When Fox News, David Brock, Identity and Adoption Intersect: Where’s the Outrage?
February 24, 2012
To read this column on The Huffington Post, go to: http://huff.to/whkIBO.
Imagine for a moment that David Brock, founder of the watchdog organization Media Matters, was African American or Asian or Jewish or Catholic or gay or disabled (I don’t have a clue about his sexual orientation, ethnic background, religion or physical condition, by the way, but bear with me for a moment). So, if any of those things were part of Brock’s identity, what might happen if a guest on a major news network said the following:
- That Brock is “dangerous” and then implied it’s because he was black/Jewish/etc.
- “This is a (Catholic/gay/etc.) boy who needs to plumb the depths of his psyche.”
- “Many (Asian/disabled/etc.) children are tremendously well-adjusted, but this man feels he’s unloved and unlovable.”
I’m pretty sure such comments would draw outrage from many viewers across the political spectrum. They would be the subject of considerable discussion all over the internet, on other news and talk shows, and in people’s conversations from coast to coast. The network would probably apologize, and maybe even announce that the purveyor of such uninformed, biased remarks – to describe them kindly –would no longer be welcome as a guest on its programs.
Well, just a few days ago, a guest on a major network uttered every one of the disparaging comments listed above, and then some. But the part of Brock’s real-life identity that was denigrated by psychiatrist Keith Ablow on Fox News (http://bit.ly/xkhkLi ) was the fact that he entered his family through adoption and, alas, there was barely a peep of reaction from anyone outside of the adoption community.
Is that because adoptive identity is not understood as significant by most Americans? Probably, although the research (http://bit.ly/yUJf4m) and most adopted persons agree it’s just as much a part of them as their race, religion, etc. Or maybe it’s because Ablow drew on discredited stereotypes of adopted people that are still part of our culture, even though they’re corrosive and offensive? That’s probably a piece of the explanation, too; we continue to pay a high price for adoption’s history of secrecy and shame, including far too little knowledge about the millions of people for whom it is an everyday reality.
The reasons Ablow felt comfortable linking Brock’s behavior to his adoption, and the reasons his comments barely registered before flying off the radar screen, are important – and it would be wonderful if they would be examined by researchers, fellow mental health professionals and television pundits alike. I’m not going to dwell on them here, however; instead, I want to make a few straight-forward points, irrespective of the “whys” of what happened.
First, though it certainly happens, I hope we can agree in principle that it should be unacceptable for anyone to use negative stereotypes, unconfirmed assumptions or stigmatizing caricatures to cut down a political adversary, or anyone else for that matter. That such language is tolerated by professional newscasters and producers on a major, widely watched network is unnerving.
Second, people who don’t know much about adoption, or about the individuals it impacts, should either educate themselves or find something else to talk about. At best, they are perpetuating undermining stigmas and stereotypes and, at worst, they are upsetting and infuriating adopted children (they watch television, too) and adopted adults, as well as all the other people who are personally affected.
Finally, as a former journalist, I am mystified and disappointed that any news outlet would give credibility to a psychiatrist who acknowledges that he did not examine the person he’s publicly diagnosing. Ablow is entitled to his opinion regarding adoption issues, however uniformed or misguided it may be, but it is another matter altogether for a journalist or newscaster or whatever these TV personalities are called, to implicitly present him as an expert on the subject he is discussing.
I’ll end with this admission: I could not have cited one substantive factoid about either Keith Ablow or David Brock before this episode was brought to my attention a few days ago in a bristling email from a middle-aged man, who was himself adopted. I knew very little about their politics, their work or their controversies. So my observations here have nothing to do with the ideology of the left and right, or political correctness, or whether Fox is fair and balanced, or anything of that sort. I simply learned of deeply offensive comments and was repelled by them – as I hope I would have been if they’d been about someone’s race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or any other part of their identity.
Pass the word far and wide, and let the national conversation begin.
Tags: Adam Pertman, Adam's Commentaries, adoptee rights, Adoption Institute, Adoption Nation, birth certificates, Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
I’m not outraged at all. I’m glad someone is not afraid to step on a few hypersensitive politically correct toes to speak the truth.
Adoption really does screw up adoptees and birthmothers for life, more than most in the triad are willing to admit, even to themselves. Educating oneself on adoption issues doesn’t guarantee a thing, as denial runs rampant amongst the most educated.
Keith Ablow should be applauded.
