Paula Zahn. Again.
Thursday’s show
She’s a proud parent now, but if she wanted to do it again, she couldn’t. Will strict overseas adoption standards rule you out too? Tune in Thursday at 8 p.m. ET on “Paula Zahn Now.”
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/paula.zahn.now/
My first instinct is for us to write emails pointing out that China can create any rule that they wish to create, and that she is so far off the mark in trying to demonize China that it is quite sad. While the China Adoption community certainly does not agree with all of the rules that China has put forth, we realize that China is a sovereign nation and that they, and only they, get to decide who they feel is worthy of parenting one of their precious babies.
I’d like to tell her that we feel that twice now she has let the China adoption community down with bad facts and guests who did not know what they were talking about. We do not look forward to seeing her do this again.
What do ya’ll think of that? Anyone have a better idea?
Part of me wants to just ignore her and pretend the show is not on, while part of me feels the need to know what she is saying.
She is obviously not capable of getting a story right, I wish she’d just leave it alone.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I think she is thrilled with all the attention from the first show, and the ‘demand’ for a second show. More attention= higher ratings. She most likely thinks she has hit a goldmine and wants to keep digging! Best to ignore her.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I am with 2littleroses: my own opinion is that I would leave it alone and ignore it; the more attention we give to the show; the more she will talk about things she has no ideas about… I know the CCAA can figure out that we don’t have any control over what she does, but why give her the motivation to continue with her inaccurate reporting…..I have no idea what she could be thinking of-but I don’t think its anything worth hearing; at least with regard to IA … just my opinion…
January 11th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
2littleroses:
Couldn’t agree with you more. Her ratings were probably higher than they’ve ever been. I say, its probably best not to even watch it, but I feel compelled. I’m definitely not going to be emailing anyone, I’m tired of the attention to the subject by someone who obviously cares so little about the actual issues involved.
Susan
January 11th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
When it comes to Paula Zahn and IA, it’s like a train wreck you want to look away but you look at it anyway
January 11th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I just sent her another e-mail. I can’t believe she can’t just leave us alone. What have we done that is so bad to draw all this negative attention? It really ticks me off she is being so aggresive to our communtiy. I mean seriously, are there not any other stories she can talk about now?
January 11th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
I’m going to go back to ignoring her and the network she works for. It’s all about ratings and if we don’t tune in, there is no incentive to run their blather. If I thought they were really concerned about getting the story straight I would write a letter but sadly I don’t think they care.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I agree! I don’t watch CNN and wouldn’t have known about either PZ show except for the notice given amongst the adoption community. I think the first mistake was that she tabbed the story under “discrimination,” as if China doesn’t have the right to establish criteria. At this point I’d rather she just invite an agency rep to (factually) present the new rules and be done with it. You wouldn’t believe the number of people who now say to me, “Oh, I hear China is making it harder to adopt.” Unfortunately, China has the right to do so, even though it means my husband and I won’t qualify after May 1.
CJ
LID 10/10/05 (next???)
http://www.bringhomebabyk.chinastork.com
January 11th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I’m all for ignoring too, but that old adage – “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer..” Keeps running through my thoughts. Not that I think CNN is the enemy so to speak, but think we need to be aware of what mis-information is being spread to the general public so that when our loved ones and ‘not so’ loved ones approach us with things they have heard on the news we can set them straight!
Ugh!
Lynn LID 3/22/06
January 11th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
I too agree with everyone. I will not be watching. We can always read the transcript to find out what was said. The more viewers, the more ratings. Period. I say we boycott her and CNN for letting it continue. In my experience that seems to get people’s attention most of all. I also agree that they don’t seem to care what the letters say. I can’t figure out if they even read the emails. Maybe they just counted how many there were, and went from there?
January 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
This is a difficult choice- to watch or not to watch? I think that curiosity will win with this one, for me anyways. Perhaps those that watch can send them an e-mail afterwards assuring them that the spike in ratings was not out of devotion to Paula or her reporting abilities, but out of a strong maternal/fraternal instinct to protect and defend those in our IA community from the rating and money hungry newscasters looking for their ” big career defining moment”………………
January 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I agree about ignoring her at this point. I think she is just trying to be sensationalist now because of all the fervor. Unfortunately nearly all network news these days is about ratings and NOT AT ALL about informing the viewers. That’s why we always get scare tactics or “controversial” topics rather than real news.
All we can do to fight the darkness is put out as much light as possible. Thanks RQ for doing just that!
Bright blessings,
Mayken
January 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I will be pretty P.O’d if she uses my original hate mail to her and takes the part which says that we will no longer qualify. Many of us wrote letters of disappointment to her and mentioned our personal situations. If she takes it out of context, I will FREAK!
Paula Zahn is a freak. I wish she would either get the whole issue right or leave it the hell alone!
O.K. vent is done. Sorry.
:)
January 11th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I agree with the other posters. I think all this attention is artificially inflating her ratings. While I’m very curious to watch I think I’ll skip it and read the transcripts and hear what those who watched it think. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times – ain’t gonna happen! I am thinking CNN is about as reputable as the Enquirer.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
My two cents, is the media could careless about the children. They are out for ratings, period. They will twist things just to suit what they feel will promote themselves, and honestly I don’t think it is doing the adoption community any good having her talk about China adoption. Maybe, if it was a different reporter, I don’t know of any I would want covering my story. For me, just leave me alone and let me adopt my children.
Also has anyone put thought to the fact that the CCAA doesn’t like attention. The Chinese culture as a whole is very private. I’m sure this doesn’t look good for any of use. The rules are changed. There is nothing we can do, China has the power. Lets not p-ss them off more.
It is my belief to ignore her and the show. She feels she has lacked on to something that will bring her ratings and sorry fokes the emails that you are sending her are only adding fuel to her flame, so to speak. She is probably trying to think of another angle for her next show.
Put your energy to better use…go shopping!!!! for baby clothes!!!
Sorry if I’ve offended anyone…the waits getting to me
Hope
January 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
This isn’t easy. I won’t be watching, because after the first two debacles, I found myself too consumed with frustration. Of course, I sent emails after both programs. CNN thrives on controversy, so for me I think I’ll refrain from either watching or commenting on it, but it won’t be easy.
It’s tough to strike a balance between letting CNN know our our disappointment and adding fuel to a fire. It’s my opinion that these TV programs could potentially harm international adoption because of the level of noise.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
cath,
I really think they would need your permission before using part of your letter on the air.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I wish I could’ve stayed up later to watch the PBS program “China from the Inside” last night. The President’s speech pushed it out until past my bed time. I hope PBS puts the shows out on DVD. I muscled about 40mins and what I saw was very interesting. Looks like they’ll be on again around Jan 17th/18th. (You can punch in your zip on the pbs website for the listings.) Waaaay better than anything Paula Zahn could put together.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I don’t want to do anything to increase their ratings and encourage advertisers to continue to buy into her garbage. I’m am going to just wait and see the transcripts. Otherwise, we are just encouraging them to keep up the poor reporting.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
If you use their form to send an email you are agreeing that they can use your email. I’m assuming they feel the same way about emails sent the other way, too.
I think I’ve decided that I will probably watch the show, and I will take note of the sponsors. If I am unhappy with the show then I will send correspondence to the sponsors, not CNN.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
vtmama,
I watched that show last night, they do have the video available to 29.95. Its a 4 part series, the second part was about women in China and all of the pressures placed on them by family and society, kind of sad.
DaddyOOO
LID 10/25/05
January 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
My 2 cents worth is…
She’s probably gotten better ratings since she started the whole series. Whether we wanted to or not, we helped her out if we watched.
I am personally planning to ignore her.
Golden Rule of Television: If people aren’t watching, it won’t be on.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I’m not sure exactly what time it’s on, but if I’m home, I’ll likely watch. I’d like to think that CNN will be a little more careful in how it presents the story, given the fall-out from last Friday’s show, but CNN’s sad follow-up efforts (Monday night’s show) suggest this segment won’t be any more balanced.
RQ – I’d be inclined to e-mail her again, but I’m the type of person who finds it difficult to just let something go when it boils my blood!
No doubt, I’ll be following up with Ms. Zahn after tonight!
Jackie
LID May 2006
January 11th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Oh, sorry, I see it’s on at 8pm. I’ll be home watching it.
Jackie
January 11th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
well, i received a repsonse from bayer/alkaseltzer telling me how difficult it is to know about everything they sponsor. well, i still think the way to put the bullseye on PZs forehead is to go after her sponsors. this was my response to bayer:
I fully understand that Ms. Jones. I’m a college professor and have done extensive work with start-up companies, so I’m well-versed in how ads work. However, now that Bayer knows that Paula Zahn is deliberatly encouraging hatred of one group and encouraging her guests to spout racist comments, in fact stacking her panel with racists, it seems terribly odd to me that Bayer would make the business decision to continue supporting her. Even if I had my business continue to support CNN because it was a lucrative network, I would certainly insist my ads be pulled from her show lest my company and products be tainted with the racist bent of her show. “At Bayer, we support racist programming.” Hmmm, that seems to me a broad brush that I would not want my company painted with. Have you seen panelist Mr. Martin in action I have to wonder. I would not want anything in my life associated with that man. I really find it curious that Bayer does not mind being grouped with him.
In addition, we all know the power of sponsors to dictate programming, so I’m sure that were Bayer interested in not having clearly racist programming aired it could, in fact influence that.
I can ony assume, then, from your response, that Bayer knowingly supports racism, at least tacitly, and, as we know from our US history, even tacit approval of racism is insidously harmful. Do you see the problem? Bayer now knows that PZ’s show, and panel, and bent, are all racist, yet, Bayer coninues to help pay for that programming. Well, as I am about to become a multi-racial family, I must pass that information on to my family, friends, associates, and the Chinese adoption community in the USA, which numbers into the hundreds of thousands, and the Asian-American community, whose numbers are much higher. I hope Bayer and its stockholders will understand when we do not purchase your products anymore. Luckily for us, today pain relievers and the like are a dime a dozen, making Bayer less than a necessity in any of our lives or buying decisions.
i think scaring her sponsers silly is the best way to shut her up.
just mho~
wBw
January 11th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
This may be an off the wall question but if I Tivo her does it count as watching as far as the ratings are concerned, if so I am not so sure I will Tivo. Thanks anyone who may know this answer. I am very disappointed in CNN and really that is all I feel I can say without being completely RUDE. Thank you all for your help.
K
January 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I chose not to watch the shows for the reasons stated quite eloquently by members here.
To answer RQ question as to leave it alone or contact CNN to request that CNN leave this topic alone. As RQ pointed out ccaa can establish their rules and negative press, in my opinion, can do no good, and potentially harm.
I am concerned that ccaa sees this negative press on their rules and thinks CNN is able to appropriately represent the china adoption community.
The china adoption community has more to lose than CNN with the negative press. And it only makes it more difficult on an already longer than expected wait
thanks
cmc
January 11th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I plan to boycott as well although I do want to know what happens so I will get my info here. They think they hit a big audience and are guaranteed the ratings. Because RQ will watch and report to us, I will use that to determine if I even want to read the transcript. Remember they will be tracking clicks on the website as well as ratings. The intro already smells like a sensationalized story. If I am wrong and reports are good, I will read the transcript and perhaps respond.
I was just wondering if I would be too tempted to watch and just remembered that the dish is now blocked by the addition just added to the house. Unless I plan to get on the roof tonight, I won’t be seeing anything. That makes it easier. :) I was so bummed to miss the China show on PBS last night.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I plan to boycott as well, but I do want to know what happens so I will get my info here. They think they hit a big audience and are guaranteed the ratings. Because RQ will watch and report to us, I will use that to determine if I even want to read the transcript. Remember they will be tracking clicks on the website as well as ratings. The intro already smells like a sensationalized story. If I am wrong and reports are good, I will read the transcript and perhaps respond.
I was just wondering if I would be too tempted to watch and just remembered that the dish is now blocked by the addition just added to the house. Unless I plan to get on the roof tonight, I won’t be seeing anything. That makes it easier. :) I was so bummed to miss the China show on PBS last night.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
DaddyOOO –
Thanks for the info! Is it a repeat, then? (I think TG had recommended one that was a “buy only” series awhile ago. I wonder if it’s the same series.) I rented another series off of Netflix that I really thought was well done. It helped me wrap my head around their recent history and why the current China gov’t is the way it is. I’ll try to support these types of features instead of the sensationalized story of the moment.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Can we not get it through Zahn’s thick skull that China HATES all this attention to their IA program?
Sorry if somebody already said this don’t have time to read the whole thread. Back to work really p!$$ed off.
LID May 10, 2005
January 11th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Well it looks like my source is right. I told you all that she was not over. CNN was there this week. We will just have to see what she has to say. Hopefully she won’t be sticking her foot in her mouth again.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I won’t be watching tonight. My DH said earlier in the week that we should let it go and wait for it to die down. Like others have said we don’t want to feed her ego by keeping the ratings up. We’ll be too busy celebrating our youngest son’s 8th birthday. Much more fun!
January 11th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I’m not planning on watching. Tonight, is Ugly Betty & Grey’s Anatomy…and I don’t want to waste anymore of my time on Paula Zahn’s coverage of the regulations.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I am having on-going emails with two sponsors, Walgreens and Bayer. I just sent a similar response to both. Here is my Walgreens version:
Dear Mr. Bernauer:
I give you credit, sir, for the nicest, most civilised sponsor response I’ve received yet. And, as a professor with a lot of experience working with start-up companies, I understand you, because I understand how the advertising business functions quite well. But, you see, a problem persists for us all in this situation.
Now that Walgreens knows that Paula Zahn is deliberatly encouraging hatred of one group and encouraging her guests to spout racist comments, and, in fact stacking her panel with racists, it seems terribly odd to me that Walgreens would make the business decision to continue supporting her. Even if I had my business continue to support CNN because it was a lucrative network, I would certainly insist my ads be pulled from her show lest my company and products be tainted with the racist bent of her show. “At Walgreens, we support racist programming.” Hmmm, that seems to me a broad brush that I would not want my company painted with. Have you seen panelist Mr. Martin in action I have to wonder. I would not want anything in my life associated with that man. I really find it curious that Walgreens does not mind being grouped with him.
In addition, we all know the power of sponsors to dictate programming, so I’m sure that were Walgreens interested in not having clearly racist programming aired it could, in fact influence that.
I can ony assume, then, from your response, that Walgreens, at least, now that you’ve been alerted to the situation, knowingly supports racism, at least tacitly, and, as we know from our US history, even tacit approval of racism is insidously harmful. Do you see the problem? Walgreens now knows that PZ’s show, and panel, and bent, are all racist, yet, Walgreens coninues to help pay for that programming. Well, as I am about to become a multi-racial family, I must pass that information on to my family, friends, associates, and the Chinese adoption community in the USA, which numbers into the hundreds of thousands, and the Asian-American community, whose numbers are much higher. I hope Walgreens and its stockholders will understand when we do not patronize your stores anymore.
It may also interest you to know, Mr. Bernauer, that PZ is going to do it again this week. She is a planning yet another attack on Asian-Americans and adoptive families this Thursday. She is now a dog that has a tasty bone, and she does not appear to want to give it up. Once again Walgreens will be associated with her racism. In addition, her continued focus on Chinese Adoption could cause China to close its doors. Do you want your company to be responsible for taking away the children from thousands of American parents? Or for leaving thousands of children to languish in orphanages? I really appreciate you taking your time to respond to me, but I truly think it’s a poor business decision to continue your association with her program.
I wish you all good luck, and I fear you will need it.
Sincerely,
I think that’s our best bet: relentlessly dog the sponsors.
;)
wBw
January 11th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
RQ, I love the idea about replying to CNN’s sponsors. I think that would be a very powerful reaction from the IA community.
Although I totally agree that this spotlight should be turned off, and for that matter should never have been turned on in the first place with regards to our adoptions. Does everyone think perhaps that the CCAA understands how ruthless the press can be? I am hoping that at this stage we will not receive any negative thoughts or actions from them. Hopefully they respect us as completely separate from the negative reports and those that are responsible for them.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Well, I do understand everyone’s anger, but I personally think the show is getting an undeserved hard time. I agree they made a mistake in the original show…the producer(s) selected panelists for their shock value it seemed…and Paula was not on the ball enough to rein them in when things got out of hand.
In the second show I think they did a decent job of presenting the other side of the story and I felt Paula did an ok job of challenging the original panelists to defend their views.
As for the third show….well if CNN thinks this is a topic that people are interested in…the china adoption community has no one to blame for that than themselves. It is a bit unrealistic to tell CNN that they should just shut up about it now.
Also from the promo it sounds like they are going to have someone on that has adopted from China…is that not what so many people on here wanted them to do…have an actual adoptive parent on? Yes it seems like they have probably found someone who has nothing to lose anymore and will probably say things that will make us all cringe, I am just not sure that makes it wrong to report.
I know this may be controversial, but I do not think CNN is under any moral or ethical obligation to not air stories like this just to protect those who are or may want to adopt from China. Do we all wish they would leave it alone…probably. Should they? I am not so sure.
As an adoptive parent that qualified once to adopt from China, but does not qualify now for no other reason than one of us had a previous marriage (15 years ago now), I will be watching.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
waitbabywait, well done!!!
January 11th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
ooops! sorry i posted twice. i appear to be having browser problems!
:(
wBw
January 11th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Well, she’s struck a nerve and with all the coverage it’s getting (from her), she and her producers realize that it’s a ratings winner. No doubt, she’s received thousands of e-mails and attention from her “coverage”. The networks receive overnight ratings for what they air. If the numbers weren’t good…they wouldn’t be following it up. The best solution may be not to watch at all.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I plan to watch and see what she says. After the first show’s debacle and the big attacks, and their partially lame, partially redeeming follow-up show, I hope that they will take some time to present the real facts as they are. It isn’t like the reports of the CCAA changes haven’t been on many other news programs and so forth. On one hand China might not like the attention, but on the other, they might have implemented the rules in part to show the world that they don’t need a lot of international adoptive parents coming in to adopt their children, so media attention showing that certain people will no longer qualify could be part of their goal.
Finally, the program might, at least it is my hope that it would, actually encourage international adoption as a whole. While we might not like to admit it, the new regulations will cut many of us out of China adoptions. If we want to adopt we might have to go elsewhere, and there are many many children in the world that need loving homes. While I personally have been so grateful for my beautiful Chinese daughter and I am patiently waiting for #2, there is no reason that I can’t open my heart to a child from another country if I wanted a larger family. How does that saying go? When one door closes another one opens…
I hope my post doesn’t incite any bad feelings here, I’m just trying to see if perhaps there can’t be some other way to look at it than as all negative.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
If another personality were doing this I would be interested in it, and would have watched it without considering whether to or not.
However, Paula Zahn has shown such irresponsibility in her reporting that I just dread having to watch her get it so very wrong again.
News organizations can report on whatever they wish to report on, that’s not the issue here. My personal issue is that this particular “reporter” appears to be the TV equivalent of the National Enquirer and I’d just as soon the Enquirer leave the subject alone as well.
January 11th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I think I’ll tune into a re-run of SNL. In my opinion, they both have the same substance, on SNL is somewhat witty and entertaining.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I also wonder if the China would find the attention to be positive. Everyone is hearing that the program has been so successful that many people want to apply – this is true. Now the message is that they can be much more selective when approving applicants regardless of if you agree with the criteria. People at the same time will get the impression that the program is so successful that there are fewer babies who need families – we don’t know if this is true, but we do know that there are fewer paper ready babies. I think it makes China look like they have done a good job. Even if they tend to shy away from the attention, I am not so sure that they would find it negetive. And there is a chance that this is what they want.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
I am with you there RQ…my wife told me that this really is Paula’s schtick…to enflame and incite. I don’t have high hopes that this next show will be much better.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
While I think the first follow up was a combination of trying to ’save face’ and the almightly advertising dollar, I think this same attempt is CNN and Paula, milking this cow one more time…
anyone else’s udders a bit painful at this point? Sorry to be blunt but I just keep looking at Paula and CNN and all I see is the glare off the dollar signs in their eyes.
Udderly ridiculous.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I may be the lone dissenter here…but staying quiet and trying to give China Adoption good PR has gotten us where?
- Long Delays
- Secrecy from China
- Tight-Lipped Agencies
I for one don’t agree with the new rules nor excuses for the delays.
You guys sound too “Stay the Course”
I’m sorry RQ, but I can’t agree with you on the sovereignty thing either…its a 2-way deal here and there is absolutely nothing wrong in this half having some influence.
There is an old saying that if you borrow money, the bank owns you…but if you borrow a lot of money, you own the bank.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I agree with some of the thought processes that go the way of letting PZ be because her and CNN could milk this for awhile. Bugging the sponsors may work and some may pull their sponsorship, but there’d be others waiting to take their place.
The only thing that bugs me is that apparently this topic and the topic of China adoptions in general will not “go away”. I think we as a China adoption community need to make sure people get the facts straight. There are lots of people out there not only looking into adopting from China but other countries as well and I can’t imagine how damaging it might be for a family to talk to friends or relatives and hear “well we saw this program the other night and they said…..”
The CCAA has to know about all the attention…and especially with the Olympics coming up. There’s been tons of programming by Discover, PBS, etc documenting China’s rise and change so they’re fully aware of all the media attention they’re getting…including about adoption. I mean, the largest percentage of IA from the USA is from China.
Perhaps we can ignore PZ and/or get CNN’s sponsors to realise what they’re doing…but you figure the higher the ratings, the better it is for the sponsors as well. Maybe we need someone with actual jounalistic integrity to do a big piece and just do it right…set the record straight as it were. I’m thinking more people would believe and trust in the information from someone like that instead of Paula Zahn.
just my buck-fifty. :)
January 11th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
p.s. gotta run…get the little one out and about…
oh, and if I could track down Tom Brokaw about this…….hmmmmm
January 11th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
My Mom saw these and said, Why don’t they at least do a story like Lisa Ling did? At least her story showed the adoption process through those that knew, an adoptive family. As for Paula Z, I think she did such a bad job that she just simply does not have a clue. It felt like I was watching a tabloid show the first time around!
January 11th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I think we have to consider the source. CNN is not a reliable source of information. You might say not very new’s worthy! So, if you whatch, you up their ratings, if you don’t, then your left wondering what is said. What difference does it make, we all will still have to address the issues discussed weather we watch or not. But I’m with those of you who think it’s all about ratings. Personally I like FOX better, much more reliable. Hey, we should ask them to to a China Adoption issue. How would that look on CNN! LID Nov., 29, 05
January 11th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I’m not clear if we are the bank, or the borrower in that analogy.
But honestly, CCAA has stated repeatedly that it does not like attention. My agency warns us that negative attention could ultimately cause the CCAA to decide to shut down the program.
They, and our agencies may seemed tight-lipped, but they are far more open now then they used to be, complaining about wanting exact time lines isn’t going to cause the CCAA to give them. (I’m of the “The CCAA doesn’t really know” camp.)
Kids are gifts, not rights, and whatever the CCAA says goes, and if we, as prospective parents, can’t simply be grateful for the gift of a Chinese child to parent, then I DO fear that the CCAA may well just decide “well, no outside adoptions”, and while that would be horrible for us, it would truly be tragic for the children.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Hey TG…..the big problem with a factually correct telling of the adoption world….IA and otherwise…is that it would be boring…and TV news isn’t all that interested in boring. The factual part of the second PZ show was actually quite well done i think and there haven’t been any complaints about it that I can recall. It is the spin that TV seems to need…the controversy really…that is what drives ratings.
It is interesting….the education part you talk about. I spent over a year and a half learning about IA and adoption from China…educating friends and relatives…then we switched to our private local very open adoption and I had to go through it all again..educating myself and now educating others…my pet peeve this month has been the way the media handled the story of the twins abduction. It was a week before I found a decent explanation of the legal status of both sets of parents and how they got there. All the media seemed interested in was the drama of it all…twins stolen from birth mother and then stolen back angle. There was so much of the back story…the facts…that never saw the light of day.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
This is commercial television; the goal is to make money. The goal of the sponsoring advertisers is to make money. The more people who watch, the more money they make. Perhaps they (both) think they have discovered a goldmine audience. Perhaps we can show them differently.
All evidence points to China Adoption being used to boost ratings. Whether we watch outrage or in agreement, we WATCH, and the money rolls in. P.Z.N. does not concern the public good. An informed public discussion at your local public TV or radio or college station, or NPR, would be of far more benefit, and your concerns would mean something there.
Even typing in the show name over and over is a kind of advertising. I’m mentally calling them ‘Pizzin’ & ‘Conn’
Click on the show, and you can practically hear the coins tinkling into their cash box….
January 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Seriously Biedronka? You don’t think a sovereign nation gets to make the rules for their own country?
Wow.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I will be watching her show. I just want to hear what she says. I will not be e-mailing her though. I understand that some people feel the need to express their anger about these shows. But, these e-mails are only provoking her. As you can obviously see, this is her 3rd show on the subject. If you want to try and stop these shows, e-mail the sponsors, not CNN or PZ…
Also, someone asked if it counts for her ratings if you TIVO it? It is my understanding that it would not count.
One more thing, has anyone from the last batch of referrals heard anything on travel estimates? I know some people’s agencies were telling them that they would try to get them to China and back before CNY. This seems highly unlikely to me, because, I have a friend who got her referral 2 batches ago (her LID was 9/8) and they are barely getting to travel before CNY…?
Zoe
DOR 1/3/07
January 11th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
You know, there are times when I really miss having cable, but now is not one of them. There’s a lot of ignorance spewed forth everyday about a variety of topics, and a lot of it comes tv — and not just from PZ and CNN. If I had to watch Fox, I would shoot my tv. Multiple times. All of the stations want us to watch; they want the ratings; they want sponsers. It’s all about the almighty dollar.
So do what you want — watch, write letters, skip it, ban it from your home. Soon they will find another “hot” topic. (There haven’t been any runaway brides for awhile.)
As for me, I’m going to stick to the 6 channels I get with rabbit ears and read RQ.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Windthrow,
I do believe you have a point. But…I think the issue that irritated me the most was PZ putting Roland Martin out there a second time and then not slapping him up side the head (proverbially) for his idiocy. I can think of plenty other hosts who would skewer him relentlessly. I can not take anything her show does seriously when they persist in putting “experts” like him on. If PZ wants to beat a topic to death, it is her right. To expect us to take her seriously given the people she surrounds herself with is another matter all together.
In all fairness to any topic she would try to cover – you just can’t cover a complex issue in under 12 minutes. They seem to do 3 attention getting, hot button, complex topics in an hour show. Taking out time for commericals and promos for the upcoming topics, dividing that time by a number of different experts, and I’m not sure you could discuss the wet nature of water with any accuracy in the time given. This does bring my estimation of CNN down several notches.
I will definitely not be wasting my time on her show again.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I agree with momto4hopefully, there are a lot more things in
way more import things in the world to be talking about than
this. There is a little 11 year old boy missing from the St. Louis area, snatched when he got off the school bus on Tuesday afternoon. Why isn’t she talking about that. There has been an Amber alert issued but his face needs to be all over the media.
If Paula Zahn and CNN want to try to improve their ratings then let them do so with something that is NEWS.
Going on over and over again about rules change that we knew about long before they started talking aobut it and lumping different ethnic groups into categories is NOT news.
jennifer
LID 09-16-05
January 11th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
doesn’t look to be anything particularly new to me. as for how it’s presented, it’s all about who they have on their “panel”, and i’m guessing they’ve done a little more homework.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
If we’re looking for some other, more balanced viewpoint on the subject, we’re not going to get it from her. Don’t forget that the point of her show is to “out” discrimination and the like. The introductions she read at the beginning of the shows and after each commercial said, “we’re committed to bringing intolerance out into the open on this show.” And, the shows that talked about international adoption were not titled “Paula Zahn Now”, but something with “out” in the title, even though on the web site it’s called “PZ Now”.
I’m not defending her by any means, but remember the context. (and no, I don’t work for CNN!)
January 11th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
RQ – Not in the world I live in. Sovereignty is a ideal…not reality. In the real world sovereignty exists in degrees and isn’t an absolute. I’m surprised by your “Wow”…the world right now is filled with frightening examples of where we would never accept sovereignty (Africa). The China adoption policies are far too one sided. With so many Chinese children coming to the USA, and so many USA $$$’s going to China, this unequal balance of power imho should not exist.
So if you are seriously proposing that China is a sovereign nation and therefore can make whatever rules they fit about the adoption, I disagree.
January 11th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
And if they don’t do as you wish then… what? We should send the military in and make them? Get the UN to put sanctions up?
You seriously think that a World Power cannot make these rules up as they see fit?
Yes, I am flabbergasted.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I’m uncomfortable with your statement about all the $$$$$ going to China. The fees China charges for adoption are completely in line with what I’d expect to pay, and are a minor portion of the total fees paid for adoption.
If there is a balance of power, how do you weigh a baby against a money?
January 11th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I won’t be watching. I made the mistake of watching the first two and simply cannot and will not waste any more time on such utter ignorance and irresponsible “journalism.” IMHO, PZ is no better than these entertainment shows that have nothing better to do than follow Brittney Spears, TomKat, and the Donald/Rosie War of Words. PZ has seemingly sold her integrity in exchange for higher ratings – she can prostitute herself as she desires – but I am not going to give her any more of my time or her sponsors any more of my money.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I have to be honest — I’ll buy into any weirdo conspiracy theory so forgive me for suggesting that maybe story #3 is the result of wanting to draw a big viewing audience. The producers must know given the email volume that there are a lot of REALLY interested people who will watch to see how the topic is handled.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
RQ – I don’t mind discussing this matter with you, but please lets not get extreme. All countries give-up bits of their sovereignty, all the time if it serves their best interests. And yes, that includes Superpowers, even the USA. Whether it is for reasons of trade, military, and environment. Huge Chunks of Europe gave-up Huge Chunks of sovereignty in forming the EU. You may want to look-into the WTO & UN to see issues of sovereignty.
Sure, a World Power, or even a not-so-world-power can make rules up as they fit…but thats my point, with enough influence, making-up such rules could no longer “fit”.
I know of no organization working on the behalf of families adopting from China…that could be a start. I know I would contribute to such a Lobby group…and if that doesn’t work…WAR! lol!
January 11th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Biedronka,
I have to chime in here and say that I respectfully disagree with you. China holds ALL of the cards in our adoption situation. They control the timing of it, what child we are matched with, how long we need to stay in their country, how much money it is going to cost, even how much net worth a family has to have before they can adopt.
I know that adoptive families give a “voluntary” $3000 donation to the orphanage and pay other fees associated with the adoption, but if one balks at paying those fees, they don’t get a baby. And China has the babies.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing you can do but live with their rules IF you want a baby or child from China. If you don’t want to play by their rules, they won’t even blink an eye, there will be hundreds of families already in line waiting to do WHATEVER it takes to adopt one of their children.
China can make any rules they want. They hold all of the power (see, Roland Martin taught me something!).
January 11th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Biedronka,
China and the CCAA does NOT owe us anything, we are all lucky to be ABLE to adopt and raise a child of Chinese heritage…just my 2 cents.
January 11th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
trulyblessed – I think we actually agree! :)
That was my point to RQ …its not a Sovereinity issue, its a power issue. As quiet, don’t rock the boat individuals, with a puny $3k apiece, we are nothing.
Sadly we don’t have anyone looking out for our interests…some lobby group to put pressure on US & China government.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
4emily – with all due respect, why do people constantly post “China and the CCAA does NOT owe us anything”
It sounds very dramatic and nice but it only serves to put us in the position of weakness. Does that serve China’s children? Does dragging-on, keeping you hanging without information help China’s children?
But to be honest, I don’t see any value in framing the situation in terms of who-owes-whom. This is purely a power issue. We are weak, and they treat us accordingly.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I do not believe that the CCAA treats us badly. They work hard and if we have to wait, then fine. After all, the real people that matter in the equation is the children. NOT us.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
vtmama-
We also would like to purchase the PBS series “China From the Inside”. I looked it up last night and the PBS website says it will be available as a single DVD on 1/23/07 (http://www.shoppbs.org). Since our first adoption we like to buy good informative visual materials that can show our daughters what China was like when they were born there.
January 11th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
RQ — I completely agree with you and several others on this strand.
My husband and I are so thankful to China and the CCAA for providing their adoption program. We are so respectful of China and the CCAA for being the country that will make us a family of three one day.
Thank you so very much, China and the CCAA!
January 11th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
We pay a $3,000 orphanage fee, but I am sure our tourism dollars add to the economy.
I know the ball is in China’s court, and I am fine with whatever rules they install because it’s worth it. I think they do try to keep things on the up & up. The world is getting smaller and smaller and they don’t want bad press. I feel China has made good improvements in regards to the care of their orphans. They do not share our Western philosiphies but they do have to work with us on this. We have to respect their rules and they have to be reliable so we continue this partnership. When I really think about it, I am more grateful than frustrated, I guess.
Biedronka,
I have to admit, it would be great to have an organization that works between the two countries. Our agencies hands seem pretty tied at times. Idealistic, I know.
Still, I am willing to tow the line and just wait for our turn. I feel more confidant in China than other options.
As for CNN, I think they are surprised at how many of us there are out here. We are passionate about this, and these days passion is hard to come by, and therefore is inspiring. It makes a great story. I will watch and then respond to the sponsors if need be. It would be great to see a different news agency cover this topic. Paula needs to call it a day.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I was wondering about that “voluntary” $3k donation, not that I mind paying it at all, I really don’t. I’m hopeful and fairly secure in my belief that the money goes to make some pretty drastic improvements to the orphanages and in turn to the many thousands of children who will live the first part of their lives there. I can only imagine the value of that $3000 do the children left there and those that will come after them.
But, generally (always???) the $3k is handed over before anyone receives their baby, right?? –anyone ever heard of a story or rumor where someone didn’t cough up their “voluntary” donation? Could a person perhaps tell the orphanage officials “gee, I’d love to but I left my 30, $100 bills in my other purse” ??
–not at all suggeting that this should or could be done, just pondering away on this gloomy Thursday.
BTW: Biedronka~ you sound really frustrated, I think this wait is really wearing on all of us.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
The U.S. State Department says of the $3,000 donation:
http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/country/country_365.html
[Note: This is not a bribe, and U.S. prospective adoptive parents should not consider it such. As was noted earlier in this flyer, individual Children's Welfare Institutes may charge this fee as a combined donation to the institution and as compensation for having raised and cared for the child up to the point of adoption. It is the experience of the U.S. Consulate General in Guangzhou that the assessed fees are reasonable based on the local economy and the costs associated with raising a child in China.]
January 11th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Someone earlier mentioned a point I’d like to revisit, that China doesn’t like bad press. I can’t blame them, who does want bad press? I’ve heard that China really doesn’t like any press. This is can also understand. The Question: do you think Paula Zahn would shut up if she realized that she could be jeporadizing all of our adoptions????????????????????? I just want to scream that to her, but I’m even afraid to even whisper it because I’m afraid she’ll put my e-mail on air! I feel helpless. Any thoughts?
January 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I do not think that this is jeopardizing adoptions.
I think it may warrant another couple of days of meetings, which I’d rather not see happen. But I do not think it is jeopardizing adoptions.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Here’s my opinion, for what it’s worth…
Oh for f’s sake…listening to Paula Zahn is like taking a band-aid off slowly. I couldn’t stand her before, and now I can’t stand her even more (if that’s even f’ing possible). She should just take a running bite at herself.
Too harsh? ;)
January 11th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Although I have no faith that the segment will be done intelligently, I have to disagree with jennifergebhart – this is news, and people are interested. And whether or not China has the right to make any rules it wants, we also have a right to have feelings in reaction to them. And the media has a right to address the issue.
Unfortunately, the format of a news magazine like Paula Zahn’s does not allow for thoughtful analysis of any issue — an initial inflammatory statement by Zahn, 1 minute of live reporting, and several inane remarks by a panel of people who know nothing about the subject.
Luckily, there are places, such as NPR and its local stations like WNYC, that provide forums for truly informative, sophisticated discussions about every topic they address. This past week, there’s been an intelligent discussion by Brian Lehrer on WNYC about adoption from China. Unfortunately, it was on during the day, and I couldn’t listen. Did anyone out there hear it?
January 11th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
RQ — ok, good. Thanks.
On a much lighter note, you recently introduced your line of t-shirts. How about another line which is anti-Paula Zahn and anti-CNN? I’ve thought of a plethora of slogans but all would need to be censored so I shall not write them here! :-)
January 11th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
RQ – Sorry that I don’t have time to read through and see if someone already suggested this….but even if we don’t watch the show but go to their site for transcripts, they will be able to tell the number of hits.
So, RQ, can you post the transcripts here and we can all read them from your site rather than give them the satisfaction of reading from theirs?
January 11th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
As was mentioned, I think the wait is really wearing on alot of us. I just sat and read this entire thread top to bottom, and could feel the frustration coming through my computer screen. It’s sad that a stupid reporter and her network have caused us all to feel this way. I like reading our comments when they are full of excitement and anticipation (during referral time), rather than debate, anger and frustration. Hang in there everyone, this too shall pass.
L.I.D. 11/07/05
January 11th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I find it very ironic that we are discusing the unfairness of the rules of the chinese government when it comes to adoption when the reason that we’re adopting from China is because we feel that our own Canadian Province is being unfair in their rules. One of them being that we cannot adopt an infant because we are 40 yrs old and there are many more rules why we chose not to adopt at home.
January 11th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Biedronka,
I really do not see it as a power issue, one being weaker than the other.
I would hate to have the job of going thru thousands of dossiers only to never have the pile get much smaller, must truely be agonizing!
It is a process…it only in the recent past was a fast process(6-10 months)..in the previous years it has always taken longer.
Do I hate the wait? YES! Am I sad, frustrated and emotional that it is taking much longer than I thought? Hell yes!
I think the people that deserve more flack is the US govn’t process of the RENEWING of docs and fingerprints and homestudies! They should get more flack thrown their way to make it an easier, cheaper process to renew the docs! The US govn’t is costing us as adoptive parents more monetarily since the PRC has slowed down. The olympics are coming, the Hague ratifications have just been put forth, the CCAA has a lot on its plate.
I still say they do not owe us a kid just since we chose to grow our families thru adoption.
Hang in there everyone….this too shall pass.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
tgredthread, can i just say you probably don’t know me but i remember you waiting and waiting for your bambino, and now you are chasing her around??? i am jealous! :)
how fun is it? tell!!
goingtogetkayli, thanks for the comment!
:)
wBw
January 11th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I am with you; I wish she would just drop it. Maybe our approach needs to be to contact other news programs and see if they are interested in tackling the topic.
This is the email that I sent after Monday nights fiasco:
Mrs. Zahn,
After having read the transcripts of last night’s show, I still think that you and our panel missed the point. Again, you started with China ’s new regulations and whether or not they were discriminatory. As adoptive parents, we can say they are or they are not; however, it really doesn’t matter because any country can establish whatever rules they want. China is no different. They are looking for what in their eyes are the best parents for their children. You can not base one society’s decisions on another society’s values. All we can do is jump through the hoops. And let me tell you, I have jumped through some hoops. So, ultimately, the restrictions are a moot point.
On the racism issue, I still feel you and your panel miss the point. My husband and I have two biological children who are both gorgeous and intelligent. We don’t need to go to China to find a smart and beautiful child. I birthed two myself. China became our choice after much research, consideration and prayer. China offered our family security, a somewhat predictable timetable and healthy children. What more would any parent want? (In case you didn’t catch it the color of our future daughter’s skin or her potential IQ score was no where in that decision making process.)
The goal behind adoption is that one adoption will beget another. I was adopted over thirty years ago. We feel that expanding our family through adoption will benefit many people. It will provide a home to a child who has been orphaned simply because she is a girl, it has opened the eyes of our children to the fact that not everyone’s life is as easy as theirs has been and it has created a “Forever Family.” Our children are even considering creating their families in the same way. Again, one adoption begets another.
If the process in this country wasn’t so unstable we would have certainly considered adopting any child; however, the thought of subjecting my children to the possibility of their sibling being removed from their home was unfathomable. So, until this country acknowledges the rights of adoptive parents better, I am quite certain that loving families will continue to look elsewhere to create their families. Maybe a story on the pros and cons of domestic adoption would open some eyes to the problems at home.
I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to share our stories and our feelings. I think all that the adoption community wanted was some equal representation and to not feel that we are being judged by such ignorant criteria as your panel exhibited on both nights.
Sincerely,
Michele Coffman
Fredericksburg , VA
January 11th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Just for the sake of confusion…..is there now a tg and a tgredthread?
January 11th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Same person!
January 11th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
About Paula,
Not bad at all. I am not seething so that must be a positive!
Jeanne
Orlando
LID 6/15/06
January 11th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
paula can bite me. i’m watchin’ my name is earl.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
The reporter clearly said, China can make any rules it wants to. He was very clear about that.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Okay…just a tabloid-type headline from Paula, but the actual piece was the “real journalist” in Guangzhou, basically saying China can set any criteria they want, for the good of the children, and the adoptive community accepts that. Period. Paula smiles. End of story.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Yes, not bad. No panel discussion after the report.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
It wasn’t too bad. They showed the swearing in ceremony. If they repeat it I may tape it to show my husband.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I agree that it wasn’t that bad. They made it pretty clear that China can make these rules, and those wanting to adopt are accepting these rules.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
That is just what we need. More meetings for the CCAA. I wish Paula would just drop it.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Did you see all the cute little babies!!
January 11th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
The babies were adorable! And being able to see the Consulate and the ceremony with all the new parents was encouraging. I can’t wait for my DH and I to be standing in that spot!!
January 11th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I thought the parents would have looked more exhausted by that time in the trip, but they all looked pretty good. Just think the babies in the orphanages they showed are probably someones on this site right now!!
