From: Ellen K. 

Ah yes, accuracy in media...

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:31:10 -0500, "Steve Ewing"
 wrote in message
:

>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 02:43:40 -0800, Ellen K.
> wrote:
>
>> First of all, like it or not, nuclear marriage is the bedrock of the
>> economy.
>
>Interesting...
>
>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/opinion/blankenhorn.html
>(Jan. 2002)
>=====
>As if it didn’t have enough to fret about, the two–parent American family
>got taken for quite a ride in the past year. First, in April the Census
>Bureau dramatically reported that the "nuclear family" was
"rebounding."
>The page–one story in USA Today announced: "The traditional nuclear family—
>a married mom and dad living with their biological children—is making a
>comeback, according to a Census report released today. The proportion of
>the nation’s children living with both biological parents jumped from 51
>percent in 1991 to 56 percent . . . in 1996." On ABC World News Tonight,
>Peter Jennings declared: "The Census Bureau said today that the number of
>children who live with both their parents increased during the 1990s."
>Scores of news organizations around the country reported the same happy
>story.
>
>But in May, the story reversed itself. Journalists across the country
>began to report that "nuclear families" now constitute less than 25
>percent of all U.S. households. An editorial in the New York Post
>announced that "the American nuclear family" was now "up
there with the
>Pacific salmon as an endangered species." A Newsweek cover story on
>unmarried mothers ("the new faces of America’s family album")
explained at
>length how the "traditional family" was "fading
fast." Dr. James Dobson,
>the radio personality and president of Focus on the Family, an influential
>Christian pro–family organization, said that the "alarming"
Census Bureau
>figures revealed "just how dire the situation has become," as
"the family
>is unraveling at a faster pace than ever." The New York Times took a
>sunnier view. Following up on its page–one news story ("Number of Nuclear
>Families Drops as 1–Parent Families Rise"), the Times editorial board
>urged its readers not to worry about the decline, since "the nuclear
>family is not the only kind of family or even the only healthy kind of
>family."
>
>Well, now. Is it possible for the nuclear family to be simultaneously
>"making a comeback" and "fading fast"? Of course
not. So which is true?
>Amazingly enough, the answer is neither. What is actually happening to
>U.S. family structure is quite different from the news conveyed by either
>cycle of stories.
>=====

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5