Of course, examples of how the MSM slants their coverage of the stem cell controversy can be seen several times a week but I thought I'd give one example by way of reminder. This comes from an A.P. report about Florida's new governor recommending the funding of stem cell research that doesn't kill human embryos. The story actually gives more information than most of its type and I'm glad for that, but notice the particularly biased barb in this paragraph:But he won't recommend paying for the most controversial - and many say most promising - type of research on embryonic stem cells. Crist said he opposed that because too many people - including state lawmakers - oppose destroying embryos, which is required to do the studies.
Errors? The reporter adds the clause, "and many say most promising" but includes zero evidence of any kind to back up the claim (he can't, because there isn't!) and then, he doesn't bother to identify in any way just who exactly is this "many" he cites as an authority. And, of course, the facts that 72 conditions are currently being successfully treated through "adult" stem cell techniques while not a single condition is being helped by ESCR are of a priority relevance to the issue and are an absolute must to be included in the reporter's story. But, you guessed it...they are not.
Bad stuff.
The reporter in this case (David Royse) undoubtedly was taught better principles back in Journalism 101. For instance, I'm sure he learned to get all the relevant facts of a story, to remain objective, to properly cite sources, and so on. But, once he got out in the real world, I fear our Mr. Royse learned that the newspaper business was less about maintaining standards of fairness and excellence than it was about promoting specific politically-correct ideologies. Sad.
