Help Me Come Up With A Good New York Times/Infertility Hashtag

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.

So: I’m calling on all you funny and clever wordsmiths out there. Mommy Odyssey? The Smartness? Runny Yolk? I know lots of you are great at this stuff.

What’s a good Hashtag which would represent The New York Times’ abysmal coverage of infertility?


Filed under Infertility, Sad

9 responses to “Help Me Come Up With A Good New York Times/Infertility Hashtag

  1. Mel

    I’m going to leave the hashtag ideas to those more clever.
    I saw that debate in the Times yesterday, started to read it, and then clicked away. I’m sure some great arguments were made, but I could wade through it.

  2. How about #nytimesaganda ? Like New York Times + Propaganda… Or some version of that. I will let you know if I think of anything else. I applaud you for taking this on.

  3. I know precious little about Twitter but perhaps #theARTofbias #NYTimes?

  4. Mo

    Oh the pressure! (I do like cookie’s suggestion)
    OK a couple of suggestions. Some are a bit long.
    #IFUNYTimes Or – #IFyouNYTimes
    Riffing on Cookie’s Suggestion: #ARTignoranceNYTimes
    Um… that’s all I have for now. I’ll pop back in if I have a stroke of inspiration.

  5. Excellent challenge! How about #NYTIFAIL? Or #NYTClueless or #NYTIgnorance? Let me think some more.

  6. Kym

    OK – I’ve actually been thinking about this all day. As much as I think something catchy and witty would be kind-of like a sarcastic karate chop to the biased balls of The Times, in order to be effective, I think that clean and simple is the best way to go. Here are my reasons why:

    1. Lingo like IF and ART is just that – lingo. Only people in our community are going to clue in to what the heck we’re talking about. Regular joes will see those hashtags and will be like, “If art, then what? If there’s art, then we’re all smart and intelligent because smart and intelligent people know the difference between Monet and Manet!” We need to be sucker-punch, there’s-no-mistaking-that-we’re-rallying-to-kick-your-ass-OBVIOUS.

    2. We need to use @NYTimes plus whatever hashtag is decided upon. @NYTimes is the official Twitter name of The Times, and we need to slap them in the face with direct name-calling.

    All of that said, I like the @NYTimes #InfertilityTruths combo. My reasoning is that it’s obvious on several levels what the nature of these tweets is about. a) It’s clearly directed to The Times, b) It’s clearly about infertility, and c) it obviously calls to others to throw their own truths about IF in. I’m afraid that “bias” would prompt a vent-fest about just how biased they are (which, hell – we NEED to vent about it), but I think attacking them with cold, hard facts might be more effective. Seeing the word “truths” inspires others to post their own truths, which in turn, will hopefully have the effect we hope it will – to slap the misconceptions and skewed reporting out of their heads (at least long enough to maybe get your letter to the editor printed).


  7. Lut C.

    Kym makes some good points. I like her suggestion.
    @NYTimes #InfertilityTruths

    If you must have a tongue in cheek suggestion, something with “too posh to …”. Insert description as desired, for instance ‘to do it like mammals’. 😉

  8. NYT has a low fact count? I HATE THEM. They actually just sent me a letter asking me to subscribe. I am trying to decide what to do with it. I suppose I could wipe my butt with it.

  9. EVERY TIME I read a NYT article about infertility I get pissed! WHATS THE DEAL? I like the truths idea..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s