My letter to the editor was not published. And after I sent it, The New York Times published yet another article about another extreme case of ART, a sperm donor who had had 150 kids. Just like with the twins article, the article has no hard numbers whether there actually ARE large numbers of donors with many children. Guess what guys: if there’s no numbers or studies behind it, it is NOT A TREND!! Has Freakanomics taught you nothing?
Now The New York Times have turned this latest extreme case on the margins of ART into the following: A debate about “Making Laws About Making Babies” The alarmist nature of the article freaked out a whole bunch of people and legislation is already being discussed to legislate the infertility industry. Because that is what we need to be doing in this economy: focusing on this issue. Facepalm. What about the 1 in 8 people suffering from infertility? What about helping them? The comment section of the debate is full of more Amy Haibles. These articles fuel the Amy Haibles of the world.
Since it’s clear that The New York Times isn’t going to change its editorial policy of only highlighting the margins or extremes of infertility, I want to spotlight each and every article that comes out and call it what it is: biased.
What would be maybe helpful is if we could create a Hashtag for Twitter so we can alert others when a crappy article comes out. And mobilize.
Here’s the thing: I totally suck at naming things: the only thing I can think of is #nytimesdouchebags.
What’s a good Hashtag which would represent The New York Times’ abysmal coverage of infertility?