What did ya’ll think?
I think that Paula Zahn tried to play the mediator and mostly stayed in the middle. Lots of stumbling, this was obviously put together quickly.
I think Cenk Uygur spoke well. I am impressed that he realized that his words put a broad brush over a large segment of people and why this was a bad thing to do.
I think it is ironic that Roland Martin can’t understand why painting a large group of people with a single brush stroke is a bad thing.
I think David Youtz did a great job.
I wish it had been made a bit more clear that it certainly is easier to adopt overseas than it is to adopt in the U.S.
I wish someone had mentioned that the National Association of Black Social Workers is against Caucasians adopting African American babies.
Mostly, although I’m glad they addressed the issue, I don’t feel much better than I did before.
UPDATE: Transcripts from the show can be found here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/08/pzn.01.html
January 8th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
As usual, RQ, you hit the nail on the head.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I think Paula did stumble a lot and I think it was nervousness because she knew she was being closely watched my many of us after having been called on the carpet for her behavior. It was better than the last show but there really was limited time to address the issues that needed to be addressed from the first piece. They tried to “fix” this because they had to and it appears that they did some fact checking this time but still do not have a grasp on what the real issues are.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I also wished they would have gotten into the muslim adoption issue more and that Americans do have interest to adopt the orphans in the Middle East but it most cases it is just not allowed. I think just saying that would have invalidated everything the panelists had said on Friday…as none of them were talking from a place high on their bodies.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Oh and I want to know how many thousands is ‘thousands’.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I agree with you RQ. I think they could have done a much better job of addressing the ‘bigger’ reasons for international adoption. They really dind’t make clear the main reasons people often choose not to do domestic. I’m not a big CNN watcher anyway, and I plan to continue my boycott. Better than Friday, but still missed the mark in my opinion!
January 8th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
RQ, well said. I don’t think Martin will ever admit he is wrong. I do wish Paula would have said they really missed the mark on the show. I am glad they at least admitted they upset the adoption community and they had 1000’s of e-mails as a response to just last Friday’s show. Could they have done better? Yes. Will I watch Paula again? No.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I agree that they should have mentioned more about the issues of adopting domestically, and how difficult it can sometimes be in the U.S. to go through that process, especially for older adoptive parents.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I totally agree. I would have liked to have seen the Professor back on the show as well. And no, I don’t feel much better about things, either. Although seeing the kids at the New Day Foster Home was a true joy!
January 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Didn’t see the first show but read the posts about it. you are right they threw something together and really did not give the subject enough time it was almost like a token response to the IA community at large.
It also reminds me why I don’t watch CNN.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I think it was thrown together and could have been done much better. I am glad that they addressed the issue. I wish that they showed more of the emails…(I bet there were many that they “couldn’t” show…). Anyhow, I agree with RQ I don’t feel much better..but glad it was done.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I’m still not satisfied…I’ve written to Paula Zahn again:-(
“While I appreciate your attempts at damage control, you still fail to see the obvious point. This is not so much an issue about race as it is about choice and privacy. Parents who give birth to biological children are not approached and asked why they chose to give birth rather than adopting when there are so many available children in the US. No one would dare to rob an expecting parent of their joy with such as rude and presumptuous question. Why aren’t adoptive parents given the same rights?”
January 8th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Martin, well, he would never admit he was wrong about anything, I am not surprised. I will give it to Uygur for at least admitting he was wrong even if he was practicing self preservation along with Paula Zahn. Did everyone catch that he insulted us again by saying we don’t know the definition of a racist.
I agree with you that David Youtz did a great job I loved that when she asked him would he not admit that some people adopt because of race and he said NO.
I too wish that the issue of NABSW is against black children being adopted by white parents.
I don’t feel much better either.
We did find it funny that the first sponsor was the “STICK UP BULB” what happened to Cingular and the others LOL
January 8th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I was really upset with the way they sterotyped those of us who are in the process of adopting our children from China. I can’t speak for anyone else, however I felt as if they were thinking that we go over to China to adopt a “Designer Baby”. I said to my DH we are going to adopt our daughter. We are childless and endured years of treatments. Having Mia will complete us.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Agree with everything that’s been said so far. I felt that Martin and Uygur did not take responsibility for the things that they did say. Off the top of my head, I’m thinking of Uygur’s statement that he was glad that celebrities are doing the right thing and adopting from Africa. Huh? African orphans are more deserving of families than Chinese orphans? That smacks of racism to me.
I thought that David did a very good job, and I thought that the letters that they chose to read were effective. I was proud of my fellow adoptive parents!
Thought that Paula Z. and Martin both looked very nervous (not nearly the same amount of laughing and mocking as the other night!)
I appreciate the fact that they made an attempt to do a better job tonight, but they did nothing to win my viewership.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
They missed the mark yet again.
I keep thinking back to what RQ and others have said… if they do a bad job of representing a topic we know well, how reliable can they be for what we are not familiar with?
An apology was in order… and this show didn’t cut it.
Done with Paula Zombie… oh… I mean Zahn and CNN for good.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
3kids
I just got off the phone with the MIL, and we both agree, Paula, and CNN “missed the mark”. I could feel my blood pressure on the rise!
2p
January 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I had to giggle everytime Paula referred to the “thousands” of emails :) Martin will never admit that he was wrong. It was a joke to him. I wish someone would have mentioned the National Association of Black Social Workers is against Caucasians adopting African American babies. wouldn’t that make for some interesting conversation! I hope those who saw the program walk away with an understanding that adoption is a personal choice!
January 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I just finished watching and I have not heard what I wanted to hear. Mr. Martin claims they were making fun of the stereotypes, but they were making fun of our children instead. He is very defensive and if you notice he keeps talking about African American children, like he has a personal issue with folks prefering other children over African American babies (as if it really mattered what color your baby is!)
I wish they had talked about adopting [b]children [/b]period, regardless of what their ethnic background is, but I guess it is not possible on this show.
Still disappointed in GA.
Laura G.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I feel more angry than after the Fri. show. Roland Martin is such a…grrr, it doesn’t even need to be said. They way he thinks that because ONE person he knows had a good experience with domestic adoption makes it perfect. No adoption program is perfect, not China, not anybody. But, IA is a lot easier to most parents. For, what I think is 2 main reasons:
1) With China, ther is NO chance of that baby ever being taken away from you, once it is in your arms. With DA (domestic adoption), there is a large chance. The BM (birth mother) could decide right after birth, that she does not want to go through with it, or later on she can fight with you. And, suprisingly, BM’s sometimes do regain custody of the children, no matter how long they have been with their adoptive families. (it happened to my friend with her 9 year old!)
2) The IA program is a lot more smooth and predictable. You know the steps, and after you have completed them, you receive your baby. With DA, in some cases, you have to ’sell’ your family, my dh and I were not comfortable with being ‘bought’ by a BM.
And with these 2 reasons (along with hundreds of others) we decided to go IA. It has NOTHING to do with race. But, it has everything to do with the process, and how things are handled. I agree with everyone on that, I am DONE with CNN! I am livid, and need to calm down. I just want to smack Paula and Roland. When I calm down, I am going to start writing them again. Telling them in a educated tone that I am very unhappy with the way they handled that show…
Zoe
LIVID!!!!
January 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
It is pretty stunning to watch a man who is claiming that I am a racist against people like him, speak with such obvious prejudice against so many others. He defined racism for all of us, then used his position of power to let us know how wrong we are to accuse him of it. The irony of his situation could not have been lost on many. Amazing.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I think they tried to put a band-aid on an open wound….without bothering to stitch it up first. I was not impressed with this ‘redress’ of the issues…..where was the intitial discussion of what the whole segment was intended for in the first place? I think the discussion regarding the new regulations was placed in the ‘not important’ file. I won’t be writing anotehr email to Paula Zahn this time….I think international adoption and related topics are better left alone by her in the future! I won’t be watching CNN anymore either.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I totally agree with you RQ. Now I know why my husband does not and will not watch or even listen to CNN. What a bunch of hooey. I did not see the Friday show, but as I watched part of tonight show, I just kept yelling and cursing at the TV. Also, are there only black and hispanic children in foster care waiting for adoption?? Maybe Marting sould open his eyes and see that there are all colors of children waiting for adoption in the US. Now if the laws would be a little better…….
Thanks for letting me vent—-Joanie
January 8th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I still feel like Martin is not the brightest light bulb in the box. He’s sorry we are offended, but evidently since people have accomplished domestic adoptions it is easy and obviously better than going abroad. I may be off the mark on that last comment as I was only listening with half an ear since I consider him to be a complete putz.
It was better than Friday’s, but I still think they could have done more with the segment. David did a great job! Kudos! ( I was wondering who had the triplet referral last year, and now I know and am jealous!) How precious were his girls… not to mention all those beautiful babies in the New Day Foster Home. My heart melted when I saw all those little faces. I am glad that CNN listened to all of us and made an effort to redeem themselves. I still won’t be watching that channel though!
Claire
LID 10/10/05 (next??)
January 8th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I agree with RQ and the previous posters. It seemed VERY thrown together and just something to make us happy–which I don’t think it was successful at. We have adopted domestically twice and though it was easy the first time it was NOT easy the second time. We had two failed placements. And in the end it cost us more then our China adoption will cost us. I really waish they had addressed the issue of why people don’t adopt domestically. It was said that it is a personal choice, which is true, but it wasn’t brought out that it is a choice often based on the heartbreak and uncertainty that is so often involved in domestic adoption. Anyway, I was not at all appeased by this attempt to make us happy and have already emailed Martin and Zahn to let them know my concerns.
