That Which Chaps My Hide

Extra bonus Dosing today. Because. Am mad. Hulk mad. Gar. Smash.

Karianna asked that I direct your attention to this post and photo. I'm not even sure how to summarize it, because again. Mad.

Parents Magazine featured a story about autism. Story is accompanied by a photo of an adorable little baby. Photo of adorable little baby is accompanied by a prominent disclaimer.

"The child pictured is a model and is unrelated to the issue described in the text."

What? WHAT?

Well THANK GOD, because we certainly can't have anybody thinking that this baby has...(hushed, shameful voice)...AUTISM, which, you know, is Scary and Bad and Terrible and would mean this baby is Unlovable and Doomed and Whatever the Heck Else.

As Kari puts it:

I have never seen a disclaimer like this on similar parenting articles. Issues, conditions, and so forth are frequently accompanied by photographs of child and adult models. (Do I think a kid scratching her head in a photo accompanying a delousing article really has lice, for example?)

If your hide is also significantly chapped by this, head over to Kari's blog for contact info and fire off a letter or email to Parents asking them to please explain their reason for this bizarre disclaimer.

Comments

[robin]

Thank you for spreading this. As a parent of an Asperger child, who wouldn't trade him for the world, because he is perfect just the way he is, I too am beyond mad. There has been so much public awareness to ASD which is much needed. More awareness = more funding = more research = more answers. And this is extremely needed as kids are getting diagnosed at epidemic rates now. This just set positive awareness back years.

[AmyM]

So, if the public is so stupid and needs disclaimers, why don't the people in the Valtrex commercials get disclaimers that say "I am not really a carrier of Genital Herpes, I just play one on TV"? Also, the men in the Viagra commercials aren't wearing t-shirts that say "Not an actual sufferer of ED". Because I am a complete retard and don't know the difference between an actor or a model playing a part for effect.

[Momish]

That disclaimer is unethical and a disgrace. I am appalled. Thanks for letting me know.

[*pixie*]

I just saw this in the magazine yesterday and thought how tacky.

[Karianna]

Thank you for directing people my way. Let us smash things together, and dump the rubble on Parents Magazine's head.

[heels]

Actually, I have noticed other similar (though less totally appalling) problems with Parents Magazine. I find it to be a horribly bigoted publication and I have written to them outlining my displeasure. They still persist in sending me the magazine even though I have told them every time that I do not wish to have more trash in my mailbox, thankyouverymuch.

[Kelly]

HATE Parents Magazine. So, so much. Every article is about the myriad ways that YOUR! TODDLER/BABY! WILL! DIE! Mostly implying that said death is a direct result of your stupidity.

Fuck off, Parents Magazine! Especially for your latest tripe.

(Uh, can I say fuck here?)

[jozet]

Do people still read Parents magazine when there are so many fabulous parenting blogs written by men and women who are educated, wise, common-sensical, and far more interesting writers?

Blogs where they authors post pictures of their own kids and say, "Here's my 'imperfect' child. Isn't she just the most beautiful, prefect thing you've every seen?"

Magazines. Pffft.

[chantelle]

I guess the one way you could understand this in their defense, is perhaps they didn't want a bunch of angry letters about making a child with autism sit through a stressful photo shoot, but as you have both noted the fact that this isn't normally done (The family in the photo has not really taken time out of their grueling divorce disputes to pose for Parents Magazine), is what makes it questionable and more than a little insulting to the reader's intelligence.

[Melissa]

Let me give one possible explanation:

I work for a newspaper. We have to do many, many things to protect ourselves from possible litigation. This disclaimer sounds like one of those things, because publications have been sued by adults over pictures taken of them when they were children implying that they had some sort of disability (i.e., they were photographed with other children in a story about special ed classes). Even if the person does have a disability, as an adult they can sue for being "labeled" as such in a publication.

In our town, we have a residential facility for adults with mental disabilities, and we have to be extremely careful about identifying pictures of them as residents of the center.

So, while the disclaimer may seem a little silly, it's really probably a defense mechanism for the publication.

[tracey]

Great. I had the Rhogam shot and immunize my kids... And my oldest is ADHD... Didn't know about that possible link...

I agree that that is a rude comment under the baby. I'm thinking it was a parent thing. It just feels like the parents of the baby didn't want their child "tainted" by being labeled autistic. Maybe they were being forced to write it? But baby models are a dime a dozen... I can't imagine that THAT baby was so fabulous that they couldn't have found a parent that was willing to step in at the last minute... Hmmm.

Also, why couldn't they have looked for autistic children to photograph? Are they thinking that they look so different that they wouldn't look good on print? Come on...

[sherry]

That is completely appalling. If they added a disclaimer to each and every photo, fine. But as Kari said, they did not.

[Tere]

Parents Magazine fails on all fronts. They also ran some ridiculous information regarding breastfeeding in the August issue (covered here: http://thelactivist.blogspot.com/2007/08/parents-magazine-says-theres-nothing.html)

They're just full of drivel.

[jaelithe]

You know, IF the problem really was that the magazine was worried about being sued someday if that child grew up to feel that his/her portrayal as someone with a disability had somehow negatively affected the rest of his/her life or modeling career or what have you, then,

WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST TAKE A PHOTO OF A CHILD WITH AUTISM?

Hmm? I am sure there are bunches and bunches of cute autistic kids out there whose photos they could have taken instead, if they were really that terrified.

Ridiculous.

[Joanne]

What strikes me about the picture is that the baby in the picture is really young. Maybe that's the reason for the disclaimer? How strange and weird. Why not a) use a picture of a child that's talked about in the article or b) not use a picture at all? Weird.

[Suzy Q]

This is so weird and obviously a product of the ridiculously PC world in which we live today.

Back in the '60s, my mother was the author of many magazine articles (and books) about childhood dyslexia, which back then was a New Frontier. Accompanying those articles (and "special" school brochures and books) were pictures of me and my sister, as we provided absolutely free modeling services.

I was actually the "poster child" of dyslexia for awhile. My sister was dyslexic but I was not, and there was NEVER the possibility that a caption of this sort would appear underneath any of my photos nor would there have been a caption for my sister that read, "actual dyslexic child."

This stinks.