Outrageous "Reporting"

I am sure she simply meant to slam Angelina Jolie as a person and as a celebrity. I am sure this reporter is good at writing, or I presume she wouldn't be employed. However, all that she did was distort the truth about adoption and insult more than just Angelina. I have copied and pasted the article from the LA Times for your reading "pleasure". Followed by that is the Adoptive Families response.

How to Shop for Kids
the Brangelina Way

Angelina's "looking at different countries" to find another child to adopt. We weigh some likely possibilities.

By Leslie Gornstein, Special to The Times

Less than a month after giving birth to her first biological daughter, Angelina Jolie said Tuesday that she plans to adopt another child. The Oscar-winning actress already has two adopted tykes — a boy, Maddox Chivan, from Cambodia, and a girl, Zahara Marley, from Ethiopia. Jolie also has her hands full with new baby Shiloh Nouvel. (We hear Shiloh's father is an actor.)

"We're looking at different countries," Jolie told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "And it's gonna be the balance of what would be the best for Mad and for Z right now. Another boy, another girl, which country, which race would fit best with the kids."

Now that Cambodia and Ethiopia are, you know, so yesterday, where might the next Jolie-Pitt adoptee be? Some likely possibilities:

CHINA
This country is like a machine — an adorable, adoptable-children machine. More than 7,900 rugrats adopted last year came from China. If Jolie seeks her next child in this country, she'll most likely get a girl; only 5% of available children are boys.

Estimated total cost: $20,000 to $25,000

Upside: Babies! Squadrons and squadrons of little babies!

Downside: Only a limited number of singles may adopt. (The exception: special-needs kids.) And when Jolie isn't growing her family, she's busy denying marriage rumors. Also, Jolie would have to go through an agency approved by the Chinese; no private adoptions permitted. That could mean less discretion than the publicity-picky star might like.

Likelihood: Low. Jolie already has two girls. Add a third, and that makes for a perilously outnumbered Maddox Chivan Jolie-Pitt. Jolie says she wants "balance," which probably means a boy, and China isn't the most logical place to find one.

RUSSIA
This country is the second biggest supplier of adoptable moppets. More than 4,600 kids came from Russia last year.

Estimated total cost: $30,000 to $40,000

Upside: Ample pickin's. Ratio of boys to girls is 1 to 1. And if Jolie's plans for "balance" call for an older child, this is also a good country; in 2004, almost half of the children looking for parents were ages 1 to 4.

Downside: No private adoptions here either. And maybe some bad blood. In 2004, British and Russian papers buzzed that Jolie was preparing to adopt a Muscovite orphan boy named Gleb. If there was such a failed plan, then Jolie's relationship with the Russians may be as frosty as a St. Petersburg ice sculpture.

Likelihood: High. Unless the Gleb tale is true. Then low.

KAZAKHSTAN
A rising contender in family-building, this Central Asian country adopted out about 750 kids last year.

Estimated total cost: $30,000

Downside: Jolie had better have time to kill. The country requires adoptive parents to visit for at least a month before it will part with a child. Kazakhstan also insists on yearly progress reports detailing an adopted child's welfare, until the kid turns 18. One other factor: Like orphans in Russia, Kazakh children under 6 months are not available for adoption.

Upside: The month-long visit can be split into two trips.

Thumbs Down to the LA Times for their article,
"How to Shop for Kids the Brangelina Way"

Adoptive Families magazine and our readers speak out against this offensive article.

NEW YORK, NEW YORK, June 28 – Yes, the LA Times actually published an article with this title. Adoptive Families offers information and resources to help parents adopt and support them as they raise their children, and we deplore the fact that our content was used as a "source" for this shabby piece of journalism. [You may have to register to read the full article online, but you can do so for free.]

AF readers have also wasted no time in voicing their displeasure with both the newspaper and the author, Leslie Gorenstein. After citing actress Angelina Jolie's desire to adopt another child, Gorenstein surveys several sending countries as "likely possibilities." The article's format itself "trivializes the difficult decisions adopting parents face when choosing a country," says AF reader Christina Hippeli.

Reader Ellen Kuhn is rightly outraged by the article's suggestion that "we 'shop' for our kids," and a reader named Kristine cringed at this line touting the benefits of not having to travel when adopting from South Korea: "Plus, she could phone in her baby order from her VIP suite at the Raffles L'Hermitage in Beverly Hills."

The article is offensive to "parents, children, countries, the entire adoption process," says reader Colleen McLain. In her section on adoptions from Ukraine, Gorenstein tosses out this glib assessment: "Downside: A kid needs to be available for a year before she can snatch one, unless the child is ill." Reader Stacie Luttschwager calls our attention to two other wording choices in extremely poor taste: China is described as "a machine — an adorable, adoptable-children machine" and Gorenstein speculates that Jolie might decide to adopt from Russia based on the "ample pickin's."

"While I am sure this was meant to be a satirical piece, it FAR missed the mark. My daughter, and other children who've come in to their families through adoption, are not 'fair game' for this sort of thing," McLain continues.

Kuhn concluded, "AF was listed as a source for the article, but I'm sure AF would not approve of the content!" And we don't. Join with us, and your fellow readers, in making yourself heard by writing to readers.rep@latimes.com, where you can lodge complaints about the "journalistic standards" of a writer, or sending a general letter to the LA Times editors: letters@latimes.com.Adoptive Families magazine and our readers speak out against this offensive article.