Thanks RQ for all you do!
Michelle
January 8th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Well…I did appreciate Ms. Gong at least bringing up the fact that it is difficult to adopt domestically due to some “birthparents coming out of the woodwork” wanting to “reclaim” their children. I wish they would have touched on that more. I think that is a big reason why families do go international. Mr. Martin…grrr…I don’t think would ever change his opinion no matter how much data was put in front of him!
This was a very interesting CNN night for us. We also have a “pillow angel”. Listening to those speakers & hearing about the procedure that the little girl went through…well it really hit home. Tonight really summed up our family (well soon-to-be family). It was quite touching.
Stefanie
LID 10/17/05
January 8th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Hi All!
I WIKI’ed Cenk. He is a stand up guy. I admire his recant!
Cenk Uygur is the main host of the liberal talk radio show The Young Turks, airing weekday mornings from 6-9AM on Air America Radio as of September 18, 2006.
Uygur is also a regular blogger on The Huffington Post and an attorney. He is a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia Law School, and a former associate at the law firms of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in Washington, D.C. and Parcher, Hayes & Liebman in New York City. He first became a talk show host at a Washington, D.C. radio station on the weekends while working at Drinker, before eventually shifting to full-time radio work. He also wrote an article for the Huffington Post that was critical of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Uygur is an agnostic.
Jeanne
Orlando, Florida
January 8th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Overall, I think tonight’s show was positive. David did a great job (thank you, David!) but I wish he had briefly mentioned the problems of the US system which causes more people to look instead to IA. The woman at the end (who was RUDELY interruped, in my opinion, by Roland Martin) tried to, but didn’t get much of a chance.
Paula looked very uncomfortable, and stumbled a lot. I’m guessing there was some pressure there. By the way, wasn’t she the one who made the original “porcelain doll” comment on Friday’s show — and then tried to pass it off as one of her panelist’s commets?
I still find it ironic that she tried to make it sound as if Friday’s show was about the China’s stringent restrictions on adoptive parents — she can’t really think that, can she?
The British guy in the beginning did a really good job of fleshing out the regulations and China’s need to find homes for the babies.
I still found myself talking back to the TV set this evening.
Still not a fan of Paula or CNN, but I’m glad our voices were heard.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I am just disapointed that no one in the show ever mentioned the fact that none of the false statements/claims made were supported by any evidence whatsoever. What troubles me is that ordinary people with no prior knowledge of what adoption is get the wrong idea about us. I also find it curious that a rule prohibiting severe facial malformation translate in “unattractive” people being banned and etc. I guess that the smell of a scandal is more attrctive than reallity, or maybe it’s just me that did not understand the new rules properly.
For my part, residing in Quebec, I was only admissible to adopt in 2 countries (so much for options!) and national adoption was no more a realistic option in my family situation than in the US. And now with the new rules in China I would no longer qualify had I not been registered.
Frenchie
LID 02 June 2006
January 8th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I’m an adoptive mom of an adorable bi-racial 7 month old girl via domestic open adoption. The process was very easy and fast for us, and we have an absolutely wonderful relationship with her birthfamily. In my Northern state, domestic adoption is fairly common and not as difficult as in other states.
Everything about Friday’s show made me angry, but what made me the most angry about tonight’s show was the “discount” comment. Our agency is a very large adoption agency and there are no discounts based on race. How ridiclous to assert that this is standard in domestic adoption!! I was flabbergasted at all the arrogant generalizations the panelists spewed on both shows.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I too had wished they had gotten to how the adoption system in America is biased against adoptive parents to a certain extent. To me, it was “this will shut them up, so we can forget it” segment. Roland Martin was completely unapologetic, angry that he was called on it and he still doesnt get it. Just because he knows a white couple that had no problem adopting an AA child, doesnt mean this is everyones experience
I am glad there was someone to discuss China Adoption, but even then, Paula tried to get David Youtz to imply that race was an issue.
I believe Paula Zahn has lost alot of credibility, she was just saving face and I honestly believe she as ‘made’ to do this show, you could tell she really didnt believe any of what the David Youst had to say
January 8th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
well….I think Paula blamed the panelists rather than putting some of blame on herself. Watching Friday’s show again, it was very apparent she was laughing with them. She was definitely fumbling at the beginning like she wasn’t prepared.
Interesting enough, Roland cites this paper that Solangel wrote but it was never mentioned in the original panel interview. We had to find that paper that she wrote. He is using one paper to base his comments on. Has he adopted any african american children?
I actually looked up the website she quotes for what it costs to adopt an african american child, since they all mentioned it was cheaper. Yes it does give discounts for an african american child — however, the China costs are about the same.
They failed to address why Americans are looking abroad in general — we want a stable, predictable program — which in my opinion the US isn’t. That’s what needs to be addressed our system here in the US. Frankly it isn’t easier or predictable.
I was surpised that Uygur admitted his was overbroad in his generalizations but he failed to address his comments on adopting muslims.
Overall, I was surprised they addressed our emails at all. Did I think they did a good job — not really.
Jen in Atlanta
LID 9/11/06
January 8th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Anyone watch the rest of the show? Paula had no problem being hard on a Muslim activist, but she let the African American bigot spew whatever nonsense came forth from his vacuous head. Typical.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I am glad that they addressed the extent of the outrage expressed by many, but wish more time was spent on the real issues rather than having the original morons defend themselves.
David Youtz did a great job and was amazingly calm – I would have liked to see him have more time. Uygur admitted he was wrong – smartest thing he has said. I think that most people can see that Roland is an idiot. I would really like to have seen Paula ask him why the NABSW is against adoption of AA children by Caucasian people. The issues with domestic adoption could have used more attention.
The children were wonderful. I want to replay it with the sound off to see their faces again, but then I would miss the wonderful laugh of the cutie on the swing!
Never watched the show before and it clearly isn’t worth watching.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I’ll be honest, I was not impressed. Now don’t get me wrong, the new guests, nice job with the balanced, calm and open presentation. It was refreshing.
but in this age of dime a dozen news shows and with the reality that they did this to make things right, to some degree… why was Roland Martin back on?
You have to ask yourself…really, why? Hidden agenda by CNN? I don’t think this was an ‘unexpected’ occurrence.
In the end, had this been the first segment I would have just passed it off, no biggie. But it was not, they did this to save face only and ‘get viewers’, it’s a business. I’mnot convinced they came close to properly saving face throughout and making things right…
But this is the US afterall, and as one of my closest friends at work says… “if you don’t like where you work, you can always vote with your feet by walking out the door”. Wise man.
I’m choosing to vote with my clicker and leaving CNN out of our viewing choices. Oh well.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Another thing that was not mentioned is that most children in our foster care system are not adoptable. They are in the foster system on a temporary basis. It is not until parental rights have been terminated that a foster child would be available for adoption. It is very difficult for a parent’s rights to be permanently terminated. Judges give them many chances to get their acts together. There are many foster parents who would love to adopt their foster children but are unable.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Ok Dh and I watched the show and were less than impressed. I agree with the above opinions on the 2 repeat guests–funny how Ms Gong barely got a word in. We were hoping they would directly address the issue of China having one set system whereas in the US each state has its own rules. Not to mention that with China you know the score going in–you meet certain requirements and you will be matched. Here in the US–you have to be subjected to some random choosing process by the birth parent–it is all a bit scary. And no one seems to want to bring up costs. In the Us it can be much more expensive–you could even have to pay medical fees for the unisured birth-mum and then what happens if she changes her mind? Not that money is the primary factor here but realistically not many of us are so well off we do not have to follow some srt of budget.
Oh well I didn’t expect too much…CNN is a joke and I will stick to BBC website for informative news.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Wouldn’t it be interesting if we all e-mailed again and said something to the effect of, “Paula, you didn’t get it right either time so just, please, leave the topic of IA alone!”
I probably won’t actually write an e-mail to this effect unless I get a lot of encouragement on this site. But for “fun,” just imagine! I’ll bet she’s never gotten e-mails to please NOT report the news before. It might hit home with her, if that’s possible.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I agree, RQ!
I’m still upset that they (the producers, Paula Zahn) used the issue of Chinese adoption as a topic in a larger ongoing discussion about racial issues. The intros for Friday’s and tonight’s shows drew everyone in by stating China now requires applicants to be attractive, wealthy, and thin (which by the way is not the case) and then took a sudden detour into adoptive parents preferring Chinese girls due to their own racial biases and stereotypes. First of all, those two topics have nothing to do with each other. They just used the sensational appeal of the new restrictions to lure in the audience and then allowed the panelists a platform to bash adoptive parents who seek children from China. I think that angers me the most. If the topic had been presented as “why do so many Americans want to adopt from China?” then there would have been an opportunity to explore the barriers of adopting domestically in contrast with the stability of the Chinese IA program. The problem is that CNN never intended to address that issue.
I was very impressed with the representative from the NY chapter of FCC–he was very articulate and clearly stated what so many here have said–the process is about building a family and is very personal and is not entered into lightly. Kudos to him!!
January 8th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
I think another round of e-mails are in order, in my opinion. The entire thing was just a way for CNN to pat adoptive parents on the back and say, “We got your e-mail.”
