Adoption Language - Proposed Changes to AP Stylebook
Related Resources Received from Michael Feazal: (reprinted with permission)
September 30, 2001
Norm Goldstein, Editor
Associated Press Stylebook
50 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10020
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
At least 6 million people in the U.S. were adopted into their families, and the number of Americans touched by adoption exceeds 100 million. We journalists need to describe adoption accurately and objectively.
Regrettably, news and feature stories have often employed inaccurate, even sensationalized, language about adoption. We hope that you will consider this issue as you develop the next edition of your stylebook.
With this letter, more than XXX adoption agencies and authorities, support groups and families encourage you to include a few simple style guidelines that would foster more accurate, objective and respectful coverage of adoptive families. We have attached a few suggestions for your consideration.
The problem is widespread. For example, many obituaries of Maureen Reagan mentioned that her brother Michael was adopted. The fact that he was adopted 50 years ago was as relevant as information that someone else wasborn prematurely or by C-section. Coverage of the Tom Cruise-Nicole Kidman divorce has typically described the couple as having "two adopted children."
Again, the fact they were adopted is irrelevant. A spokesman for Cruise and Kidman said this kind of language is insulting.
Through their word choices, even well-meaning journalists can and have inadvertently conveyed the misconception that adoptive families are somehow less genuine and permanent, and that people who were adopted -- and their role in a family -- remain somehow different. The reality is that adoption is as valid a way of joining a family as birth. We urge you to help journalists use language that conveys the fact that adoptive families are just like any other, both in law and in loving relationships.
It would be easy to update journalistic language regarding adoption, much in the way that journalists eliminated unnecessary qualifiers for race or gender.
An entry under Adoption would be a welcome addition to your stylebook. And, as the signatures below attest, it is important to the hundreds of millions touched by adoption in the U.S. and around the world.
We are available to discuss any of these issues with you at any time. We look forward to the next edition of the AP Stylebook.
Very truly yours,
R. Michael Feazel
Managing Editor
Warren Communications
202-872-9200
mfeazel@warren-news.com
Rachel Adelson
President
Live Wire
919-676-9916
Alan Breznick
Executive Editor
Genuine Article News
919-845-5377
albreznick@aol.com
Accurate Adoption Reporting
2115 Ward Court, N.W., Dept. MF
Washington D.C. 20037
SUGGESTED ADOPTION LANGUAGE FOR STYLEBOOKSAs in the case of race or gender, the fact a person was adopted should be mentioned only if it is absolutely essential to the story. If it is mentioned, the relevance must be clear in the context of the story.
Mentioning adoption when it is not relevant wrongly implies a separate category of family relationship. A daughter who joined the family through adoption is -- and should be described as -- simply a daughter. If it's necessary to mention adoption, we suggest phrasing such as: "She was adopted in 1997" rather than "she is adopted." Adoption is a legal event, not an immutable personal trait.
An adopted person's parents (those who are raising the child) should be referred to simply as father, mother or parents. The man and woman who shared in the child's conception can be referred to as the birth, genetic or biological parents (not "real" or "natural" parents, etc.).
Writers should avoid terms such as "abandoned" or "given up," both for accuracy and sensitivity reasons. It usually is inaccurate to refer to children available for adoption as orphans. In many cases, the birth parents are alive. These children also should not be referred to as abandoned or unwanted. Sociological or legal factors often force birth parents to relinquish their parental rights and make a child available for adoption -- which is very different from abandoning them or "giving them up." In the interest of accuracy, birth parents can be said to have placed the child for adoption, made an adoption plan, made them available for adoption, or transferred parental rights.
The reason why people adopt is not usually relevant to a story. Infertility often plays a role, but so do other factors, and many adopt simply because this is a joyful way to make a family. Language suggesting thatparents "couldn't have a baby of their own" is inaccurate. These children are our own by law and by love. Such language suggests adoption is second best, and that can be hurtful. Also, the phrase "a child of their own" is an inappropriate reference to birth children.
Stories should never imply that adoptive parents are unusually selfless or otherwise saintly. In most cases, we adopted simply because we want to parent children. We are no more saintly or selfless than any other parent.
Home
Add Your Comments!
We want to know what you think. Your comments are important to us and the other readers. You are what makes this site special.