Have you ever had to search for a stock photo on Getty images?

Its actually kind of hard to find a picture of a serious or gloomy looking pregnant woman. Most of the photographers assume that rosey happy images are more in demand.

Give the editors a break! What are they supposed to do? Scare up an older pregnant women and coach her to look grave for a photo?

Absolutely horrible. What has happened to the integrity of journalism these days? I'm sick, I tell you, sick and tired of this corruption of journalistic integrity. It's bad enough they use a photo twice, but when the story is about women over thirty and the photo shows a woman who doesn't even look a day of 25, how can they expect us to have anything but contempt for these shoddy and dishonest practices? Where is the outrage? Where is the anger? Boycott the paper, I say. Better yet, let's burn down the building. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. The world is going to hell and this is the clear evidence. Disgusting. Shocking. I'm appalled. I weep for the future. Let's see.... what else? Oh, yeah. I find it abhorrent. Did I say that already? No. Well, then, I find it abhorrent.

..the story is, and its implication that women who delay having children for silly reasons like, oh, pursuing a career, are really endangering a whole new generation with their selfish choices.

I wonder why the research didn't mention the recent study in France that found, definitively, that a man's fertility appears to decline after the age of 40, in much the same way that a woman's ability to conceive fades after 35.

Perhaps it is the ancient sperm being visited on the hapless daughters that is causing lower fertility, and not older moms/eggs. Or, gasp, both! Maybe women and men have *equal* responsibility..instead of women bearing the sole brunt of any bad news related to substandard children growing into compromised adults.

OK, number one, JOURNALISTS don't use stock photos. They work with PHOTOJOURNALISTS, who take relevant pictures of relevant people. This is not an ad - at least, we are led to believe it's not. And if this alleged news organization is going to use stock photos despite the total lack of professional standards that implies, they can well afford to buy a complete set; they don't have to download a cheesy free clip art package from the Internets.

Number two, this "scientist" according to the paper, "acknowledged the study dealt only with women already strugging with fertility problems. But he said: 'We need data on the general population to confirm this, but we think we're going to get it.'" I know things change, but that bears no resemblance to the Scientific Method they taught me when I was in fifth grade - except insofar as it is the exact opposite.

Oh, I get it. He and the newspaper have the exact same professional standards! Cute. Maybe it IS an ad.

Maybe it's just me, but looking at that picture, I don't read her facial expression as anything but neutral. Thre are no frown lines on her face; if there's anything of a downturn to her lips (and I'm not buying that there is), seems to me that's imposed by the camera angle, not by any expression of the woman's.

Then again, is it possible that we're so thoroughly ingrained with the cultural expectation that a part of women's "duties" in the world is always to be smiling, cheerful, etc (and all the more so when pregnant), that any expression of less than thoroughgoing radiant bliss gets read as "somber"? (I don't remember seeing any posts about that here, but over at BitchPhd's blog, there are occasional postings of women sharing their stories of men -- utter strangers -- asking them, out of the blue, things like "where's your smile?") Just askin...

Actually editors of newspapers and magazines use stock photos all of the time for human interest articles such as this one. This is not the type of assignment that would be handed to a photojournalist.

Also, just so you know, Getty Images is not free, amateurish, or "cheesy". Its is a professional resource which offers work of the highest quality, and is used by media professionals worldwide. Check the fine print next time you flip through a magzine or newspaper-- you will see it cited EVERYWHERE. No you do not have to buy a whole package of images-- we are not talking about clip art here. You can search for exactly what you need and purchase it directly from their database which contains literarlly thousands of images. That's the new business model. It works.

I just love it when people have opinions about things they know nothing about.

Seems to me if stock photos are that limited, a happy older pregnant woman would be more appropriate than a gloomy 20-something. But the thing that annoyed me about the article was the tone. I've noticed that articles focusing on maternal age often sound as though the woman, if she was only willing to make the sacrifice, could go back in time 10-20 years and whelp that pup then and there...but she's CHOOSING to have the baby at 38 or 42 or whatever. That's particularly annoying when you consider that women wait to have children for different reasons, many of which are intended to benefit the children (waiting for a career with a secure income, waiting for a solid relationship with a prospective father, and so on).