Our choice to adopt from China was due to DH being in the military and our current state does not allow us to adopt from foster care since we are not residents.
So, we chose to start now and when DH retires and we become residents, we can look more at foster care.
Mary
who is e-mailing CNN AGAIN right now
January 8th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Neither broadcast addressed the news surrounding this issue: the new restrictions put in place by the CCAA. Kudos to David Youtz and to the producers of the show for attempting to redress the irresponsible things said Friday night. But what everyone needs to understand is that this is the format of Paula Zahn’s show — assemble a panel and then toss out a handful of topics when each guest is probably only a tangential expert in one of the topics. What you get is a whole lot of opportunity to offend many people with ill-reasoned, off-the-cutt remarks. Neither Zahn nor CNN are responsible for what their guest say. Yes, Zahn should have — on Friday — steered the guests back to a discussion of the new rules, but this is what happens when radio talk show hosts are allowed on TV to hog air time.
It was simply too complex and sensitive an issue to be handled in this format, which is why few of us will be satisfied by today’s show.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Here’s my email sent to CNN tonight:
Dear Sir:
I just finished watching the edition of Paula Zahn’s show which was in response to the outcry over last Friday’s fiasco. I must say, although it was better, it was still far below what I would have expected from CNN. You allowed a bigot to pose as an expert (Roland Martin) and to spout nonsense and factual inaccuracies. He was clearly being disingenuous regarding the nature of the discussion on Friday night. Please watch the clips shown during tonight’s show to see that they were clearly NOT making fun of stereotypes: they were attacking adoptive parents as racist. There is no other way to understand what they were doing. He claimed there are “discounts” for adopting African American children in the US, which is clearly false. He claimed that the panelist who did not attend this evening has “research” showing that parents adopt from China because of their racism. Now I am very involved in the adoption community and we read and discuss everything we can get our hands on regarding research into international adoption. There is no such study. And still, no mention was made of the position of the National Association of Black Social Workers opposing interracial adoption as “cultural genocide.”
I was prepared to see 1) an apology for an outrageous insult and 2) a real consideration of a complex issue. I got neither. When CNN covered an issue I know a great deal about, they dropped the ball, not once, but twice. How can I possibly trust them on issues I am less informed about? I will not be watching CNN again.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Sorry … off-the-cuff. Typing with a mad-on.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
LOL HopefulFor07… I was thinking of doing the exact same thing. “Dear CNN… you’ve tried twice and still can’t get it right. Please do the entire domestic and international adoption communities a huge favor and leave the topics alone. Clearly, you are reluctuant to talk about key reasons why families often choose international adoptions over domestic adoptions. Why are you afraid to inform the public that the NABSW is against adoption of AA children by Caucasian people?” Is that a can of worms you are afraid to open?” Ok… I didn’t send that to Paula or CNN… but the Smart A** B*tch in me really wanted to!!! :)
January 8th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Another issue that has not been addressed is why domestic adoptions are so problematic. Just this week I talked with a friend who has researched extensively about domestic adoptions both through private adoptions and state organized adoptions. In TN if a family wants to adopt and the family already has two children, you are NOT allowed to adopt domestically. They checked into KY rules, and KY says if your a TN resident you CANNOT adopt domestically. They have no choice to adopt internationally.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
That might be the best idea yet “Dear CNN, you’ve had two tries and blown it both times. Perhaps it might be best if you just don’t report on international adoption anymore since you’ve done such a poor job with these two attempts”.
And, onto another topic, the more I think of it the more annoyed I am that she did not confront Roland Martin with the fact that the National Association of Black Social Workers is against Caucasians adopting African American kids. I am sure she is aware of this fact. Or rather, if she read her emails then I’m sure she is aware of it, as many people pointed this out to her.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I think one thing we all should get out of this is…we have a voice. It is amazing how fast we were heard. I am amazed by that fact alone. We all have different opinions on how we should raise our children and whos sight we go on for information and other “stuff”, but for all of us to come together in such a short time is just truely amazing. I don’t think any other adoption group could have come together so fast. That is another reason why we choose China…the support that is there. First CNN…..now what?
January 8th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
You go, David Youtz!!! Way to remain calm and rational (probably not something this mama could do). Even though the complex issue of building families through adoption is still virtually brushed over, the panelists and CNN have been called to task. I think what’s truly important is that we know how blessed we are by the way our families are formed! I can honestly say as a conspicuous family we’ve never encountered one person who thought we had an “infatuation” with Chinese children. Many people ask, “Why China rather than the US?” to which I can only share our desire to adopt, which has nothing to do with mental aptitude or the “porcelain” factor. ALL children deserve love, nurture and care at the very least.
CJ
January 8th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I did not see the original airing, I did read the transcripts and thought “well okay” and read the blogs…but when I saw tonights airing and the clips from last weeks show…I now know why I watch Fox News.
Mr. Martin is a racist, plain and simple. He said that he does not know why black children are not adopted etc…well we have a good friend and her sister-in-law has been waiting for over 2 years for a “black” baby boy. They were to pick up the new born this week. Not even 2 hours after my phone call to my friend she calls me back to say the birth parents have changed their minds.
Mr. Martin criticized the adoption community for not wanting or saying “crack addicted babies” now where did we say that all crack moms are black, but he just assumed as much (sterotyping). I personally do not use drugs therefore would like the birth mother of child not to use drugs, is that too much to ask for? I choose not to have the birth mother come back into our lives, is that too much to ask for? I choose not to have rejection by birthmothers because we are the perfect 10, etc… We choose China to help the girls and birth mothers, to provide a good home to a child that does not have one, to experience a new culture, to grow as a family. We choose because we want to…Mr. Martin can adopt in the US to see how he likes it.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Okay, can someone please explain to me how Roland Martin and Cenk Uyger are “experts” in the field of adoption — domestic or international? What have these men done to make them candidates to appear on a nationally televised tv show and address the issue of adoption?
I watched Friday’s show twice, read the transcripts and watched tonight’s show: not once did Paula (or any other person) give these two men’s stats on their expertise. Though I absolutely do not agree with her, at least Angel Molandando has researched adoption and written a paper on it.
Anyone?
January 8th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I missed the first part of the segment tonight and I didn’t see it the original show, so I could only base it on this one. But I agree with RQ about wishing the delved more into certain issues surrounding adoption–like the race issue, the difficulty and uncertainty that goes along with domestic adoption.
I think the Tukish guy (sorry, I really didn’t pay attention to names or the like and am too tired to read through this thread tonight) did well in admitting he was wrong, but I get the sense he did it because he just wanted to get out of the hot seat, know what I mean? Like when you question your kid about something they did and the capitulate immediately and jump to the apologies in the hopes of avoiding punishment.
Paula was so not prepared for this, or the backlash. And did they give ANY time to the woman from the Chinese Amercian group? I only saw her for about three nano-seconds, but like I said, I missed the first part of the segment tonight.
Paula Zahn, the CNN producers and the oringal guests clearly had no idea why the ticked off some people and don’t seem to care.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Hi all.
I agree that David generally did a good job, but he really dropped the ball in his answer to the last question. He basically said that the reason people choose china is simply one of personal choice. Roland Martin jumped all over this to go on again about how it might sometimes be race that directs this personal choice.
I will give credit to Paula for challenging him on it and saying that David over the course of his whole segment said it was really the process that made the difference.
I also think it would be naive to deny that there are at least some parents that feel more comfortable adopting an asian child than a black child. Whether this is racist I think is at least open to debate.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Paula made me sick! She did so much backpedaling from her stand the other night – I don’t know whether she’s simply an idiot or just didn’t want to look like a racist (maybe a little bit of both).
Martin is just a moron…a racist moron at that, which is the worst kind there is!
I, too, wished someone would have pointed out the insecurity of domestic adoption as well as the fact that the National Association of Black Social Workers opposes whites adopting black children. My God, can you imagine what would happen if a “white” association spoke out against anything related to black adoption?
I’m so disappointed in CNN.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
If anyone puts this on youtube, will you post the link either here or in the forum? I don’t have TV but would really like to see it!
Thanks!
January 8th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I appreciated seeing the FCCNY representation. He was fabulous. I wish they would have allowed Ginny more time to share thoughts.
Hats off to Uygur and back on again for Martin. It must be awfully difficult to go on national television and admit that you dropped the ball.
In addition, Martin should have just admitted that his comments definitely sounded out of line. When my 4 year old does something wrong and I tell her that her behavior is inappropriate sometimes she’ll say, “I was just kidding”. I felt like Martin was my 4 year old, making up a cellophane excuse…
Overall review of program: Poorly done.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Roland Martin was still talking about the racist aspect of adoption. It should have been pointed out to him that race had nothing to do with the original topic on Friday’s show; it was about the new rules in China. I wonder how many AA children he has adopted? I’m not sure I would have accepted what he said like Ginny Gong did, but easier said than done. I was not there – I’m here watching. I liked what David Youtz said.
LID 6.13.06
January 8th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I wish I hadn’t watched…
January 8th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
A couple of points I would like to add to the discussion. From the lead in to the stories it appears that the theme was uncovering racism in America. I don’t know if this is PZ’s thing or just a theme they have going for a while. As such, it seems that they are reluctant to admit that this is not (at least for the vast majority of us, albeit perhaps not everyone) an issue of racism.
