Global population and family planning issues have broad implications for society -- affecting the economy, health and, of course the environment. But how the U.S. and foreign media approach these issues varies widely.

When the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) released State of World Population 2002 in December, for example, some major media outlets covered it as a political story. Others focused on women’s health, and several top-tier newspapers didn’t cover the annual U.N. report at all.

News Analysis

The report stated that developing countries that invest in education and health, including family planning, have achieved the goal of smaller families and decreased population growth, resulting in higher productivity and increased savings and investment, according to the report. The survey found a direct link between declining fertility and economic growth. It says slashing global poverty and hunger by 2015 will not be achievable without reducing maternal and child mortality; curbing HIV/AIDS; advancing gender equality; and promoting environmentally sustainable development.

The Associated Press’ (AP) coverage of the report, headlined “Reducing Fertility Key to Tackling Poverty,” focused on the need for international health education. The AP story sticks primarily to the information presented by the UNFPA and quotes the agency’s Executive Director, Thoraya Obaid.

The AP article was generally positive. It mentions declining populations in Latin American and “Asian Tiger” countries, where it reports that successful reproductive health programs have been established. The story also noted that in 2000 spending on reproductive and maternal health programs declined significantly. It quotes Obaid as saying that wealthy countries are typically more concerned with “political and economic issues” than with health education when making funding decisions. The AP story does not single out the United States for the drop in aid.

By contrast was a piece on National Public Radio’s December 3 “All Things Considered.” That story focused primarily on the Bush Administration’s stance toward family planning, with the UN report as the lead and its key recommendation being “at odds with recent actions by the Bush administration.” NPR reported that international family planning groups say the U.S. policy “is crippling reproductive health programs in poor countries in order to please opponents of abortion rights.”

The NPR piece has Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Relief Institute saying “the problem” stems from the UN’s decision to lump abortion in with reproductive health. In response to concerns from political conservatives, the reporter says, the Bush administration cut off $34 million in funding for the UN Population Fund. The piece has Obaid stressing that the UN agency “does not support abortion anywhere in the world.”

The NPR “All Things Considered” segment also features quotes from a family planning advocate, Amy Coen, of Population Action International. Coen maintains that the Bush Administration is sacrificing family planning programs to push an anti-abortion agenda. “There’s something fundamentally immoral about that,” she says. Coen accuses the U.S. government of using stealth tactics to prevent the public from realizing it is limiting women’s access to health care.

A December BBC report on the UN study leads with the idea that government spending on birth control and women’s health ultimately “makes developing countries richer.” Like the AP story, it is initially devoted to success stories in East Asia, Mexico and Brazil. Toward the end of the story, the BBC acknowledged that wealthier countries “contributed less than a quarter of the total spent” on reproductive health programs in 2000, and only paid half the amount of money they had pledged. In contrast to the NPR piece, the BBC does not single out the United States.

The Wall Street Journal did not immediately cover the UN report upon its release in early December. However, the paper devoted significant coverage to global population issues in a January 24, 2003, spread and used multiple graphics. The Journal piece focused on a decline in fertility around the world. Joseph Chamie, director of the U.N. Population Division, is quoted extensively. But the State of World Population 2002 report is never directly referenced.

What differentiates the Journal coverage of the issue is its look at the “profound” negative consequences of smaller populations in some countries. The article points out that Japan will need to improve productivity or encourage immigration to compensate for low birthrates. In Brazil, the Journal reports, lower birthrates are “cutting into the work force and enlarging the financial hole in Brazil’s generous social-security system.” And in Mexico, it reports that the shrinking population will eventually make it more difficult to compete with emerging markets for foreign investment.

The AIDS epidemic devastating populations of many African nations is also described in the Journal piece. No other mainstream coverage alluded to the disease as contributing to population decline. Instead, most media outlets strictly credited family planning programs with curbing births. Also noteworthy is the Journal’s observation that pop culture may be partially responsible for women having fewer babies. “Successful families” portrayed in Brazil’s popular soap operas are smaller, and viewers emulated that pattern, the paper reports Anibal Faundes, with the Center for Research of Mother and Child Health in Brazil, as saying.

Three American newspapers with national readerships -- The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and the The Washington Post -- have not covered the State of World Population 2002 report.

Gwen Shaffer is a freelance reporter based in Philadelphia. Her work has been published in Columbia Journalism Review, The Nation, E/ The Environmental Magazine, Philadelphia City Paper, and the Philadelphia Business Journal. She has also filed stories for public radio stations throughout Pennsylvania. Environment Writer coverage of population issues is supported by a grant from The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation. Return to Top