Framing Artificial Insemination Users in Periodicals.

Artificial insemination has been widely practiced for the past 60 years. Medical researchers have established the significant frequency of artificial insemination, estimating that by 1990 250,000 US citizens were the products of artificial insemination. Over 30,000 individuals are born each year as the result of donated sperm (Seibel, Crockin, 1996). It can be assumed that the majority of adult Americans are now aware of artificial insemination rudimentaries; for, when it is discussed in contemporary magazines, newspapers, and other public news forums, the ?basics? of artificial insemination are never mentioned. Media sources instead discuss topics related to artificial insemination: recent medical breakthroughs, its costs, and other related information. Whenever magazines reference artificial insemination related topics, the magazines concurrently portray specific populations as valid artificial insemination users. By leaving potentially-associated consumers out of the theoretical frame, magazines can show a group?s lack of validity, or their perceived insignificance. Indeed, some consumers may be ?beyond the pale? to periodicals? unrecognizable as artificial insemination users. While it is possible that all genres of print media (i.e., magazines aimed at females, homosexuals, or African-Americans) could identically frame artificial insemination consumers, I argue that distinct types of magazines call forth different types of artificial insemination populations. In this paper I contend that the imagined consumer of artificial insemination varies by magazine genre. That is, the separate magazines that I examined discussed artificial insemination as appropriate for only particular types of users. I believe that the type of discussion invoked indicates the limits of each periodical?s worldview. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]