One of the points I made in my email to CNN was that adoption is a priveledge not a right and so those who are claiming (or assuming) it is a right are misled. As such the inflated claims of rights being violated are nonsense.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Well that was a Easter jelly bean when we were expecting a Godiva truffle. Kudos to ‘our side’ being well spoken and non-flustered. I’ll still write and express my disappointment. I won’t express my inner glee at how nervous Paula seemed, she did emphasize THOUSANDS of letters several times.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I didn’t watch either segment (don’t get CNN), but read Friday’s transcript and have followed here as well as Yahoo groups. If they had done their research, they could have found this statement on the NABSW website (http://www.nabsw.org/mserver/PreservingFamilies.aspx?menuContext=757)
“In 1994, a more expansive document, Preserving African American families, reinforced the 1972 position statement by stressing the following:
(1) “stopping unnecessary out-of-home placements;
(2) reunification of children with parents;
(3) placing children of African ancestry with relatives or unrelated families of the same face and culture for adoption;.
(4) addressing the barriers that prevent or discourage persons of African ancestry from adopting;
(5) promoting culturally relevant agency practices; and,
(6) emphasizing that “transracial adoption of an African American child should only be considered after documented evidence of unsuccessful same race placements has been reviewed and supported by appropriate representatives of the African American community” (NABSW, 1994, p. 4).”
Not too hard to find.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
If Roland is so concerned about AA children being adopted why does he adopt one.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Here’s a .pdf of the Maldonado essay, I think. It can be read online, too — I found it on Google Scholar by searching solangel+maldonado.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Ugh, that did absolutely nothing for me.
I loved it that David was so calm and collected–he spoke better than anyone else on the show. I’m disappointed that he side-stepped the last question by responding that adoption is a “personal choice.” Of course it is, but we adopt because we want to build our families, period. Where we choose to adopt from is irrelevant. I wish he would have driven home that point lots more.
I wasn’t impressed with the representative from the Chinese-American Association. She perpetuated the stereotype that we adopt from China because we’re afraid the domestic birth mothers will come to take our child back. I know dozens of China-adoptive families, and that has never been mentioned as their reason for choosing China.
BTW, no one is getting the correct information about the facial deformities restrictions. It isn’t because those afflicted are less attractive; it’s because CCAA is afraid a child would be frightened by the deformity and it would impede attachment.
Does anyone know of a good China adoption discount? ;)
January 8th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I changed my mind and decided to email CNN and ask them to leave the topic of International and domestic adoption alone since clearly, they aren’t capable of getting it right.
Oh, and yes, I will vote with my clicker… I feel like an idiot since CNN has been my main source of news for so long… given that education, I think must be the “American Idiot” in the Green Day song… eeek! Educate me… FAST!
January 8th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I agree with RQ that Paula Zahn seemed flustered and that Cenk Uygur deserves props for admitting that he misspoke–I think that he was trying to be flippant the other night and subsequently realized that it came across badly.
I get where Roland Martin is coming from–racism is real, and it’s worthwhile to engage in critical self-reflection about one’s racial stereotypes and attitudes (and I don’t think that Martin is racist). What I didn’t like was his insistence on talking about “American” children. In criticizing one form of ethnocentrism (regarding Asian children as somehow superior to African-American children), he perpetuated another form of ethnocentrism (regarding American children as somehow more deserving than “foreign” children).
Also, his spin on his previous comments didn’t match the substance of those comments: he claims that on Friday night he was only talking about some adoptive parents, but his actual statements from Friday were more sweeping than that.
Most of all, tonight’s segment reminded me of how poor a job news talk shows do at addressing complex issues. The format is not suited to serious discussion, at least not in the way it’s used by the cable news networks (and if you think Fox does a more substantive job, I can’t agree with you there).
January 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
This is the proof Maldonado cites in a footnote:
“Less than 1% of birth mothers change their minds after placement. Christina Field, Adoption Gone Awry, http://library.adoption.com/print.php?articleid=2579 (last visited Feb. 26, 2005); see also Telephone Interviews with Noreen Davidson, supra note 29 (out of 700 adoptions, only two were challenged, and both were unsuccessful); Telephone Interview with Maria Ramirez supra note 55 (stating that in her fifteen years at the agency, only one birth mother revoked her consent and she did it within the statutory period allowed); Telephone Interview with Kelly Reinhold, supra note 29 (no birth parents had challenged any adoptions in the five years since her agency was founded). Furthermore, it is rare for a birth father to challenge an adoption, and ever rarer that he will succeed. See Sophfronia Scott Gregory, Can Adoptions Be Undone?, TIME, Jul.19, 1993, at 50.”
January 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
OMG… I suppose this is old news to most of you… but after submitting my comments on the Paula Zahn NOW episode tonight, I got an autoresponder stating that the read all of their emails and send them on to their producer and senior managers.
I checked and noted that I did NOT receive this autoresponder Friday. So… hint to ALL of you, keep sending emails.
What really got me was the last line of the email:
“CNN, The Most Trusted Name In News”
WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!
January 8th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
A friend received a reply back from Martin who said that he and his wife have no need to adopt. They are raising 4 of his nieces from 2 different sisters.
So, how does this make him an expert on adoption?
Mary
January 8th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Later in her essay Maldonado writes:
“Scholars have speculated that the NABSW’s opposition to transracial
adoption, along with agencies’ race matching policies deterred prospective adoptive white parents from seeking African-American children and turned them to international adoption. Indeed, in the years following the NABSW’s statement in 1971, the number of Americans adopting internationally increased almost 200 percent…In 1994, the NABSW issued its current position on transracial adoption:
‘Transracial adoption of an African-American child should only be considered after documented evidence of unsuccessful same-race placement has been reviewed by appropriate representatives of the African-American community.’ Thus, although no longer completely opposed to transracial adoption, the NABSW still demands that agencies attempt a same race placement before placing an African-American child with a white family.”
January 8th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
As a woman with no apparent thoughts toward adopting a child of her own, perhaps Maldonado can understand this better:
If you go to hospital A then there is a 1% chance that the doctor will decide he wants to raise your baby, and you will not be able to take the baby home after you give birth.
If you go to hospital B then there is a ZERO percent chance of this happening. Oh, and hospital B will cost a good bit less than hospital A, as well.
Which hospital would she choose, I wonder?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Ohhh, perfect analogy! Can I use that when I talk to coworkers??
January 8th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Bassets- GREAT POINT!!!! One that I bring up all the time. I have never said to a bio mom “Hey why are you having that baby when you could adopt?” Sheesh.
They solved nothing tonight. But there is not a news station out there that is going to open the can of worms about the Black Social workers. Then they would have Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton coming down all over their a**es about hatred and racism.
And racism makes me want to VOMIT! I am a history buff and have become physically ill when reading (or watching documentaries) about the treatment of blacks in America in the past- especially slavery. But to suggest that we are racist because we don’t adopt AA children is outrageous.
It also upsets me when people suggest that American babies are more important or deserve a home more than children around the world. Who decided that was the case? A child is a child and the country they come from doesn’t make them worthy of a family. BLEH!
January 8th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Why is it that the people who are first to tell us which children we must adopt are not people who’ve actually adopted any children?
It’s nauseating.
Donna
January 8th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Are we having trouble with posts showing up tonight? I am still a waiting on one of mine.:(
Alyson
LID 10/26/05
January 8th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Bassets, Well written note to CNN. Couldn’t have been said better. Thanks for that.
January 8th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
The thing that really upsets me about Maldonado is she “claims” she’s done research on international adoption. Therefore, it’s ok for her to make such statments and have it classified as FACTUAL. The fact of the matter is, she has done a half a**ed research on international adoption. While she has interviewed adoption agencies and asked their views as to why parents decide upon international adoption, she has NEVER asked a parent. How can one “claim” to know so much about “why” international adoption is favored over domestic when one hasn’t ever asked THE source? Even adoption agencies are basing their answers on assumptions alone. Seems to me like these so called “educated” people aren’t as educated as it seems. Aren’t we taught in school (early on) to go directly to the source for the truth, and not ASSUME?
January 8th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
One more thing, from last Friday forward, I still will not watch CNN. How can we trust that anything they report is accurate??? I mean, with their information or lack of information, or lack of accurate information. I just do not see where they have regained any credibility at all. They should not have aired last Friday’s show and the show tonight did not “fix” what they have done to the international adoption community. A formal apology needs to be made.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
I think it is important to differentiate between what was said by panelists on a show like this and the presentation of hard news. While I agree completely that an effort should have been made to present a more balanced set of panelists, I think in general the factual content of the segment tonight was quite well done.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
They didn’t even come close to truly discussing the issue and making amends. The good news is that really very few people actually watch CNN!! As we prepare to raise our Chinese American children we can only hope we encounter few Roland Martins along the way.
Michelle
LID 10/11/05
January 8th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
We didn’t receive any “discount” during the adoption of our biracial child either. (I wasn’t aware of any?) Maybe that is with the foster care system. My husband and I didn’t want to be foster parents; we wanted to be adoptive parents. I couldn’t bear a child coming into our home and then having to leave. I don’t know the percentage of foster children who are actually legally adoptable, but I think it’s pretty low. It is so true that the foster care system here in America needs a major overhaul. It is birthparent-centered, not child-centered.
Roland Martin reminds me of the Rev. Jesse Jackson (among others). They tend to take the position that whenever there is a problem of any kind, and it involves a significant number of the African American race, well, it must be due to racism.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I’m happy that CNN listened to us, that they admitted to receiving thousands of angry e-mails, that Uygur admitted going over-board, that they showed some of the e-mails they had received, etc..
Roland Martin was absolutely awful !!! What a jerk !!!
RDT xxx.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I think the show stunk just as badly as the last one except for the little bit she allowed the FCC gentleman. Notice she didn’t have him on her “panel.” and she had the show so fragmented with clips that I’m sure she was trying to confuse us enough to make us go away.
I wrote to CNN again, and told Walgreens and Alka Seltzer I was resigning as their customer. I didn’t think I had anything to threaten Cialis with (maybe I should have tried, I won’t read your 50 million pieces of spam?), thankfully infertility does not = a need for that!
;)
wBw
who gets bawdy when she’s angry.
January 8th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Hi
I agree that the e-mails that were presented were great and the statement from Uygur was good. However, I was sadly dissapointed with the final statements tonight. Who let him have the last word???
I am not aware of all of the issues faced by US adoptive parents but can tell you that a DA in Canada is very hard. We have laws that support giving a child to ANY bio family member prior to going to adoptive parents and you can wait for many years for a call from our Childrens Aid Soc.
As for private, it is a talen search and at the end of the day you can spend thousands of dollars on the BM’s legal and social work fees and she can change her mind up to 27 days post placement. I have met several families that have had the child pulled out of thier arms and given back to the BM, not something I or my DH were willing to face.
At any rate, it is too bad that they did not have more discussion around the process and less on the race.
I want to say thank you to all of the folks that took the time to write, we are just back from China with our wonderful daughter and I did not have a chance to jump in until now.
To all of the waiting families, it is worth every moment!!
All the best
January 8th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I have to say. I am shocked and impressed. Not with the CNN show tonight. It wasn’t much better than the show from Friday night. I am shocked that CNN responded at all. I am impressed with the international adoption community. I am proud to be a part of this incredible culture of loving, giving people who choose to adopt, (for whatever reason). This group cared enough, was organized enough, and was determined enough to take a stand, to take some real action. Such action caused one of the most powerful media organizations in the world to take notice, to react. I think CNN’s response was still way off the mark, and I still question CNN’s journalistic integrity. But, I think the international adoption community has tons of integrity. BRAVO!!!!!!!
January 9th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Maybe the emails we sent were counted in lieu of being read.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:44 am
The producer of this segment is Alexandria Weininger. Her email address:
Alexandria.Weininger@turner.com
January 9th, 2007 at 12:54 am
I was very impressed with the collective voice of the IA community. WTG…..There is power in numbers and its the right thing to stand for what you believe in especially if it is for the good. And adoption is all about good. I think Paula Zahn (she came off as a casual observer not a participant) fell very short of offering a sincere apology to the IA community and seemed a bit frightened to me so did Uygur. He just wanted off the hot seat. As far as Martin, if anyone knows racism its him hes the biggest racist on the tube. I still dont know how covering Chinas policies for adopting turned into a racial bashing event accosting the adoptive parents. It was news at its worst in my book.Gee, what some shows wont do for ratings! I think David Youtz did a nice job of representing parents and I wish him and his lovely family much happiness. But the biggest question I have is,,,,,,where do we get the Chinese discounts???????CNN still owes a formal apology, a sincere one this time. But I won’t be watching ever again. Grandma here looking forward to end of month. GL all 9/29ers see you then :) P.S. TY rumor queen you are awesome
January 9th, 2007 at 4:37 am
As a non-American, I am just curious: Why is the National Association of Black Social Workers against Caucasians adopting African American babies? What are their arguments? Are they also against Blacks adopting Caucasian or Asian babies? Are they against all inter-racial adoption?
January 9th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Hello Everyone
I watched Paula last night and it was clear that she was very uncomfortable. She minced her words in a part of the show and very quickly appologized for it. I still do not think that they got the show right. I was very disappointed in the time frame that they gave the adoption topic. I thought it would have had been given more air time. They should have shown more of the emails that they got from their viewers they had alot of valid points with constructive critisism. The emails that they did show were very well written. The two guests they had on the first show all they did was back paddle with the comments they made and show they know nothing about the adoption process as far as I am concerned. I really thought the one lady who made the comment about the adoption process being intrusive and said a few other things hit the nail right on the head it could not have been more truthful and real. I am sorry but I cannot remember the persons name who wrote it but it was well put. I would like to see the emails that they got on their website each and every one of them. Would be interesting but I guarantee I wont be watching Paula any time soon not too impressed with their way of reporting.
Worried mom
January 9th, 2007 at 6:39 am
I didn’t watch the new PZN episode, but from everyone’s reactions to it, I am confirmed in my beliefs that:
1. You can’t expect quality news reporting or substantive debate about ANYTHING from CNN.
2. You can’t expect intellectual honesty from liberal journalists. If it happens, count it as a pleasant surprise.
3. You can’t expect humility from the likes of Roland Martin, who appears intent on putting his photograph on the cover of every single book he writes.
4. Sometimes the most prejudiced and racist people on earth are the very ones who yammer on the loudest about “racial justice”.
I’ve never watched CNN for any length of time except in the airport (and while in China), but I’ve certainly removed them from my list of news sources I get from the web. What’s the use of keeping them around?
I did receive an email back from Solangel Moldanado — maybe a form letter — that, while I didn’t agree with everything she said, was at least respectful, thorough, and contained a real apology. (Not something like “I’m sorry if I offended”.)
I’m going to email Roland Martin again and reiterate my offer to have him spend a week at our house. That man needs to change a few diapers, if you ask me.
-Robert
PS: Our blog is now set up like this one, where you can register to read posts. Go to http://bargersvilleberts.com/wp-register.php.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:09 am
I wish I hadn’t watched either. The only bright spot from this whole episode is how the adoption community was quick to rally.
Donnat, I totally agree with you. It always puzzles me how these media prostitutes (I have a better word but I don’t want to go there) are so quick to give everyone else advice.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:11 am
robert.talbert – Bad reporting is neither a liberal nor conservative phenomenon. Journalists from both ends of the spectrum, and even in the middle, are capable of it.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:52 am
I agree with RQ and so many of the rest of you. I felt Paula stumbled several times. I feel they only did this to fix their reputation not that they feel they missed the mark.
I really wish the issue about how a family comes to this decision (IA) would have been discussed. Many of us have unsuccessfully tried to have children, after going through that many people do not want the chance that the child you’ve waited so long for will be taken away and frankly that is the exact reason we chose IA as opposed to domestic.
I too thought Paula should have challanged Roland instead of giving him another bandstand to spew his misconceptions/assumptions all of them clearly without any research!!!!
I will be honest I have not liked CNN for several years because they never seem to get enough perspectives on issues but this has ended me giving them any more chances to be a news station—relaying the news without bias.
I am so proud of the Adoption community for being so outspoken. What power these combined voices have…
What can we do next???
Cinnamon
January 9th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I think that Paula Zahn did everything possible to seperate herself from the others on her previous show and push the blame for the inappropriate comments on them.
I also think that there was not a clear picture shown of what adopting in the US looks like today. It is a mess. It also needed to be clearly stated that it is difficult for white couples to adopt black children and that the orphans in the middle east are not available for US Adoption.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Yeah, I wasn’t too impressed with last night’s follow-up. I don’t remember any of the names of those on the panel but the guy that adopted the Chinese girls and the woman who was head of the Chinese Community did a good job. However, they really needed to have someone on the panel who adopted but did not represent any particular community or agency. For instance the man who represented the Chinese adoption agency probably did not want to offend those who ran domestic agencies. I”ve seen that happen a time or two.
As a whole, the show was a little better but I was frusterated that they did not show all sides, once again.
It sounds like they were just trying to find find bias where bias did not exist.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:37 am
I am glad to see CNN squirm in response to e-mail pressure enough that they revisited the topic, but it is not enough. The original “panel group” included a radical social progressive who is known to hold extremist anti-American opinions and a so called professor of law that wants to repeal our right to adopt from the country of our chosing. I can not see how such a topic can receive fair coverage from such people. CNN needs to issue a formal statement saying they were wrong to air the segment without someone to speak for the international adoption community as they did a few days later.
Brock
January 9th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Please post a message on Roland S. Martin’s board : http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&user=rolandsmartin
January 9th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Thumbs up to CNN for revisiting the story. I felt proud to be part of the community that forced CNN to try, at least to some extent, to make amends. The gentleman from FCC did a very good job.
Like many of you, I just wish someone had talked about the hurdles and risks in domestic adoption.
Thumbs down to CNN for giving Mr. Martin so much air time. Someone posted that Mr. Martin is not the “brightest bulb” – my thoughts exactly! He doesn’t believe there are any problems with domestic adoption because he’s spoken to several people who’ve successfully adopted within the US? That’s the extent of his insight??!! I’m sorry – I shouldn’t be rude, but, really, that guy is just an idiot.
Jackie
January 9th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Here’s what I posted on Mr. Martin’s board, for what it’s worth:
My Martin, I realize creating racial discord has been a profitable venture for you, but your lack of integrity and honesty is clearly showing. Surely you know that since the 1970s black social workers have fought white couples adopting black children in this country. The white parents I know who have adopted mixed-race children have done so either by finding opportunity for a private adoption by chance, or fighting their state foster care system for many years as case workers insist upon sending children back into hazardous conditions. As an adoptive parent and journalist, I find you unprofessional and offensive. But I guess that’s just your schtick.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:08 am
I’m sure I’m not the only one who caught Paula’s really stupid slip. When she was reading one of the emails, she misread one of the words and said “tainted” Chinese children.
