By the way, do you know how many children where adopted from Romania in 10 years? More than 30 000 !

Do you know how much money this business made? More than A BILLION $ , more than any foreign investment in Romania after 1989 !

Do you think is OK to have such a business in a civilized country, member of EU ? Personally I don’t, and I’ll sugest that every criminal involved in such a child adoption business, no matter how much money he made, 1 buck or 1 million bucks, to be senteced to maximum charge or life in prison. Just to give them a tough lesson.

Forget about the UK press… You should see what the Romanian press is writing whenever the issue is international adoption. The offending terms you have listed in your post (and many others) have all originated from baroness Nicholson’s arsenal she used during her anti-international adoption crusade. The Romanian authorities and media have adopted the language she was using (very effectively, I must say) in order to convince the whole world that adoptive parents are thiefs and smugglers, that international adoption equals child trafficking and results only in child prostitution, pedophilia, banks of organs and other paranoid lies.

Thank you, Josh, for pointing out the interview and for your great comments.

Vali, Romania

On the other hand, U.S. media sources seem to enjoy believing the worst, and they have been particularly bad when reporting about Guatemala adoptions. They regularly pass on unverified assertions about the “baby trade” in Guatemala. They also like to sensationalize reports about the high numbers of adoptions from China.

Is it possible that the media in the U.S. have gotten better about adoption in general, but they still lag a bit with international adoption coverage? It’s certainly a complex topic, and we have to extend some grace to journalists and others who simply haven’t had the chance to be educated about the issues.

Was this Al Jazeera piece slanted because it was Arab or because it was British? I suspect because it was British. None of the prejudicial language seemed to draw from distinctively Muslim objections to international adoption. (And Muslims’ commitment to caring for orphaned children in their extended families is a topic that might deserve a post here later. Even if this practice creates a prejudice against intercountry adoption, it’s very commendable, and when possible, I think it’s a better solution for children.)

For all of their other failings, I would give the US media a good score for handling adoption issues. Adoptive parents are generally treated sympathetically, as are agencies and birthparents who put children up (sorry, but that’s the way I usually say it) for adoption. British media, from what I have seen, are much more skeptical and antagonistic.

One might expect Al Jazeera to be unsympathetic, since adoption is not practiced in the Muslim world, but rather extended families are required to take children in if they cannot be cared for by their birthparents.

We need to keep saying what we’re saying. The US media has come around in the last 30 years, and media in other countries should be amenable to similar education. It always helps to repeat the truth if one is trying to win converts to a cause.