Adoption Wise
NEWS
Improve Press Coverage of Bad Adoptions
Written by Adam Pertman
Thursday, 30 March 2006
NEW YORK - Did news accounts about weapons of mass destruction help set the stage for
the war in Iraq? Do television reports about earthquakes or genocide stir Americans to
action? The bottom line: from the November 30, 2005 edition of Christian Science Monitor
Are the media as influential as they sometimes appear to be?
from the November 30, 2005 edition of Christian Science Monitor
On the occasion of National Adoption Awareness Month, I'd like to offer a few (of the many)
mountains of evidence from my world that the answer is an unequivocal "yes." And I'd like to
suggest that the consequences - especially when the power of the press is exercised
without sufficient knowledge or context - can be painful and profound.
The clearest current example is a white-hot, albeit little-reported, debate in Russia about
whether to halt all international adoptions from that country. The stakes in the outcome are
huge, potentially affecting tens of thousands of institutionalized children for whom adoption
abroad represents the best hope of enjoying normal, fulfilling lives.
The genesis of the Russians' concern is legitimate and understandable. About a dozen
children adopted from their orphanages in the past decade have died at the hands of new
American parents; a Chicago woman was convicted of involuntary manslaughter just a few
months ago.
A mother killing her son is undeniably news, and lots of reporters have written about it -
primarily in breathless articles containing few insights. That's no surprise; generations of
secrecy have left most of us, including journalists, without a solid understanding of adoption
or its participants. One result is that stories relating to the subject too often are ill-informed
and lack critical perspective, while the consumers of those stories too often don't have the
experience or information to put events into context for themselves.
So, when the biological parent of a child does something heinous, like throwing her kids off
a pier in San Francisco, no one thinks, "Good gracious, we can't allow families to be formed
the old-fashioned way - look what the mothers do!" Moreover, no one suggests placing a
moratorium on childbirth until parents stop hurting their children; rather, we focus on
identifying the problems that cause such behavior and on how to remedy them.
Sweeping, wrongheaded generalizations are commonplace in the coverage of adoption-
related stories, however, whether they involve a New Jersey couple who allegedly starved
their children adopted from foster care or an Illinois mother who killed her Russian son. And
the effects are significant - from stigmatizing adoptive families, to making would-be parents
wonder if adoption is a reasonable option, to fueling questions in other countries about
whether it is better to keep children institutionalized than allow them to be adopted.
The fact is that the vast majority of the 22,000-plus annual international adoptions by
Americans - including 5,865 from Russia last year - are highly successful, and the resulting
families are as fulfilled as those formed in any other way. You might not know it, though,
from reading the newspaper or watching television.
The next player to enter this momentous game is ABC's "Primetime," which is scheduled to
air a show Dec. 1 recounting the tale of an American convicted of having abused his
daughter and placing pornographic pictures of her on the Internet. Had she been born to
him, it would be a salacious story that would provoke us to ask, "What's wrong with
monsters like this and what can we do about them?" Instead, since she was adopted from
Russia, the questions will be broader and bigger - and so should be ABC's responsibility to
do more than just provide the revolting, sensational details.
I am not suggesting that anyone take the abuse or killing of children as anything less than
extremely serious. Indeed, it is incumbent on Russian and American authorities, along with
adoption professionals and anyone else who has relevant expertise, to make a concerted
effort to identify and close any loopholes in vetting and educating prospective parents; to
provide pre- and post-placement services to help parents deal with any challenges their
children might face as a result of their institutionalization; and to ensure that all the
practitioners who place children for adoption are trained and licensed to do so.
It undoubtedly will be tough, and maybe expensive, to accomplish all those tasks. But this
story is about the lives of children, about the dreams of parents, even about the aspirations
of nations to do the right thing for the people who inhabit them.
The press, knowing that responsibility comes with power, needs to get this one right.
• Adam Pertman is executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute and
author of "Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming America."