January 11th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
PZN aside, I’m still picking myself up off the floor from Biedronka (sp?) lobbying, war-jokes, pushing of personal needs and whims onto the policy of other nations and dislike of feeling in a “weak” position, plus the statement that :”This is purely a power issue. We are weak, and they treat us accordingly.”
??!
The fact that you, Biedronka, see this complex IA process as a primitive power issue says far more about how you perceive and move through the world
than it does about the CCAA and waiting parents.
I suppose, given the difficulty of individual parents bending CCAAs rules, there are some people waiting in line who aren’t used to doing so.
Maybe we could learn something from a sophisticated, politically astute, 5,000+ year-old-culture that understands patience and survival.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I am going to chime in my 2 pence, for what it is worth. Yes, in my humble opinion, PZ is defaming the IA community and putting a bad rap on the IA community. One thing that I believe is that although China may not like bad press they are smart enough (this is not reference to Mr.Martin’s slur so don’t kill me) to realize that this is sensationalist journalism and they are reporting for the ratings. Don’t get me wrong, I think they do care about it, but it is not as bis as it would be if say 60 minutes did a piece like this with the same panel. I hope I am making sense.
LID July 5, 2006
January 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I doubt these segments will have any impact on Chinese adoptions. I had never heard of Paula Zahn before in my life. If we let her, she’s going to milk this topic for all it is worth. If 50,000 adoptive parents are watching, that’s probably about 45,000 more viewers than usual. Paula Zahn… back to anonymity you go!
January 11th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
OK, I watched it. I actually thought it was fine and seemed to very much be a pacifier. Interesting that the “headline” was “China’s new rules, is this discrimination?” –then, they really never said another thing about discrimination. Just, these are the rules, look at all these happy people and cute babies. I have a feeling the PZ show won’t be addressing Chinese adoption again for quite awhile.
I agree, getting to see some tape of the swearing in was great. You can’t take pix in there right?
I can’t wait til its our turn (sigh)
Susan
January 11th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
sorry too much to read and it is late here…so I don’t know what all has been said…
But give me a break! I would hate to think that because of all of our mail she got “popular” in a good way!!!!
If ignoring her will make things better…I am all for it…if we can influence change and correct information and respect to China…I say lets do it…
But for now…I am going to bed! ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz
~Linda
January 11th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
k, didn’t watch the show, or DVR it. might read the transcripts.
oh, and yeah apparently there is a tg as compared to me, tgredthread. ppbbrrtt. LOL
windthrow, once again you’re right on the money on what you say about the ‘education’ thing. News and news shows do go for the sensationalism of a story and unfortunately alot of the facts and truth get left out so we don’t hear all of the story.
someone else mentioned about how a show like PZ’s can’t ever do justice to a story because of the timeframe it’s alotted. Very true. This is why I think the Lisa Ling NG story (China’s Lost Girls) was probably one of the more comprehensive covering of China Adoption. Did it leave things out? Sure. But people who I’ve let watch it or show it too have a better understanding of the background of a China adoption (along with some history and info about the cultural thinking in regards to girls, etc) It doesn’t portray the families as adopting because they’re saving a child either…and they don’t portray the families adopting because of stereotypes etc…just that they want to bring a child into their family and give a family to a child who needs one.
I guess in my head I see someone like Tom Brokaw doing a hour and a half piece on what goes on in the process along with some background info and facts. He did a piece on global warming that was wonderful and wasn’t boring at all. I just feel like there needs to be something available beyond friends and family to point to and say…”definitely check this out because it gives you insight into what’s been going on.”
But that’s in my little world apparently.
and wBw, oh yes I do remember you of course! we’ve been home about 2 1/2 weeks now and Autumn is adjusting very well (we still have ‘moments’ though…lol) and is just cracking me up (she’s a goofball like her parents…way to go CCAA! LOL) She’s definitely keeping us on our toes. :) Thank you for asking! I hope things are going well for you and definitely hang in there…it’s sooo worth everything. :)
January 11th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
so along with the word “like” I apparently say “definitely” quite abit as well. -smacks my head as I re-read my post above.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Well, for what it’s worth, I am not going to watch PZ tomorrow, or, most likely, ever again. I don’t have cable, and watching the second show, and reading the transcript of the first reminded me of why.
I try to stay abreast of the news through print media, the internet and local network tv. I don’t hate tv, but I don’t watch a whole lot. The less I watch, though, the worse the stuff looks when I do watch it.
I am a college professor (at least two of us here waitbabywait!), and I have some background in print journalism. I try to keep an open mind about the “slant” on news, but the PZ show is just sensationalized hype to get ratings. She may have a nice newsy set and dress like an anchor woman, but her topics are inflamatory, and her guests just aren’t experts.
I really tried to keep an open mind about the show. In recent months I’ve considered subscribing to cable to stay in better touch with the world, especially news about China. But, now I’m certain: it’s not worth it.
Every semester I teach my freshmen how to do research and how to distinguish credible expert sources from nonsense. My freshmen could do better than her show!
I also want to say, while I’m at it, that I am continually impressed with you, RQ!! If people want to know fact from rumor, and possibility from probability, I think that they can find that here. Your work at getting information and analyzing it is really impressive!!
Thanks RQ for your work! I’ll stick with your info and forget PZ!
January 12th, 2007 at 12:04 am
ooops . . . I mean I won’t/didn’t watch tonight’s show
January 12th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Mad, I agree with you about PZ’s show, but I like cable and my Tivo, specifically for info about China. I just set the tivo to tape any show on the topic, then weed through.
the current PBS series is very good (but you’d get that with rabbit ears anyway), and so was the Globe Trekker series on China.
January 12th, 2007 at 12:48 am
I LOVED the segment but it was mainly because we saw our friends there in the room taking their oath!!! The little guy kissing his new mama in the pink shirt at the very end will be coming home on Sunday and we can’t wait to meet him!
I am admittedly a blog/adoption video addict and have somewhat reached a saturation point with it all. Sometimes I worry that when it is our turn, it will feel surreal-like we have just stepped into somebody else’s blog…Seeing familiar faces there made is seem more ‘real’ for some reason, like maybe it will actually happen for us!!!
January 12th, 2007 at 1:26 am
TG
New Dads have been known to repeat themselves :)
My husband says after each baby he “Looks his worst but feels his best” Do you relate?
… we have an Autumn too!
January 12th, 2007 at 1:26 am
TG
New Dads have been known to repeat themselves :)
My husband says after each baby he “Looks his worst but feels his best” Do you relate?
… we have an Autumn too!
January 12th, 2007 at 1:26 am
TG
New Dads have been known to repeat themselves :)
My husband says after each baby he “Looks his worst but feels his best” Do you relate?
… we have an Autumn too!
January 12th, 2007 at 1:26 am
TG
New Dads have been known to repeat themselves :)
My husband says after each baby he “Looks his worst but feels his best” Do you relate?
… we have an Autumn too!
January 12th, 2007 at 1:26 am
TG
New Dads have been known to repeat themselves :)
My husband says after each baby he “Looks his worst but feels his best” Do you relate?
… we have an Autumn too!
