From: "Michael Ryan" michaelgryan2@msn.com
To: letters@commercialappeal.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 6:44 AM
Subject: Regarding the article "Girl Laughs, Plays, Learns as Judge Weighs Custody Fight"

To the editor:

Erin Sullivan's article concerning the custody battle between the Bakers and the Hes (May 2, 2004) shocked me: it was a less-than-subtle banner in support of the alleged family values stance the Bakers have taken in arguing that Anna Mae He should stay with them. By outlining the little girl's joys and comforts in the Baker home in such melodramatic detail, Sullivan's article essentially reiterated the argument the Bakers made repeatedly during the trial: that Anna Mae should stay in this loving environment because it's just so peachy-keen-wonderful and that the Hes would take her to scary-wary-awful China if they regained custody of her. In fact, the Hes are presented as shadow figures in the piece, hovering on the fringes of Anna Mae's sunny existence like wolves on the prowl. And by leaving out the key points of contention in the case in favor of further editorializing on "how hard" the Bakers have worked to make sure Anna Mae fits in--and allowing the dubious claim that they'll actually hyphenate her last name *if* they win the case to color the article even further--you end up endorsing their actions by suggesting that if the outcome is good, it doesn't matter how you achieved it. You effectively support their claim to the child merely by the tenure of their ability to delay judgment. I'm disappointed that you elected to spoon-feed readers such a position and opinion with this article.

Michael Ryan
Seattle, WA