My friend alerted me to an article in Monday’s Everett Herald (
a father of 17 who died in an auto accident January 2.
My heart goes out to the
friend (and later, me) was the reporter’s treatment of adoption. Reporter Bill
Sheets introduced adoption into the story with this sentence: “Twelve of [Bill
and Dixie Montgomery’s] children are adopted, ranging in age from 11 to 28.
Sheets then quoted five
“biological daughter,” “adopted son,” “biological daughter.”
Granted, the story did discuss the couple’s background as
adoptive parents, but its main intent was to express the kids’ feelings about
their dad.
Wouldn’t one mention of adoption have been sufficient? Was
it necessary to identify each child quoted as either “adopted” or “biological?”
It certainly didn’t lend clarity to the story – rather, it cluttered it and
made me wonder why Sheets (or his editor) felt compelled to make the
distinction.
If reporters feel it’s important to point out the lineage of
their sources, shouldn’t they identify the family status of every interviewee
in every story they write? Perhaps they should consider tagging their
interviewees with monikers such as “step son,” “illegitimate daughter,” “son
conceived via invitro fertilization,” or “oops
daughter.”
Ask any parent of both biological and adopted children which
of their kids were adopted and they’ll tell you they can’t remember. In their
minds, all their children are equal members of the family, no matter how they
joined their family.
When reporters unnecessarily identify their interview
sources as “adopted,” they perpetuate the myth that adoption is a shameful
anomaly. It is neither. Reporters pride themselves on taking great pains to use
“politically correct” language, to write “objectively” and to show “tolerance.”
It would be wise for them to add an “adoption” section to their stylebook.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I whole heardedly agree with this article. “Adopted” child should not have been added to the introduction of each child, nor should “biological”. It certainly was over-kill. The reporter is obviously oblivious to the understanding that once a child comes into your life in any manner, that child no longer is “labeled” in your heart where they might have come from. They are apart of who you and the family are. I also believe that unless you have these experiences in life, you cannot truly have the understanding. So the best thing to hope for is that this reporter learns from his mistake and talks to other writers about it.
i agree that mentioning ‘adopted’ or ‘biological’ for each child is overdoing it, especially if it’s not central to the article. But mostly i believe it’s no ones business to give that information; it’s the adopted person’s choice to devulge that info., or not.