Broad brushes are for sides of barns, not for understanding people. It’s lazy logic that even M.D.’s are susceptible to—obviously.
Making the world simple does not simplify it—it makes into something it isn’t. When I hear someone use a broad generalization, I figure their ignorance is even broader. This is a case in point.
Adam, thanks for showcasing something that was unfairly sliding by.
All true Adam, and one can have endless fun deconstructing Fox “news”, but your disclaimer borders on frivolous. I understand why you say for public consumption that you are not picking on Fox News. But let’s get real. They do these kind of ad hominem attacks on a regular basis — precisely because they are Fox News, and they know that’s what their customers like. They are barely a half step removed from Rush Limbaugh entertainment-news.
So, the reason there is no outrage any more is because we are all so used to it — from Fox News. We don’t expect any better.
I agree with Kate. Except when he said, “Many adoptees are tremendously well adjusted.” Many adoptees have disenfranchised identities and grief that society refuses to acknowledge, because they are forced to live an “amended” role their entire lives without their own truth.
I agree with all your points and find some of the above comments just plain sad. Esp. the so what? It is Fox one.
I will link
chief007
It seems to me that some journalist may need a psychiatrist, and that some psychiatrist need a psychiatrist. It is time for folks to really understand the world of Adoption. I really don’t why all records should not be open to the ones concerned, not the public.
I would think that if adoption records were open to the ones involved, then there would not be as much psychiatric need because there would not be as much psychosis.
Fox news is anything but. It is just an outlet for Murdoch’ and Ailes’ right wing hate. Kate Snyder, credentials, facts, links please! Good job Adam.
I was adjusted to my adoptee identity; I had all the defense mechanisms to survive in the world where people do have their kinship ties, ongoing updates on family medical history ( I had none), and the sense of coming from the Old World where all of one’s ancestors once lived before they came to the Americas. Once I had my family reunification at age 41 with both Mother’s and Father’s families, I had to adjust to being part of the world of nature. This took me about 20 years to come full circle.
As much as I want to be outraged about Fox and these comments, I found this commentary surprisingly accurate. This man speaks the truth about how it is to be an adoptee. And that is actually a tremendous relief. If adoptee feelings are being acknowledged on Fox…there is hope that one day adoptive parents can hear (and cope with) the truth too.
Kate, the psychiatrist was going well beyond the bounds here. Even admitting that adoption can and does ‘screw up birthmothers and adoptees lives’ (not to mention adoptive parents) if you wish to word it that way, this does not give someone the right to label you, me or anyone else ‘dangerous’ based upon that single fact. I’m appalled that in 2012 the ‘dangerous orphan’ stereotype is still haunting us. (Have you seen the film “Orphan”?)
Adam you are right about this. This is the elephant that is always in the room. The subtle discrimination over adoption has not been promoted enough because the parties to the adoption have been made to feel that if they protest too much that they are somehow not grateful for the “benefits” of adoption. Those who are outspoken are often seen as “bad seeds”
Adoptees are victims of state sanctioned discrimination from our governments. I would ask that you share this link with your readers, and encourage them to fight for adult adoptees to have unrestricted access to their original birth certificates. It is your duty as an adoptive parent, and it is your duty as a prominent person in the adoption industry.
http://www.adopteerightscoalition.com/2012/02/help-fund-lobby-booth-for-adoptee.html
Thank you, Adam, for pointing out only the latest example of the kind of misinformed and hateful bias that plagues adoption even today. Yes, adopted children share the daily challenge of their adopted background and some never quite fit the jigsaw pieces of their backgrounds into a cohesive, contented whole but solid research shows that by and large adopted children are more emotionally connected to their adoptive families than biological children are.
Adopters, adoptees and birth parents may succeed or fail at incorporating the experience of placement and adoption according to their own personal strengths, weaknesses, and effort, but until we blast away the myths that surround this particular kind of family we will continue to deprive children of the one single most important contribution to their success: a permanent, stable family.
Despite research showing a very substantial percentage of Americans �approve� of adoption, negative depictions of the institution such as Dr. Ablow�s uninformed comments contradict the assumption that adoption is understood or well accepted.
Paula
Adam, would it be possible for you to maybe drop me a line and let me know why you chose not to publish my comment? Thanks.
Cully
Fox News is anything but. Just an outlet for Ailes’ and Murdoch’s right wing hate. Kate Snyder: credentials, facts, links, please.
Adam: Good job of bringing this goofiness to light.
what comment was it please?