Newsweek Criticized on Stem Cell Research Coverage
Source: National Review; June 3, 2001

Newsweek Criticized on Stem Cell Research Coverage

[Pro-Life Infonet Note: National Review writers John J. Miller and Ramesh
Ponnuru authored the following column critiquing Newsweek's recent cover
story and slanted coverage of the embryonic stem cell research debate.]

The cover of the latest issue of Newsweek is pretty remarkable. No, we're
not referring to the line above the logo "Behind 'Scary Movie 2'"
although we do wonder who exactly wants to go there. What's remarkable is
that the cover more or less announces the bias of the cover story.

From top to bottom, the cover text reads: "The Stem Cell Wars: Embryo
Research vs. Pro-Life Politics: There's Hope for Alzheimer's, Heart
Disease, Parkinson's and Diabetes. But Will Bush Cut Off the Money_" Why
didn't the magazine just go all the way_ "Science vs. Pro-Life Fanatics:
Will Bush Condemn Millions of People to Lingering, Painful Deaths_"

The image on the cover is of a three-day-old human embryo. Most people
will look at that image and think, "That doesn't look like a human being
at all." (This reaction, while understandable, is irrational: In fact, the
embryo looks exactly the way a human being looks three days after
conception.) It's perfectly fair and reasonable for Newsweek to use the
image. We would note only that it is unimaginable that Newsweek would use
an image that loaded in the opposite direction. A story on abortion would
be much more likely to be illustrated with a coat-hanger than a sonogram
of a five-month-old fetus. (Let alone a dismembered fetus.)

The stories inside the magazine are exactly what you'd expect, given the
cover and Newsweek's general proclivities. The lead story, by Sharon
Begley, is the longest. It summarizes the science well and, as far as we
can tell, fairly. Proponents of stem-cell research get to make their case
at length. Opponents are quoted too: They get exactly two words (eleven
letters) in. And that quote is immediately rebutted, unlike any of the
pro-research quotes. Here's how the piece concludes: Not funding stem-cell
research would amount to "squelching what is, more than anything, a quest
for knowledge. We simply don't know how embryonic cells might help people
who are suffering and dying today. By banning the research, we uphold the
most extreme view of the sanctity of life, but at a price: foreclosing the
possibility of doing all we can to improve the lot of the living."

Set aside that bit about extremism. Any research, including research on
humans that most people would find objectionable, can legitimately be
described as "a quest for knowledge." And the reference to "the living"
skates right by the actual subject of the dispute-whether the embryos are
in fact living human beings. (They're not dead, and they're not
inanimate.)

Next come three pages on the politics of the research from Evan Thomas and
uh oh Eleanor Clift. Subhead: "The president is trapped between religion
and science over stem cells." Here's a flavor of what the article is like:
"Pure politics helps explain why the White House has long been expected to
ban federal funding for research on stem cells extracted from human
embryos. . . . And yet Bush is clearly discovering that the politics and
ethics of stem-cell research are more complicated than a simple 'no' from
the federal government. By a 3-1 margin, the public wants to go forward
with research that has the potential to provide magical [!!] cures for a
host of neurological and other diseases." The article concludes with some
helpful suggestions on how President Bush can betray stem-cell opponents
without suffering too much political damage.

Finally, a note of fairness: The magazine's religion correspondent,
Kenneth Woodward, has a short piece on the ethics of stem-cell research
that doesn't have a conclusion to pound us over the head with.

But for a fair treatment of the issues around embryonic stem-cell
research, ignore Newsweek altogether and get a copy of Neil Munro's piece
in the latest National Journal.

It's no surprise that many pro-life Republicans have folded on this issue,
given the intense pressure from the media and their own confusion. All the
more credit to Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, and J. C. Watts for standing firm.
The three House leaders released a strong joint statement yesterday on the
subject. Among their remarks: "The federal government cannot morally look
the other way with respect to the destruction of human embryos, then
accept and pay for extracted stem cells. . . . We can find cures with
life-affirming, not life-destroying, methods that are becoming more
promising with each day."