Sheesh!
January 9th, 2007 at 10:15 am
I haven’t had a chance to read all of the comments, but I want to share a point of view that I haven’t seen expressed so far. Like all of you, I was very offended at the picture painted by the show. All of us adopting from China were purported to be adopting based on race and were therefore racist.
I’m going to make a statement that I think most people would be afraid to make. Race did play a role in our decision to adopt from China as opposed to domestically. But I don’t think that makes us racist at all. Our feeling was that we would personally have no problem adopting an AA child, but because we live in the deep South, we knew that such a child would face additional social hardship. Unfortunately, we also have older relatives who are racist. We would have cut those relatives out of our lives, but it didn’t seem fair to adopt a child knowing that by joing our family he/she would have to boycott grandparents, etc. that he/she would otherwise have in another family. We may still have to inact such a boycott if our relatives cannot abide by our insistence that they not spew their racist or anti-homosexual views in front of our child. BUT, we feel that even in this eventuality this would be less heartbreaking than for our child to perhaps internalize the situation and grow up thinking “My parents can’t talk to their father anymore because he hates ME because I’m black.”
AND, all of this was secondary to the fact that we didn’t like the cost and competitive system of domestic adoption and feared open adoption complications. If race was really our number one concern then wouldn’t we have adopted from Russia? The idea that we think a Chinese child will automatically be smarter or prettier is downright insulting. I’d like to think that if we were stupid enough to express such views then we wouldn’t have been approved to adopt in the first place!
Truly the reason we chose China was because of the health factor. I am honest enough with myself to know that we don’t have the funds to deal with a child with special medical needs without me having to go back to work rather than be an at-home mom like we want. Furthermore as a depression sufferer I can admit that while I’d rise to the occasion without fail, it would be very, very hard on me emotionally to deal with special needs.
I’m not racist or cold-hearted. I’m simply honest and willing to take a hard look and reality in order to be the absolute best parent to my little girl.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Here is a link to the transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/08/pzn.01.html
Cut and paste to your browser.
MJD
January 9th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I appreciate your honest post Mercredi. I do believe race plays an issue in some adoptions, not all though, but some. My dh & I chose to adopt from China with a consideration of race. It was a little comforting to know that we were adopting a child from a country where I have ancestors from. And in regards to those panelists theory about race being a factor in the supply & demand of babies available for adoption is true in the sense…there are very few “white” babies vs. “black” babies available for domestic adoption. However, for them to imply simplistically that many couples choose China because they have a fantasy about having a cute porcelain doll who will grow to be talented and smart vs. a fear of adopting an African American baby because the baby could be a “crack-head” is irresponsible. I wrote Roland Martin to tell him that I thought he should have at least apologized for perpetuating stereotypes and admitted ignorance regarding adoption processes.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:35 am
A little of the topic here but just wanted to let you all know that our agency informed us that the CCAA is not going to place all SN children on their website that it was just a rumor but they are considering the “idea” of placing older children or harder to place children on their website but have not done that yet and may not do this it is just an “idea”. This was just a little heads up just in case we have anyone reading this who is on the SN list with their agency hope it helps.
Kat
January 9th, 2007 at 10:43 am
If Mr. Martin continues to use his own narrow definition of “racism”, then, by that definition he is never wrong.
Kudos to Mr. Uygur for at least sounding a little bit contrite.
And kudos to all who wrote, e-mailed and called. Our collective voice was heard.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I think it is unfortunate that the guest from FCC went on so much about “personal choice”. That term, “personal choice” has often been seen as a code word for racism. I think it would have been better to have put even more emphasis on the problems with the process in the U.S. by coming armed with a story or two. People love stories.
I would have adopted an AA baby in a heartbeat if it weren’t for the uncertainty of the process. I know a couple of families with adopted AA kids, all wonderful kids. But the process to get there was too much for me.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:02 am
This is a little off subject but not by much. I was upset that the segment did not touch on the fact that drug use, alcohol use and cigarette use is very low in China compared to the US. Does anyone have any statistics on this or on the number of fetal alcohol sydrome cases here vs China? I would love to have those facts…..
my e-mail is kbdelarosa@yahoo.com Thanks!
Kristen LID 04/24/06 (so far away!!!!!!!)
January 9th, 2007 at 11:04 am
I agree with you completely ratgirl. When asked a direct question about why people choose china over domestic adoption, David’s answer of personal choice, would really leave people open to accepting the sort of uninformed garbage that Mr. Martin was spouting.
It is not a criticism of David…he did really well under the circumstance but it is still unfortunate that he didn’t take that opportunity to talk more about the reasons so many of us avoided domestic adoptions when originally making our choices.
January 9th, 2007 at 11:33 am
OK, so I missed this one too but have read both transcripts. It does leave me feeling dissatisfied. However, you can’t expect much from the “news” programs. The goal is not so much to inform but to inflame. Sensationalism sells, period.
The topic of IA is so complicated there is no way they could even begin to address the many concerns and issues in even an hour long program, let alone a 8-10 minute blip. I agree with what others have written, I am so impressed that they received “thousands of emails).
**To the person above who condemned “liberal journalists” –you’re way off mark here and I believe you should seriously reconsider your comment –I’m not exactly sure what you were striving for but as a person who considers herself a “liberal” I found it a little offensive.
A good test for negative blanket statements is to insert some other adjective to describe the thing of which you speak/write and see if it passes the “smell test” –ie. You can’t expect intellectual honesty from “asian journalists” “white journalists” “religious journalists” “homosexual journalists” “african american journalists” “female journalists” –those don’t sound very good do they???
Susan –who still isn’t out of the review room @#$%^&
January 9th, 2007 at 11:50 am
This debacle bothers me on so many levels, one of which is the way it is pitting domestic adoption against international adoption. As if adoption isn’t complicated enough!
We started out in the China program after researching the various countries and domestic and feeling China was the most stable. And yes we considered race. How many Asians live in our community? Is there an active FCC group? Will our child be accepted at school? Are we prepared to integrate China into our lives through travel, networking and research?
When the wait times lengthened we decided to give domestic a whirl and after seven months and rejection by two birthmothers we matched with a Middle Eastern woman in Florida who was pregnant with a bi-racial baby. Again we considered race. How will our child be accepted? Are there other bi-racial children in our community? I talked to the birthmother on the phone and we traveled to Florida and spent time with her. We liked her and she liked us and now we have Celia.
I hope Celia’s sibling will come from China. If that doesn’t work out, we’ll go to Nepal or Mongolia or Florida or wherever makes sense for us. Show me the controversy?!?
This show is a joke. I suspect CNN needed something for one of its on-air personalities to do and dreamed up this concept, using self-promoting talk show hosts to fan the flames of any issue, controversial or not. The producers were delighted to get so many angry e-mails from adoptive parents. That means their show was successful!
Patti
3/21/06
January 9th, 2007 at 11:52 am
It bothers me to no end that everytime two or more people/groups of different races have a differing opinion it is automatically labeled as “racist”. This title creates a mental barrier within all parties involved and filters out the possibility of either one not only hearing but listening to the views and concerns of the other. I don’t expect this ignorance to be resolved while I am on this planet. I do believe that I can contribute to the elimination of this barrier by avoiding to debate with those who will always resort to calling the other “racist” simply because they have no evidence to back their theories!!!!!!
January 9th, 2007 at 11:56 am
One thing that no one has mentioned is the age of the child you adopt. It seems to me that most people want to adopt a baby or very young child. China and IA in general, provides the opportunity much more easily and reliably. Research I found showed that the average age of a US domestically adopted child is 8 years old.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Let’s view this for what it is. CNN tried to capture a complex issue and blew it for any number of reasons, many of which can be attributed to the nature of contemporary journalism, especially as practiced by TV. No one should be surprised that in a short segment on such a multi-layered issue that it would get so totally messed up. What’s impressive, however, is that they came back so quickly on it. Sure the firestorm directed at them by the IA community got their attention, but realistically, CNN was under no obligation to revisit things. But it did, and unfortunately in doing so, the network compounded its earlier mistakes. Someone in PZ’s show group scrambled to book a spokesman for the IA community, and the guy they got did an adequate job, though he failed or wasn’t given time to articulate many of the issues I see posted here. It was also clear that whoever does research for the show didn’t have enough time, experience or insight to properly prep PZ so she’d ask good questions. (She doesn’t do it all herself, you know.) The result is what it is. CNN could have devoted an hour to this and it still wouldn’t have captured the nuances and context. Few news organizations are capable any more of the kind of depth reporting required here.
In the meantime, let’s hope that those of us with Sept ‘05 and early Oct LIDs get the news on our “China dolls” real soon! I’m thinking it’s never too early to get the early admission application to MIT. Gotta get started!