January 12th, 2007 at 5:15 am
That PZN (do you realise that’s “poison” in ’shorthand’?) woman again huh? I think we caught the short news bite last night on our SBS news – the kids were just wonderful!! So glad to have actually seen the good bit, not sad to have missed what sounds like a series of atrocities.
Oh, and RQ, Ozworld got their TAs today, 12 more families due to become forever families on 22 January 2007. Woo Hoo!
I myself have no problems with China, the USA or any other country determining the laws for their State. I like to steer very clear of criticising another country’s policies in respect of the law and the way they administer it, and this is to a large extent, based in Chinese Law. Don’t forget that! Personal opinions about whether that law or rule or regulation is ‘right’ in terms of your own values, ethics and morals are perfectly okay.
I find it odd though, when people expect others to agree with them, especially if you are expressing a very different perspective to that already out there in the main stream. Biederonka, I understand frustration, and the hopelessness of not being able to ‘fix’ things that seem broken to you. It would be nice to be able to influence CCAA. Not sure if your were just venting, or if you were totally serious. I think we’ve all had a bit of a RQ scream from time to time, its a nice place here, she’s very kind in her living room.
I realise though, that I haven’t got what it takes to make that kind of difference. No guanxi. I would need loads of high level guanxi to make a difference. I have thought about perhaps trying to do this, but I am western, so it would be difficult.
if you are serious, then go forth, build the right guanxi, and make a difference. That would be most welcome, but it wll take time…
Catch y’all later
Toto in Oz. Where it is VERY HOT today. Looking forward to Shanghai next week, where it is VERY COLD. Aaahhh.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:17 am
WOW, what an intersting thread!! I think that it pretty much boils down to this: we have a couple of different parental personality types. Some are extremely greatful to the CCAA and all that they do and believe that they could do whatever they want and set whatever rules or guidlines that they choose and we as adoptive parents will and have to accept them if we want our child in the end.
The other group is also extremely greatful to the CCAA but feels that we should have more of a say and the balance should be closer to being level rather that the drastic slope that it is currently on. Do I have that right so far?
Ok well here is my reality. Yes the CCAA’s job is to take care of the children and find families for them, not to find children for families. I don’t for a second believe that the CCAA does not do everything possible, with their current resources of course, to care for the children. However we need to be honest here. PROC, not the CCAA directly, has a very disturbing history with their children. I think everyone knows what I am speaking of without me going into detail because that is simply not a place where I want my thoughts to travel to. One major solution to help the children is the IA program. In ours and other countries there are many parents who choose to expand their families through IA. China has lots of orphanes and the world has lots of families who will love them. Makes sense to seek outside help. Up until recently it appeared as though there was a grateful to you-grateful to me attitude about it. Now for many reasons that attituude has switched to a grateful to you attitude. If at any time an adoptive family doesn’t like what is going on and seeks out adjustments or answers from the CCAA ( through our agencies who we pay thousands to ) they are considered to be “rocking the boat”. I am sorry but I do wish that we, lead by our agencies of course, could all remove ourselves from the fear and unite for change. What would happen if ever single agency all asked for the same thing? What if they all asked for a dramatic increase in their resources to help get through the backlog? What if they said that just as the CCAA has to protect their children the agencies have to protect their parents? What if the CCAA and all of the agencies actually had a conversation for once and mutually agreed upon the issues instead of the normal “don’t ask-don’t tell” standard? Everybody has a common ground, why can’t their be an open line of communication? Now before everyone jumps on me I need to state that as a veteran of our military I understand the difference in government and culture. But again if everyone stood together would they have a choice to not listen? Keep in mind that PROC has made millions off of the IA community. I also think that as a discreet country they would have a concern over the negative press. I also think that they would have a great concern over their orphanages filling up again before the olympics. Just some interesting food for thought!!!
January 12th, 2007 at 10:22 am
The CCAA made it clear several months ago that if you do not have the patience for their program then this program is not for you and you are not welcome in the program.
So, no, banding together is not going to change anything. Those banding together will be told they are no longer welcome in the program, and there will be another 10,000 people in line behind them to take their place.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I will not tune into the Paula Zahn show again, regarless of the topic, but I do have to say that I loved seeing the the new families, especiall the footage from the US consulate.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:42 am
But if the agencies requested specific changes in the current system, who would represent the 10,000 in line behind them? That is my point, if ALL agencies said that they stand to loose many clients and their fees, which much of that money is then used to help the children, so they only way for them to refer clients to China’s program is if they were a complete overhaul of the system. I think that would have a lot of pull. Of course our government would actually have to play a major role in this scenario.
I understand that it is wishful thinking but I also believe that there could be some success. The problem is those with the power to provoke change refuse to do so. The agencies and our government want to just go with the flow………
January 12th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Agencies who complain about the wait are also told there is no room for them in this program.
China and the CCAA are no longer interested in making it easy for families. They just are not. Once they were, once they seemed to understand that families were out here making life altering plans based on what they do. But they aren’t anymore. I do not anticipate that changing. And any pressure exerted to try to change it would most likely create the opposite situation that the pressure is trying to create.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I just don’t get the whole CNN thing anyways. Nothing but sensationalistic journalism (and I use the term loosely). They’re laughing all the way to the bank with all this publicity!
I’d probably pay a lot more attention if this all was being aired elsewhere… but, then, if it was, the issue might have been done justice and there wouldn’t be such an uproar.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I don’t know what happened to my post from last night lol.
Anyway our agency last year, and the lady at our son’s
CWI confirmed what RQ said about the CCAA. Our agency was told directly by the CCAA that they WILL not be told what they should be doing, and that they do not want agencies pestering them all the time when it comes to timeframes for referrals and TA’s.
The CCAA could care less about what we think. Like one agency pointed out, China is doing what other countries have done with regards to keeping their children in China. Those countries that were #1 places for adoptions years ago have put such restrictions on their programs that probably only about 40% of people would qualify now. Our first adoption for our dd was not from China, within one year after bringing her home, her birth country put new adoption laws in place which included very stringent requirements for adoptive parents. We did not qualify to adopt from there again. They didn’t even grandfather people in. They changed the rules and if you were in the process it was too bad.
Our ds is from China, and that process went smoothly with quick TA. He was sn’s. However, just after we received TA our agency completely changed their WC process and TA’s slowed down incredibly. India changed their adoption regulations, along with Russia, Ukraine etc. I really do not see why China would be different. The goal of all countries is to keep their children home, and China is already making steps towards that. A very large multi program agency on their website has a very well informed update to their China program. They also included a report on their visit to the CCAA and shared their direct conversations with the
people there. Of course this is their experience and maybe different to other agencies. They mentioned that China’s domestic adoption program is growing rapidly. Our China only agency told us early last year of all the changes that were likely to come to fruition, and so far they have been right.
When my Chinese relative went to visit China, she said that she saw a play or some sorts, and one of the skits was a comedy about why girls are just as good as boys if not even better. It was based around girls being just as smart and worthy as boys. She is not sure if it might of been government funded because it was unusual to see a play about this.
January 12th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Boy I got crazy with the submit button….talk about repeating yourself. My comments rarely show up so I pushed the button like ten times for good measure….sorry!!! :)