone medication came from his opening address.

So the reporter obviously knew from the very start of the trial that gender dysphoria and hormone medication would be partly blamed for the axe attack, but chose to bury that fundamental information at the end of the story.

So was this just an ABC thing? The Sydney Morning Herald reporter filed 24 paragraphs on day one of the trial, saving the transgender issue until the 19th where she reported Waterstreet’s comments:

“He said Ms Amati, who was born a man, began taking hormones in 2012 to transition to a woman but the drugs had a significant effect on her state of mind.

“He said Ms Amati’s mental state deteriorated in 2015, when she had surgery in Thailand to complete her transition to a woman, and she began to experience visions, hallucinations and suicidal and homicidal ideation.”

The News Ltd online version of the story, also linked to the video, runs to an amazing 92 paragraphs. But it was only in the last six that Amati’s battles over her gender reassignment are mentioned, with a lot of detail not in the ABC or SMH reports.

It’s not as if transgenderism is an issue that is generally ignored by the media.

Quite the opposite.

But it does appear it’s one where only the sunlit uplands are likely to be featured, like warm and fuzzy pieces on Queensland’s Australian of the Year Catherine McGregor and the random Kardashian.

There’s obviously another side, a dark and gritty one. This case presents an opportunity to examine it, but unless hardy readers got to the end of those reports they would be oblivious to the human tragedy inside it.

One reporter following this apparently PC line might be an aberration, but three seems significant.

Political correctness kills journalism. Unless the overriding concern is for the truth — rather than not offending some people — the public is left in the dark.