January 9th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Re the question of “if they do a bad job of representing a topic we know well, how reliable can they be for what we are not familiar with?” —
In my job, I talk to the media a lot (print, radio and TV), and have found that they don’t get the basic facts wrong terribly often, but they do go into stories with an “agenda.” They try to find guests who will support their agenda, and the questions they ask are structured in a way to support their agenda. They also edit together the Q&A and commentary in a way to support their agenda. This results in an artificially shaped story, and one that fails to address the real issues at hand in a fair manner. I have appeared on CNN about half a dozen times (not Paula Zahn’s show though), and they typically use just a few seconds out of a 10-15 minute taped interview, and they are the seconds that best support the agenda they clearly had going into the interview. They don’t get things wrong necessarily, they just fail to adequately address the key issues, or they miss the point entirely and get useless stuff right!
I think that the news media is driven by two main objectives, and this is what their agenda is based on: 1) profit, and 2) entertainment. They simply don’t regard it as their job to provide high-quality, in-depth, accurate news. Instead, they provide what people want to see/hear. In this case, it’s *controversy* over international vs. domestic adoption. Whether it’s legitimate, accurate or fair, it’s what CNN believes people want to watch. People who aren’t adopting just don’t understand, and maybe don’t care, what the difficulties in domestic adoption are. They would rather hear inflammatory, confrontational comments.
It’s a sad commentary on our society, I believe. Sad b/c to a certain extent it’s a reflection of who we are, and truly sad b/c it influences people’s view of the world, even though it’s drivel. It’s a vicious cycle. The best way we can push change is to get our news from credible sources, and not reward the junk news with our viewership.
BTW, in my own experience as a media “source,” I’ve found that NPR does the best job of trying to get the facts straight & present a story that is minimally driven by an agenda. They are certainly not perfect, however. The major print media would come in second place (although some papers & individual journalists do a better job than others), and the TV “news” would come in dead-last.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Well said, JDB, tho as a former print journalist I might take issue with some of your characterizations. But that’s just the point. Trying to whittle down such a large topic into a few hundred words leave little room for nuance and perspective. For example, one might substitute the word story angle for agenda, which puts an entirely different spin on things. And I’d take issue with you on profit motive, at least in the print industry, where profits are made by laying off the people who bring you the news. You’re probably right about that + entertainment when it comes to TeeVee, though. Credibility is always in the eye of the beholder, but I’ve yet to meet a serious journalist that doesn’t try to get it right. Keep in mind that few outsiders understand our issues as well as we do. To expect otherwise is folly.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I just emailed Bill O’Reilly at FOX News. To let Fox know how disappointed we all are at CNN for the coverage of China & Domestic Adoptions.
Maybe some of ya’ll can also write to FOX about it too-and then we can see there take on it as well! It would be nice to have a Network really listen to the community and not form there own opinons to report on.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
rumorslave – THANK YOU! You made my day. I am so proud to be a member of this amazing community, and it made me sad to find “blond” and “liberal” comments on this site.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Honestly, I think at this point we have to hope that the news organizations soon drop the whole “reporting on China adoptions” thing. The CCAA has not been pleased with the media attention. For the most part they have themselves to blame for that (they had to know that the facial deformity thing and the weight thing would draw fire, maybe they just didn’t know how much fire). Still, they aren’t pleased and I hope it quiets down soon.
While I’d love to see a news organization do a story on what is wrong with the domestic adoption laws and just do a brief comment that there are so many international adoptions because of the difficulty with domestic adoptions… I really hope that we don’t see a whole lot more stories on China adoption.
January 9th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Sorry dummerndirt (I think not, BTW!). I didn’t mean to paint all print journalists with a big, bad, negative brush! I talk to a lot that do a fine job, including some from papers that are generally regarded as “partisan” (e.g., the NYT, Wash Times), and even the paper I generally refer to as “the one with small words and lots of pictures” (I’ll let you guess which one I’m talking about here). I think that editors/publishers often have a lot to do with it when a story is poorly done, and it’s not necessarily the journalist’s fault (although there are also a decent number of lazy or flat-out bad journalists too). But I’m going to stick by my use of the word “agenda” here, at least in this particular case — I recognize its negative connotations in comparison with “story angle,” and I think PZ and/or her producers had an “agenda” here. To couch it as a story about adoptions from China, then present a segment that focuses on racism and compares international and domestic adoption without fairly presenting the differences between the two was sloppy, unconscionable, agenda-driven “journalism.”
January 9th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Well, one good thing has come from this…at least our minds have been occupied during the post-referral no rumors lull :-)
Noelle
LID 11/9/05
January 9th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I promise wholeheartedly that I do not want to initiate a debate about Fox News … but I really wouldn’t want to hear what Bill O’Reilly has to say about adoption!
And I agree with RQ – I kind of hope the “Adoption Crackdown” issue fades for a little while. I do think it’s important for Americans to understand the complex issues involved in the country’s systemic failure to properly care for African-American babies in foster care, for example.
But I do hope the spotlight shifts away from the adoption process / restrictions in China.
Selfish, I know, but I just don’t want us to p*ss off the country that will hopefully one day bless me with the honour of raising one (or two!) of its children.
Jackie
LID May 2006
January 9th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I think Mr. Martin is a Oxy Moron in stating he was not being raciest. I remember him stating he was “not racist” because “being a racist means, having power over someone, that
wouldn’t apply.”
Hello goober, you are on National T.V. stating all these comments with no one next to you to rebutt or argue your issues, so you are in power.
Other than that it seemed like a rushed topic to try and calm us adoptive parents down. I’m still a little miffed about the whole thing but some good did come out of it.
I think we all should email Oprah about this and see what her views are. She just might do another show on the real topic of China adoptions in America. She has done a few that I tip my hat off to.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Paula Zahn’s spin on the rules was pretty irresponsible. She made it sound like you now have to look like (and have money like) Angelina Jolie in order to adopt. When really, a BMI under 40 doesn’t mean you have to be skinny, and a net worth of $80,000 doesn’t mean you are rich (not that I’m defending the new rules).
January 9th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
emailing Papa Bear – good one!
January 9th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Okay, so just for my own clarification… my agency, along with other things I have read regarding the “new rules” clearly said “$80,000 in ASSETS” – not net worth. According to the financial form provided by our agency for our homestudy, there is a distinct difference between assets and net worth. Assets is the total value of what you have, net worth is your assets minus your liabilities.
Can someone, RQ?, tell me which it is?
January 9th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I have to agree with RQ about the news attention. It concerns me to hear that the CCAA has not been pleased with all of the attention that this is getting, even though they had to expect some with all of the new rules. I am glad that we got our voices heard on the subject, but it may be best to let things lie for now, rather than stir up any more of the media. The last thing we want to do is upset the CCAA. I would rather they focus on the tasks in front of them, which is matching children to families, instead of watching to see what the media has to say about them.
January 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
It would be silly to do it as just assets, people could just take out a loan for the amount they are short and put the money in the bank and call it an asset.
No, it is Net Worth.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I don’t think ya’ll took my post the right way…I said International & Domestic adoptions…not China specific adoptions.
I think the world needs to be educated on ALL forms of adoptions-the good and bad. Maybe more families would decide to adopt in ALL ways if the correct information got out.
That was what I emailed O’Reilly, that the public needs to know how all adoptions work, before any decisions are made.
They should be aware that all adoptions are difficult in some way and that families don’t take it lightly.
I’m sorry to upset some of you, but this will continue to be reported on-might as well try to get the facts out there as it happens.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
No, I understood what you are saying. I am just of the opinion that there has been enough media attention for a while and it would be best if things began to quiet down now.
I’m not happy with the way CNN “fixed” things, but I’m not suggesting we try to get it on the air again, either.
I have sent my letters off to the advertisers again, letting them know that I hope they rethink their position on sponsoring this kind of program. I’m not going to bother with CNN this time, though. They are a lost cause in my book, and I will not be trusting them to bring me accurate news in the future.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I have to back up WaitingForStork a bit on the issue of China adoption/International Adoption being reported on regardless of situations.
I have to say that just in the years that we had been ‘in the process’ and even now since we’ve been home with Autumn, we’ve run across people who tell us about how they’ve heard or that their own ideas of China Adoption is that it’s the “in” thing and how that IA is just so “popular” with people. In addition, we’ve always had the question asked of us “why not adopt from the US?” I’m sure alot of you all can relate to this as well.
The point being…there are people out there who are interested in IA and/or Domestic adoption (regardless if you live in the US, Canada, Europe, etc) and there are people out there who are probably not so much interested, but are exposed to it because of acquaintances, friends, and such that are adopting or have adopted, as well as news stories and programs such as this. These people do need to have the facts and the correct information and/or general background about IA and domestic adoption and not the “information” from some panel of people who really don’t have a clue and are just offering opinions and “making fun of” what they interpret as motives of adoptive families.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
It’s true that the facts need to be known. Unfortunately, we can’t rely on the media to always communicate those facts accurately. For whatever their reasons, (ratings, shock value, or simply bad research) they will place whatever spin on the story that they want to. And because of that, it only puts a bad light on the process or on those wanting to become parents. I don’t think there is any easy answer. Bad press can spin out of control, and I would prefer to not see that happen.
January 9th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Hey Guangdong,
I noticed no one answered your question, so I’ll give it a shot. (The question was why the NABSW opposes the adoption of AA children by white parents.) The belief is that being AA in America is so singularly difficult that only being raised by strong, proud AA parents gives an AA child the chance at a healthy self-image. In addition, AA children raised by white parents would identify with the white power structure rather than with their own people.
The position has been modified somewhat to say that such adoptions can be considered as a last resort.
Not supporting it, just reporting it.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Don’t want to drag this out any longer than should be, but did anyone read the blog post from Roland Martin below?