(c) Copyright 2004 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Click here to email this story to a friend:
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/send-story?2004/1220/p09s02-coop.txt
The Christian Science Monitor-- an independent daily newspaper providing context and
clarity on national and international news, peoples and cultures, and social trends. Online
at http://www.csmonitor.com
NEXT>
Improve Press Coverage of Bad Adoptions
Written by Adam Pertman
Thursday, 30 March 2006
NEW YORK - Did news accounts about weapons of mass destruction help set the stage for
the war in Iraq? Do television reports about earthquakes or genocide stir Americans to
action? The bottom line: from the November 30, 2005 edition of Christian Science Monitor
Are the media as influential as they sometimes appear to be?
from the November 30, 2005 edition of Christian Science Monitor
On the occasion of National Adoption Awareness Month, I'd like to offer a few (of the many)
mountains of evidence from my world that the answer is an unequivocal "yes." And I'd like to
suggest that the consequences - especially when the power of the press is exercised
without sufficient knowledge or context - can be painful and profound.
The clearest current example is a white-hot, albeit little-reported, debate in Russia about
whether to halt all international adoptions from that country. The stakes in the outcome are
huge, potentially affecting tens of thousands of institutionalized children for whom adoption
abroad represents the best hope of enjoying normal, fulfilling lives.
The genesis of the Russians' concern is legitimate and understandable. About a dozen
children adopted from their orphanages in the past decade have died at the hands of new
American parents; a Chicago woman was convicted of involuntary manslaughter just a few
months ago.
A mother killing her son is undeniably news, and lots of reporters have written about it -
primarily in breathless articles containing few insights. That's no surprise; generations of
secrecy have left most of us, including journalists, without a solid understanding of adoption
or its participants. One result is that stories relating to the subject too often are ill-informed
and lack critical perspective, while the consumers of those stories too often don't have the
experience or information to put events into context for themselves.
So, when the biological parent of a child does something heinous, like throwing her kids off
a pier in San Francisco, no one thinks, "Good gracious, we can't allow families to be formed
the old-fashioned way - look what the mothers do!" Moreover, no one suggests placing a
moratorium on childbirth until parents stop hurting their children; rather, we focus on
identifying the problems that cause such behavior and on how to remedy them.
Sweeping, wrongheaded generalizations are commonplace in the coverage of adoption-
related stories, however, whether they involve a New Jersey couple who allegedly starved
their children adopted from foster care or an Illinois mother who killed her Russian son. And
the effects are significant - from stigmatizing adoptive families, to making would-be parents
wonder if adoption is a reasonable option, to fueling questions in other countries about
whether it is better to keep children institutionalized than allow them to be adopted.
The fact is that the vast majority of the 22,000-plus annual international adoptions by
Americans - including 5,865 from Russia last year - are highly successful, and the resulting
families are as fulfilled as those formed in any other way. You might not know it, though,
from reading the newspaper or watching television.
The next player to enter this momentous game is ABC's "Primetime," which is scheduled to
air a show Dec. 1 recounting the tale of an American convicted of having abused his
daughter and placing pornographic pictures of her on the Internet. Had she been born to
him, it would be a salacious story that would provoke us to ask, "What's wrong with
monsters like this and what can we do about them?" Instead, since she was adopted from
Russia, the questions will be broader and bigger - and so should be ABC's responsibility to
do more than just provide the revolting, sensational details.
I am not suggesting that anyone take the abuse or killing of children as anything less than
extremely serious. Indeed, it is incumbent on Russian and American authorities, along with
adoption professionals and anyone else who has relevant expertise, to make a concerted
effort to identify and close any loopholes in vetting and educating prospective parents; to
provide pre- and post-placement services to help parents deal with any challenges their
children might face as a result of their institutionalization; and to ensure that all the
practitioners who place children for adoption are trained and licensed to do so.
It undoubtedly will be tough, and maybe expensive, to accomplish all those tasks. But this
story is about the lives of children, about the dreams of parents, even about the aspirations
of nations to do the right thing for the people who inhabit them.
The press, knowing that responsibility comes with power, needs to get this one right.
• Adam Pertman is executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute and
author of "Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming America."
(c) Copyright 2004 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
Click here to email this story to a friend:
http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/send-story?2004/1220/p09s02-coop.txt
The Christian Science Monitor-- an independent daily newspaper providing context and
clarity on national and international news, peoples and cultures, and social trends. Online
at http://www.csmonitor.com
NEXT>
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |