HELP! Slate Being INAPPROPRIATE w/Edwards Children!

[IdaBriggs]

Hi, folks. MSN Slate has decided to post one of the most INAPPROPRIATE stories I have EVER seen ANYWHERE. To be blunt, they have decided to speculate on the infertility treatments that Elizabeth and John underwent to conceive their youngest children.

As a woman who has undergone infertility treatments for six years, I find this OFFENSIVE beyond words: I have called, and people have responded in their "chat rooms" and also e-mailed, but apparently the excitement about the topic is good for the web page hits or something, because they will NOT take the story down.

Can you help? Here is the contact information --

"To reach editors in New York, call Jill Hunter Pellettieri at [phone]. For editors in Washington, D.C., call Josh Levin at [phone]. To reach editors in Redmond, call Gretchen Evanson at [phone] or Microsoft's main switchboard at [phone]."

and their e-mail is [e-mail] --

It is my opinion that the infertility treatments the Edwards family used are PRIVATE; if and/or when Elizabeth and John want to publicly discuss them, that is THEIR business, but until then DECENCY DEMANDS THEY LET IT BE. In the meantime, unless they want to post Blinky's Penis Size, they need to PULL this story!!!

Its time to STOP THIS CRAP -- PLEASE HELP!!!

ON EDIT: Link to Story -- "Did Elizabeth Edwards Use Donor Egg? All Signs Point to Yes!" http://slate.msn.com/id/2108863/

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Doesn't SLATE Lean Left?

:shrug:

[IdaBriggs]

6. I don't care what direction they leave -- LEAVE THE CHILDREN OUT OF IT! nt

[RamboLiberal]

2. Could you post a link to offending story?

TIA

[IdaBriggs]

3. Sorry -- So MAD I Forgot!

Link to Story -- "Did Elizabeth Edwards Use Donor Egg? All Signs Point to Yes!" http://slate.msn.com/id/2108863/

[Heidi]

4. Not to worry.

This is not a new story. Elizabeth Edwards has gracefully refused to comment in the past, and I imagine she will continue to refuse to comment on private matters, as is her right.

To advocate censorship would defeat what we liberals are about, wouldn't you agree? And if a big stink is made, this story will become bigger than it ought to be.

Edit to add: Further, I won't click the link because, as a person who was adopted at 6 by a loving family, I have no interest in knowing the "origins" of others, and my lack of a click will send that message pretty clearly.

[IdaBriggs]

7. In this area, I * DON'T * agree.

The difference between censorship and human decency is very clear to me. When a news media does not censor inappropriate material on its own, I think it needs to be smacked down. Speculating about infertility treatments used by the Edwards family WHEN THE EDWARDS FAMILY HAS MADE IT CLEAR THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO DISCUSS IT WITH THE MEDIA is EVIL. Since Elizabeth has NOT commented, this SPECULATION is the worse kind of GOSSIP -- NOT NEWS.

With the infertility treatments I have gone through, I am personally very open and forthright about them; however, I respect the decisions each family makes, and believe it is a decision the Edwards family has a right to some privacy about, and I will defend their right to that privacy as hard as I can.

Until they want to post the Presidential Penis Size (something I have NO INTEREST IN, by the way), they need to remove this story!

[greyfox]

5. Got this reply

Thanks for your submission to Slate. Due to the large amount of mail we receive, we regret that we may not be able to respond to every pitch, but we will certainly try our best to do so. We appreciate your interest.

Sincerely,

Slate Magazine

[classof56]

8. I saw this story earlier but did not read it.

Thanks for prompting me to call them on it. I just sent this message:

"Slate, you are about to lose a long-time reader. What on earth possessed you to run this story now or EVER?? How in the world does this get to be ANYbody's business but the Edwards'? How hurtful is it to the children to even ask the question? Where's your sense of dignity, personal privacy and most of all SHAME??

Pull the story. NOW. I'll give you one chance. If it's not dropped today, I'll never go on your site again. And by the way, I won't listen to your NPR program, either.

Bet you're scared now, huh? Nevertheless, this is the wrong story in the wrong place at the wrong time. I and many others are outraged that it's there. Pull it!"


IdaBriggs, I hope this helps. Lately, the main reason I've been going on Slate is to read Doonesbury. I can get there another way, so if they don't pull the Edwards story, I will never go to Slate again.

Best wishes.

DEFEAT BUSH!!

[MsAnthropy]

9. This is so disgusting!

What is it with repukes that they are so obsessed with what goes on in other people's wombs? God, they will say ANYTHING!

[MallRat]

10. Huh? What's the big deal here?

Is this a writer desperately trying to find some shred of an unexplored angle to this election?

1. I don't care if she did or didn't use donor eggs.

2. I don't care if she does or doesn't become a vocal advocate for donor eggs.

3. Could her silence on the topic reflect the unimportance of this issue, and not her reluctance to talk about it?

WTF is this? I'm not angry- just really, really puzzled.

-MR

[Heidi]

11. It could very well be

that the Edwards family has not yet discussed the issue, if there is one, with their children.

Further, no one is obligated to become a "poster child" for the choices they make in their private lives. I respect that. I don't see the Edwards making a big thing out of the Slate article, but if they do, I'll follow their lead, just as I'm doing now.

[IdaBriggs]

12. The big deal is the privacy issue.

This SHOULD BE out of bounds UNLESS they want to talk about it with the media. Its not News -- Its GOSSIP.

:mad:

[MallRat]

13. Sorry. My "what's the big deal" was directed at Slate, not you.

I don't understand the point of Slate's story. I do understand your anger, though.

-MR

[IdaBriggs]

14. Thanks, MR.

I am sick at the moment (cold has settled in my chest), and I think I am snappier than I should be, plus I am really upset by their article. I hate that they are making it an issue, and putting it up with Elizabeth's picture; she's a class act all the way, and they need to let her be. :( (Hack, cough, etc.) Sorry if I came across mean to you -- its the second time I've done it today, so maybe I should just browse until I feel better! :(

[Bridget Burke]

15. Laura Bush had trouble conceiving the twins....

Has Slate chosen to give a full gynecological profile of the First Lady? Of course we'd need both sides of the story. How's Shrub's sperm count? Motility?

Waiting for Slate to follow through.....

[MISSDem]

16. I read it too and I was very offended.

Couldn't believe what I was reading.

[slappypan]

17. misogynous crap

Would Slate dare to speculate whether a male politician shoots blanks? No, they would not.

[Redleg]

18. Slate has been so disappointing.

They published the most lukewarm endorsements for Kerry. Piss on 'em. I mostly ignore them now.