In my previous two blogs I covered an interview with a reporter who is in Guatemala right now. He answered questions about his interview with the Deputy Attorney General (Barrios) of PGN; the dreaded PGN, the last and often longest and most trying step in the Guatemalan adoption process.

In this blog, I’ve asked him about the media’s treatment of the Guatemalan adoption process.

Many if not most of us who are involved in intercountry adoptions in general and Guatemalan adoptions in particular feel that the media has given unfair, one sided reports on Guatemalan adoption. Do you agree? If so, how can this situation be rectified? If not, how do you justify it?

It might sound strange to you but I’m not a media expert and don’t have a definite answer for you. I’ve worked as a reporter for about 4 years and I’ve heard about media biases on dozens of issues, and I’ve been accused of perpetuating them. I say I’m no expert because I’m like you and others who feel like some of our opinions are under-represented in the media and I don’t know why. I know that sometimes as a reporter certain things seem more likely than other things, so I lend those stories my own bias. That’s inevitable. I also have editors who sometimes drastically change my stories to suit their own perspectives or desires for their publications. I’d say in general that these are the things that drive content:

Interest – if something is sensational it is more interesting, so some things get hyped up, like, in this case, baby thefts, exploitation of mothers and lawyers getting rich off the good intentions of well-meaning adoptive parents.

Business – stories that mention products are a plus for the media’s bottom line. If you want a cynical thought, maybe if more adoption lawyers took out sizeable ads in mainstream US media you’d see more stories sympathetic to their views.

Credibility – UFO stories, in spite of the significant number of people who believe there are aliens among us, will not get main play in the mainstream, responsible media. Same with the proclamations of private adoption lawyers when they say they’re not in it for the money. Actually, both those things may be 100% true, but they don’t seem true to most of us.

When I reported on the issue I felt pulled between judging the truthfulness and accuracy of comments made by Guatemalan government officials and those made by adoption lawyers. In fact, I welcomed your own opinions, because, as far as I can tell, you have no economic stake in the outcome of this debate, so your only concern is for the creation of a quick, legal and safe adoption process.

Over the years, many people involved in adoption have given interviews to reporters only to have their words twisted to fit the writer’s angle and opinion. It would benefit both parties to have a better working relationship. Besides demanding to see a draft of the article before printing, how can we prevent this from happening?

If the reporter truly wants to make your words fit his or her point of view then there’s nothing you can do. Even not giving a comment can look bad. While everyone, reporters included, has a point of view, most reporters, like normal people, have consciences and try to represent the facts as honestly as possible. Most reporters will be annoyed when you ask to see a draft. That is a request that implies that the reporter will make mistakes and doesn’t know how to do his or her job and is generally against the etiquette of news reporting. However, if you insist on doing so, the best way is the way you do it, which is by making it a pre-condition to granting the interview. That way the reporter can weigh his or her annoyance against the value of the interview before making a decision.
Maybe you could try asking reporters what are their opinions on the subject, as if you’re interviewing the reporter as well, then you could maybe gauge a reporter’s bias. Another option is to frame your position as the sexier one of the several angles available. If you convince a reporter that your point of view is credible and more interesting than the others out there, you might swing bias in your favor. You already do a good job of that.

One thing I’ve noticed about being accused of misrepresenting people’s comments: sometimes I make mistakes, and sometimes people are too sensitive. What I mean by that last part is that some people simply don’t like seeing opinions that they disagree with, so if they see them, even alongside agreeable opinions, they might call the report biased. You might try adding up the amount of space given to each side in an issue and factor in the position of the opinions – a lead that says “Human rights advocates denounce that adoption crime is running rampant in Guatemala,” for example, might be balanced by a report that gives most of its space to US adoption advocates, lawyers and others with a different point of view.

Robert, thank you so much for this interview. I’m sure my readers found it as informative and enlightening as I did.

photo credit