More on Dobson: Time (or someone) corrects Jennifer Chrisler

Yesterday, Focus on the Family released a reaction to an article written by Jennifer Chrisler, of Family Pride, in Time magazine. Ms. Chrisler’s article was a rebuttal to an article by James Dobson.

In Jennifer Chrisler’s original Time article, she wrote:

According to the 2000 census, the vast majority — more than 75% — of American children, are being raised in families that differ in structure from two married, heterosexual parents and their biological children.

However, in the current Time article online, she writes:

According to the 2000 census, the vast majority — more than 75% — of American households differ in structure from two married, heterosexual parents and their biological children.

I discovered this discrepancy this morning when I was preparing to blog about the Focus on the Family rebuttal.

Maggi Gallagher posted a letter from Jennifer Chrisler explaining a bit more about the matter.

Obviously Time corrected it but it is unclear how it initially came to their attention.

There is an unconfirmed report that the US Census may ask Ms. Chrisler to refrain from quoting Census data…

6 thoughts on “More on Dobson: Time (or someone) corrects Jennifer Chrisler”

  1. The rhetoric flies on both sides. Re-read Chrisler’s editorial side-by-side with Dobsons. They both seek to persuade readers in a very small space. Arguably both use data in a slanted manner to support a position. As far as rhetoric goes, Chrisler did not need to write an email, she already used strong language about her opponent in her Time article.

  2. FYI – I am pursuing the issue you raised above, first by Wayne Besen, then on exgaywatch and then here by CK about the Angela Phillips misquote. I have had some trouble locating Trouble with Boys to see exactly what she does say about the matter.

    Getting things wrong is human but these things can be corrected. I would like to see Chrisler simply excise that reference since comparing households with children to those that do not have them takes the reader far from her point. Mom and dad intact families are statistically more common, but this does not prove much when it comes to the point at issue. In my view, she should stipulate the obvious and move on to whatever arguments or data she wants to make.

  3. Dobson – misquotes researchers – going so far as to state that one believes that there’s some increase of homosexuality in Europe caused by fatherlessness. When his error is pointed out, becomes defensive and goes on the attack against the very people he quoted.

    Chrisler – misquotes the Census – confusing “households” with “households with children”. When her error is pointed out, she appologizes and sends a letter to both the person who corrected her and to Time.

    I think this is a valuable lesson in character. Who would you like your children to see as an example?

  4. CK – I’m glad you pointed that out. Goes to show that these activist groups need English majors!

    Seriously, it is like cowbell in rock and roll, you can never get too much English. 🙂

  5. What is the point of showing that 75% of households are not the traditional model? This says nothing about what might be optimal for children. Talking about the characteristics of homes without children says nothing about what might be good for children.

    Any accusation that Dobson slanted research to suit his point was weakened substantially by Chrisler’s rebuttal.

  6. Kindof negates her whole point in writing that sentance, doesn’t it? The first was about the households children are raised in. The second includes all households, whether they have children in the home or not.

Comments are closed.