Use of "Early Stem Cell" Eupemism Evidence of Kit Wagar/KC STAR Bias in Stem Cell Debate
As readers of SHS know, I am pretty disgusted with the KC Star and its political reporter Kit Wagar, based on my belief that the paper in general, and Wagar in specific, are biased in their reporting of the great stem cell debate in Missouri.
Further fuel to this particular fire can be seen in the reporting of Mr. Wagar in his ubiquitous use of the pro-cloning/ESCR advocacy term "early stem cells." The term was invented by Missouri's Amendment 2 proponents as a euphemism to keep from having to use the scientifically accurate and descriptive term "embryonic stem cell."
The media should be immune to such word engineering. Alas, the Kansas City Star and Wagar have long utilized the term in their supposedly objective stories about the debate--a clear indication of bias in reporting. How biased was just made clear to me by a correspondent. It seems that the KC Star and Mr. Wagar are about the only media using the scientifically inaccurate term "early stem cells." My correspondent wrote:
Wesley, see if this works the same for you and then go after the KC Star.I tried it and got the same result. The answer to my correspondent's query can only be that Mr. Wagar has an agenda and he lets it seep into his reporting.
Go to www.google.com and click on News at the top and put "early stem cell" into search area. Almost all the articles in the first two pages (and probably in many more pages) are from the KC Star.I want you to do it there to make sure the search engine isn't pulling up the Star more because I live around it. (They can do that nowadays).
But I think it will pull up the same everywhere since these are not sponsored links. Anyway, if you click on any of the Star articles most are written by Mr. Kit Wagar.
If "early stem cell" is not an unbiased term they why is it mostly used by one reporter for one paper whose publisher sits on the local chamber of commerce with some of the top folks at Stowers?
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:45 PM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
Doesnt work for me!
But then... i live in Portugal O.o. hehe
You have to do it at news.google.com. They archive all news articles for one month.
I get three hits for "early stem cells" - all from the Kansas City Star. On the other hand, "embryonic stem cells" scores 1409 hits. The Star did use "embryonic stem cells" six times - all in wire stories.
So, "early stem cells" is specific to Kit Wagar and paid Stowers spokespeople.
Ditto here in Texas - all Kansas City Star articles, nothing from anyplace else.
So its not up to scientists to decide on the terms they will use to communicate to the public?
Ask the public to draw a picture of an embryo.. What will you get 9 out of 10 times? A picture of a forming baby.
What would the scientist draw? A bunch of tiny circles.
It is not so absurd for scientists to define their work the way that suits thier needs. it is the anti-research community that scoffs any time the same tactics they use are used against them. For example; when they say that science is killing people through SCNT.
How many people have ever been cloned anyway? None.
Even if someone wanted to birth a human clone it is simple not possible. Yet road blocks to cure disease are thown in front of science everyday by people who define there own terms and then parade the immorality of others based off their assumptions.
Dark: First, scientists are not entitled to create unscientific definitions and call it science. That corrupts science by transforming it into a postmodernistic excercise.
But that is beside the point to this post. The reporter is refusing to use the proper scientific lexicon--as defined by the scientists--and in its place, he uses advocacy jargon from one side. That isn't proper journalism.
At what point can a scientist define their work, versus the opposition defining who they are and what they do?
We've discussed this before- even Websters dictionary defines the term embryo as "especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception."
Obviously this statement is not accurate to what scientists are actually working with, which is a cluster of cells that look like a bunch of microscopic small circles.
Put in the hands of the prolifers, they twist the meaning of the term embryo as it relates to stem cell research to provide pictures of fresh newborn babies and then bash scientists for killing people. They use this as a propaganda tool to fool laymen readers into thinking that scientists are murdering tiny fetuses, which is wholely dishonest.
It is the overzealous activism against research that has caused the scientific community not only to refine their terminology, instead of letting the prolifers skew the image of what they are actually doing, but to propose Amendment 2 in the first place to protect their quest for curing disease against a minority threat of hostile legislation proposed for 6 years in the Missouri senate attempting to criminalize scientists.
Lembke and Bartle forced the hand of the scientific community to protect its interests in the form of Amendment 2, without there hostility towards science there woulnt be a need for amendment 2. Anti-research intolerance is the reason Amendment 2 exists, it protects basic freedom.
In the same way that dishonest anti ESCr sites have forced scientists to redefine the scope of their work to accurately portray a picture of the type of research they are conducting. would it make you any happier if they defined it as Blastocyst Stem Cell Research?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home