Read with care
The following are two articles on the same book published in two different newspapers:
How adopting an angelic five year old blew our family apart
Adopted Children: Sometimes you can’t mend them
Reading the two articles side-by-side gives two very different pictures of the situation experienced by this family, originally the headline for the Daily Mail article used the word “evil” to describe the child - this was removed after complaints - but gives a very different image to that painted by The Times article of a child damaged by conditions beyond their control.
So why have I pointed these out? - For several reasons:
- it is an interesting example of the way the media can mould our understanding and interpretations of situations and events. It raises the postmodernist question of whether the media moulds or reflects society - does it print what society want to see or does it create society’s tastes?
- even with the seemingly more balanced Times article there is the fact that it is the 30% of adoptive placements that fail that is pointed out - double that number ’succeed’. Obviously the use of the 30% links in with the topic of the article and 1 in 3 is a large proportion but it is still worth turning numbers round in your head when you see them in articles - often you find it gives a very different impression.
- Adoptive families are a family form that are often left out when we talk about family diversity. These articles also challenge the idea that families are always happy places - they remind us of the ‘dark side’ of the family.
- The articles also raise the questions of individuals’ power in society - the first article, published in the Daily Mail, was published 3 weeks ago - it was ‘adapted’ from the mother’s book and has clearly been written to pull out the most ‘juicy’ bits and to summarise the story in a dramatic way - something which the Daily Mail has a reputation for doing and which will probably have boosted sales of the book (I have also heard that authors may have very little control over what is published). The second article was published today in the Times - a paper which has a reputation as a ‘broadsheet’ for being more balanced in its evaluation of stories. I do wonder whether the Times article is an attempt by the author of the book or their publisher/agent to ‘redress the balance’ of the original article (particularly given the fairly derogatory comments that were posted on the Daily Mail website by readers). If so, it suggests that agency does have a role to play in the machinations of society.
- the issue of different accounts also arises in research - talking to different people or looking at different sources about the same event can give you very different stories - this process of checking data for differing interpretations and meanings and inconsistencies can lead to more valid and reliable research.
So, I would advise you to read with care when you read accounts of events - sometimes it is worth reading more than one account in order to get a fuller picture.