Classic Case of Media Stem Cell Ignorance
So, I am watching CNN and it runs a segment on Missouri's Amendment 2 and embryonic stem cell research. Then, Bill Schneider, CNN's big political analyst comes on to say confidently that based on his discussions with people, second only to Iraq, the stem cell issue is most urgently on voters' minds--polling doesn't show this, by the way--and that it could impact the Missouri Senate race (although he wouldn't say which way).
Then, the beauty of live television and the unscripted question: The host asked, "Embryonic stem cell research is legal in Missouri, right?" Schneider got the flustered, deer in the headlight look of the "expert" who is suddenly exposed as not knowing what he is talking about. "I, I don't know," he stammered.
Hey, Bill, if you paid attention to all points of view in the debate rather than just the politically correct side, you would know that the answer is an emphatic yes! If one moment captured a larger media truth, that was it. Classic.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:19 AM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
"Schneider got the flustered, deer in the headlight look of the "expert" who is suddenly exposed as not knowing what he is talking about."
But Schneider, by your own admission, is a political analyst, not a legal expert. Whether something like embryonic stem cell research is legal in Missouri may not be a simple black and white answer (though I don't really know without fully researching the topic). It could involve complex questions of federal vs. state law. Thus, a lawyer, not a "big political analyst," may be a better source of information.
Additionally, how would paying attention to "all points of view in the debate" help to inform Schneider about the legality of stem cell research? Whether a particular type of research is legal in Missouri is question of law and fact, having little to do with the political correctness of the views in a debate. If your point is that CNN and the media is ill informed about the laws surrounding stem cell research, then you should pick a better example.
1. What's the big difference between a political analyst and a legal expert? Shouldn't someone talking about the politics of an issue also know about its legality? Can one speak informedly about the one while in ignorance of the other?
2. Whether something is legal usually has "a simple black and white answer:" yes or no. Embryonic stem cell research is legal anywhere in the U.S., as far as I know; human cloning, which some proponents of ESCR conflate with ESCR, is largely what is at issue with Amendment Two. Which fact leads me to
3. Said proponents would love to have you think that ESCR is illegal in Missouri and elsewhere; it makes for better press to state things in black-and-white terms, however false, and under that guise drums up support for something like human cloning. Thus if Schneider is paying attention only to such sources, he would have no idea about the facts on the issue.
Nice try, Adam. Embryonic stem cell research is legal in the country and in every state, unless explicitly outlawed. Moreover, A 2 is primarily about legalizing therapeutic cloning.
Schneider, if he was going to be the expert on the stem cell amendment and its chances for passage, should have known it was perfectly legal now.
My bigger point is that the media is so often wrong about this issue, leading to a lot of ignorance or mistaken impressions among the general public.
Thanks for commenting.
Post a Comment
<< Home