[TheDad]

Just had a chance to read the AP article. I know that it has upset many on this site.

Since I work in the media, I have an analysis of the article that might help. It is my own, based on my opinion. I write this because I know from experience that all media is subjective.

Stories are always seen through the eyes of the journalist and editor. Most of the time the reporter has an opinion formed before he starts his reporting process. Almost always he has a definite opinion when sitting down to write. The editor who assigns/approves the story has a strong feeling why that story itself is news and has a take on how it should be told. That editor may or may not wield considerable influence on the actual story.

With that in mind here is my "take."

"Every 100th baby born in Guatemala grows up as an adopted American, making the Central American country the richest source of adoptees in the Western Hemisphere."

This wording implies that international adoption is not a personal matter. But is like a forced conversion - Guatemalan to American. It is also described as a resource like oil, coal or bananas.

This is designed to catch the reader's eye, create contention.

"Critics say Guatemala has become a baby farm where adoptions are too easy and prone to corruption. Defenders say it offers the children a better future, and that legal corners are cut only to spare Guatemalan women the stigma of unwed motherhood or relieve them of another mouth to feed."

The criticism labels Guatemala as a "baby farm" so the words "too easy" and "prone" are lost to the visual word "farm.". The same sentence could have read, "Critics say that adoptions are too easy and prone to corruption. They allege the country has become a baby farm." This would have been more balanced or fair.

"...legal corners cut..." Is any defender admitting that legal corners are cut? Hmm...or is this another accusation by the critics put into the mouth of the defenders? Since this sentence sums up the beliefs of the collective group it needs a quote to back up a serious admission like this. Very fuzzy reporting.

Without going any further I can figure out the writer's POV. Can you? Everything else he writes is colored that way.

This does not mean there are no elements of truth here. But it is a broad, serious charge. As a reader you must demand the evidence.

The journalist's research provides 4 major points to back up his entire story.

One - the statistics that show the high percentage of adoptions. This is not really proof just groundwork. There are many reasons for this high number. One, the poverty; two, Catholicism which does not allow the use of contraceptives and abortion, three, the "streamlined" legal proccess that allows babies to be adopted. In and of itself it does not point to illegality. It's used to create doubt without proof.

Two - the 30 convictions of baby brokers. The writer has already proclaimed the astonishingly large number of adoptions so this percentage of convictions is small by his own reporting. And he comits the sin of context. He doesn't say how many convictions there have been in the last ten years. Is 30 really a shocker? Has the Guat government recently stepped up its law enforcement in this area? If a US city has been remiss in rounding up drug lords and then the percentage goes up when they do a sweep. So there is insufficient data here to draw any conclusion.

Three - the woman who gave up 5 kids. She gave a plausible answer. But she is there for shock value. She still makes you doubt. But it's not substantial.

Four - the only solid piece of evidence is the first person account from court papers about the woman who was offered $2400 dollars for her baby. Here's my problem with this story. That amount of money is outrageous. My reseach found that you can buy an entire house in a poor area for that amount. It's like offering a poor American over $100,000. I'm sure if babies are for sale the going rate would be far less. And she turns it down! What drama for the story. But it's really hard to believe.

If you put all these "facts" together in one report you don't have a solid case, you have the ferment of doubt and fear. That's not real journalism. It's a porrly researched story.

Susana was given a courtesy quote that sounded exasperated to me and the adoptive parents sound like they are in denial or blinded or silly.

Now, I have no idea if babies are for sale in Guat. If they are it must be stopped.

But I would rather see an honest look at the issue. There is no mention here that while these other evolved nations make you wait a year or more, their babies are shuttled into state run orphanages - something we consider outdated and potentially harmful within the US. There is no mention that in Guat the babies are cared for in a far superior way by foster mothers until they are adopted.

In fact the only real positive point made is that Americans can get their baby faster. And even that has negative connotations.

I'm not writing this to incite anyone. I just want us to be wise to what's been presented in this article. We can avoid being drawn into political power plays by reading between the lines. This is more of the same stuff. It should have been an op ed rather than a report.

Unfortunately, it looks like (and i don't really know) it was written to fuel the fire.

I pray the truth will come out. And I pray that the process remains free from corruption.

I also pray that those who are in authority will do the right thing.

TheDad