If you know any parents who have adopted children, you know their parenthood is as real as it gets. Unfortunately, a review of the film “Snow Dogs” that appeared Jan. 19 in The San Diego Union-Tribune referred to an adopted man’s biological parents as his “real mother” and “real father.”
“As the parents of two adopted children, my husband and I truly are their `real’ parents; there is nothing `false’ or `pretend’ or `unreal’ about us,” wrote Liz Levine. “We are the only parents our children have known, and they are `really’ ours!”
Levine knows that the writer did not mean to be unkind and offered some advice. “I hope that she will be more careful about her language in the future,” Levine wrote. “An adopted person’s parents should be referred to simply as his or her father, mother or parents. The man and woman who shared in the child’s conception can be referred to as the birth parents, genetic parents or biological parents, but please, not the `real’ or natural parents.”
Writers need to exercise care when writing about adoption. It’s not a matter of being politically correct. It’s about accuracy.
* * *
Initials for names of well-known entities are commonplace. Is there any question about what is meant by U.S., NFL, NAACP and NATO? Even so, some alphabet soup can be baffling. John Laforce was puzzled and exasperated when he read a lengthy article containing initials that made him stop and reread portions of it for a translation.
It wasn’t the abbreviation in the headline that puzzled Laforce. Because he’s a sportfisherman, Laforce knew immediately that DFG, which also appeared in the 23-paragraph story 14 times, stood for the Department of Fish and Game. Even so, he said, the definition wasn’t clear to his wife who, “when I go fishing, sits in the car and reads.”
There’s no question DFG is familiar to regular readers of Sports. In a little more than eight years, it has appeared in the newspaper at least 500 times. It is less familiar in headlines, having been used only 44 times in the same period.
By spelling out by the name of the agency and using the initials in the second paragraph, the reporter took pains to make the translation of DFG clear (even though I question its use in headlines). However, the story fell short with another group of initials that should have been caught by an editor.
In the 13th paragraph, there’s a reference to the Marine Life Protection Act. Ten paragraphs later, there’s a reference to MLPA. That’s what puzzled Laforce who said he had to scan the story for a clue about the translation of the initials.
He said he has seen this in all sections of the paper, not just in this story that was in the Sports section. Mike Sappington, who runs the news copy desk, agreed. “We sometimes make it too difficult to link abbreviations or acronyms to what came before,” he said.
It’s understandable why reporters and headline writers are tempted to use initials. For reporters, contacts in organizations they write about often use them, and they become accustomed to hearing them. Also, there’s the issue of space, no small matter in newspapers. Space is always a consideration in writing headlines. And, when it comes to articles, the more space given over to spelling out long names the less space there is to tell the story. Imagine a 23-paragraph story with the Department of Fish and Game spelled out 14 times.
Laforce’s solution would be to place the initials in parentheses the first time the name appears. However, the practice is discouraged by Union-Tribune guidelines, based on The Associated Press Stylebook. It says: “Do not follow an organization’s full name with an abbreviation or acronym in parentheses or set off by dashes. If an abbreviation or acronym would not be clear on second reference without this arrangement, do not use it.
“Names not commonly before the public should not be reduced to acronyms solely to save a few words.”
Chuck Scott, sports editor, said that unless abbreviations are commonplace — such as NFL, NBA, NHL, NASCAR and PGA — the use of initials is discouraged. “For abbreviations that land in the gray area between obvious and unclear, we might write out something like `Department of Fish and Game’ on the first reference and use `DFG’ on second reference.”
John Kowalczyk, Sappington’s counterpart on the features copy desk, said the features sections do not abide by the no parentheses rule if there’s a chance for confusion. Sappington agrees, especially if the initials are not used for several paragraphs after the name is spelled out.
Kowalczyk favors using a shortened form of the name if possible but approves of parentheses if they are in the interest of clarity. “My personal philosophy is that a style rule should be broken if your interpretation of it results in reader confusion.”