What a hypocrit.
BTW, I noticed he has removed his message board. I wonder why? ;)
————Blog Post —————–
http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/?p=12
It’s amazing to listen to a lot of these folks complain about Oprah spending $40 million of HER own money on a school in South Africa. Just the other day, I sent $100 to the Texas A&M University Former Students Association. Is somebody going to tell me I should have sent that $100 bucks someplace else?
What’s even more galling is that we have schools in the inner-city that don’t have the same resources as schools in the suburbs, yet we don’t have the same level of concern about that. Oh, sure, it would be nice if Oprah built a similar school in the United States, but if God has led her to bless these young women in South Africa, shut up!
January 9th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
so if the NABSW opposes white families adopting black children because of those reasons (which I suspected as much) and feels that this point of view is the right one and doesn’t feel that it is a racist qualifier, AND if Mr. Martin and others believe that there are thousands of IA families adopting because of skin colour, stereotypes, etc. then there should NEVER be any second guessing or questioning of the motives of the adoptive families. period. you can’t have it both ways.
come on, give us a break. the NABSW is basically saying that really no one other than black families are qualified to raise a black child. And part of the thing on PZ Friday was that you can’t judge who’s going to be a good parent/family based on how they look and so forth. This followed by the crap Mr. Martin spewed. Some people need to look in the mirror and do some soul searching before they start spouting off about what is racism and what’s not. He wasn’t ‘breaking down sterotypes’ and racism, he was attaching stereotypes and racism as reasons we adoptive parents adopt.
sorry, just had to watch last night’s show and re-read the transcripts from Friday’s show. ARGH!
January 9th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
And if they really think we’re racists, why would they want us to adopt black children? Wouldn’t that be a colossally bad idea? Or is it just that they want us to feel bad for having adopted Chinese children? What’s useful about that?
January 9th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Although he took his message board down, you can still email dear Roland at:
roland@rolandsmartin.com
January 9th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
this is what I wrote to him:
I agree with you on the point you make here. If Oprah wants to send her own money to S. Africa then that’s her business. I have to admit though, that I don’t understand where you were trying to come from on the subject of International Adoption/China Adoption on both Friday 1/5 and Monday 1/8’s Paula Zahn show. To say what you have here about Oprah and her decision after saying you don’t understand why people are adopting from China and other countries instead of U.S. children (particularly black children) is at it’s most simplest level, hypocritical.
I am a father of an adopted Chinese girl, in fact my wife and I just recently returned. This is our first child. We are white, but you know what? that is not important. We, as many many other families, didn’t look at China to adopt because of any “stereotype”, nor did we adopt from China because we’re white and the children are ‘light-skinned’. We adopted from there because we researched the overall processes, costs, and requirements of China, other countries, and the U.S.
Are there families out there that make some of these decisions to adopt, as you put it, based on stereotypes? probably. However, I can tell you, and if you ask your friends and acquaintances as well, that during the earlier stages before a family can ever submitt their final paperwork into the “process”, there are interviews with social workers and such in order to report to state government organisations that these parents are fit to adopt. I suspect that if a family were to say to these social workers that they were adopting a Russian child because they are white and look like them (in other words wouldn’t “stick out”) it wouldn’t go over too well. Is that really what some people here in the U.S. think? sure. We’ve all unfortunately had a lot of years here where skin colour and how one looks have been grafted onto our way of thinking.
That being said, it is interesting to note that the NABSW (Nat’l Assc of Black Social Workers) has the position of opposing the adoption of black children by white families unless it’s a “last resort”. I’m not making this up. It is fact. If, as was brought up on the Friday Paula Zahn show, a family should not be judged as to being a good family or not based on looks, etc. then how can the NABSW justify this viewpoint? Is the belief that being black in America is so singularly difficult that only being raised by strong, proud black parents gives a black child the chance at a healthy self-image. In addition, black children raised by white parents would identify with the white power structure rather than with their own people? I just do not understand how this viewpoint can be justified…nor to be rationalised as anything other than racism. If the NABSW is supported in this, than how can you, me, or anyone else question the decisions of adoptive parents everywhere?
To be honest, Mr. Martin, I was alittle disappointed that the topic was ever discussed on that show. It was done without true research and support by both sides of the issue. Basically, Friday’s show was just the airing of yours and the other panelist’s viewpoints and opinions. It was done as a generalised and vague explanation of the decisions made not only by the Chinese government in the developement of their regulations regarding inter-country adoption, but also the by reasoning and decisions made by the adoptive community. It was done to point out stereotypes. The issue of China’s Central Government and their “new” regulations is not about a family who looks good gets to adopt, it’s about making sure that the children are placed in a good home. It’s not about the family being wealthy (my wife and I both work and are definitely not “living it up”) and it’s not about the family having to be thin. Do we happen to know what a 5ft 4in 40 year old woman with a BMI of 39 (40 is the ‘new’ limit) looks like? Yes…definitely not Kate Moss. Each of these regulations are more profound in their reasoning than just being rich, thin, and good-looking. I definitely think it would have been more meaningful and productive to explore and discuss the ability to financially support and be medically sound enough to support (at ages 30-50) the adoption of an infant and even more so a Special Needs child. I understand that you didn’t have anything to do with the show as far as the topics discussed, but I hope you can understand that the way this topic was handled did a great disservice to not only the adoptive community, but those families who are looking into adoption as a way to fulfill their family.
I do believe we need to address the issues of stereotypes and racism in this country, but to point out and/or create something that is not necessarily there…especially concerning a subject that it doesn’t pertain to will not help in this cause but will only feed the flames.
thank you and peace be with you.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Here’s a link to to Roland Martin’s message board: http://b4.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?&user=rolandsmartin
LID 6.13.06
January 10th, 2007 at 6:59 am
I know with a the hoopla (southern term) going on everyone seems to be paranoid about the CCAA’s thoughts on this. What you all are missing is not the CCAA’s concern it’s about us adopting (period) from China. Our reasoning for all this media attention is not the new regulataions but the sole reason behind International adoption.
1. Some states have HUGE wait times for a “healthy infant girl” that has no suggestions to sexual or physical abuse. Our wait time could have exceeded a 5 year wait.
2. The sperm and egg donor (birthparents) have no chance of coming back into the picture years down the road demanding visitation rights or wanting the child back.
3. The expense that some go through here in America just to adopt is outragious. 35k to 50k and then paying back the state you adopted from on child rearing expenses.
4. Most International orphaned children have a lower standard of living conditions that even our children her in America would never see. Example being no clean or purified running water or proper waste disposal. Some wash, drink and bath in the very water outside the doors of the home.
I could go on but I hope these examples I clarifies the point I am making. It’s not what China’s regulations and requirements are changing to, it’s what the American community hears about our sole reasoning behind a International adoption verses a Domestic adoption and I feel this is the point you all are forgetting.
I honestly do not think that a Chinese offical is sitting by a computer or the T.V./newspaper looking at what is going on. They have better things to do and a country with issues of their own to worry about.
Relax – but don’t loose site of the real issues. You should never sweep defending your reasonings for adopting under the rug. All that does is tell the public that they are right and it sends a negitive message to your child about the real and true reasoning behind their exsistance here in America.
Off my soap box now,
January 10th, 2007 at 7:10 am
I have been told by multiple sources that once the media attention started that the CCAA started having meetings about the media attention. And, even more troubling, the CCAA was called to meetings at the Ministry of Civil Affairs about the media attention. A lot of time was spent deciding how to respond to the media attention.
Personally, I’d rather the CCAA spend time making matches and signing off on them instead of going into meetings about how to respond to media attention.
I understand what ya’ll are saying. And at some future time it might be nice for the media to do some reports on the state of domestic adoptions and point out that so many people go overseas to adopt because of poor domestic adoption laws. I just don’t think that right NOW is the time for the media to do that.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Well said, RQ. Let’s focus on getting babies matched with their new loving families!
January 10th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Personally-even if they tack on several more months for media attention…we have 1, 2 or 3 years to wait anyway!
This is our first child-we went through 5 years of ttc, 2 m/c’s and 1 year of paperwork to get here. We were lucky to get DTC before the changes….we won’t be able to go back for a little sister like we had planned.
Might as well try to get some laws passed in America and other countries NOW so that maybe we can have a second child in the future…made just a little bit easier though media attention.
I highly doubt that China would just stop all adoptions because of some publicity anyway…otherwise this site would be primary target! Don’t you think? And yes, I believe agencies monitor this site-and word could get back to China. How is that different from any other broadcast?
Why not try to make things better for adoption in all countries by getting the word out? Besides, looks like domestic will be a good second adoption for us now or maybe Ethiopia even though that will be a LONG wait too?
I just don’t get the hush-hush fear. Am I missing something?
January 10th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
It’s not hush hush fear. Not at all. I just think that those two shows are enough.
And the MoCA has been upset with the media attention. They have never (to my knowledge) been upset with internet attention, but they have been upset by the news stories. It is their own fault, I’m not saying it isn’t. But I just don’t think that stirring the pot anymore is going to accomplish anything.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Okay call me stupid but what is MoCA? I have never heard that term but I have just recenttly started reading your blog so I might have missed this.
January 10th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Okay I got it now Ministry of Civil Affairs. I’m a little slow this evening.
I know of someone who was getting sworn in today (China) and CNN was there filming so I doubt this will just go away.