By Dave Andrusko
I meant to write about this all last week but just got swamped. Terry Mattingly, writing at getreligion.org, reminded me of an important truth I had missed when I read the same Los Angeles Times article he was commenting on.
Mattingly began with this: “OK, gentle readers, raise your hand if you thought — after years of mainstream news consumption — that the Roman Catholic Church is opposed to all stem-cell research?”
Well, most people not in the know would say, “Sure, I thought the Catholic Church opposed stem cell research. Why wouldn’t I?”
Mattingly pointed out that the story headline was “Vatican signs deal to collaborate on adult stem cell research,” followed by the secondary headline, “The unusual agreement with NeoStem allows the church, which opposes embryonic stem cell use, to be seen as taking a constructive role in one of the most promising areas of medical research.”
Mattingly explains, “The key word in that top headline, of course, is ‘adult.’ Yet another interesting word in all of that is this one — ‘unusual.’ You see the whole top of this story is framed in the assumption that readers will not think that the Vatican would sign on to this research agenda. That’s the twist, the big surprise.”
Of course, the reason the Catholic Church opposes one (embryonic stem cells–ESC) and supports the other (adult stem cells) is for the same reason all pro-lifers do: the former requires the death of human beings, the latter does not.
But if the collective media objective is to present all of us as having no alternative to ESC, then it is vital that (a) the distinction rarely be made, and (b) masks the truth that adult stem cells are already working.
As Dr. David Prentice as so often written:
“Over 50,000 people around the globe are treated each year with adult stem cells. The diseases and conditions successfully treated by adult stem cells, as shown by published scientific evidence, continue to expand, with published success for numerous cancers, spinal cord injury, heart damage, multiple sclerosis, sickle cell anemia, and many others.”
But to return to Mattingly’s keenly insightful column:
“So why does the story assume that the PUBLIC would find this story surprising? Also, why does the newspaper need to assume that the Vatican’s motives in backing the research are less than sincere, which is how I think many readers will take that lovely twist of the knife, the one that says that, ‘The agreement enables the church to be seen as taking ‘a constructive role in one of the most promising areas of medical research.”
“Here’s the point: The story assumes that readers will be slightly shocked that the Vatican is backing this science project. Yet the Vatican’s motives are easy to see.
“So why the surprise?
“Perhaps the surprise has something to do with many journalists consistently portraying the Vatican as the opponent of scientific research, period. Yet the Vatican can enthusiastically endorse this very promising line of research — because of a shared moral and ethical worldview on the sanctity of all human life, including that of the unborn.
“The only reason for readers to be surprised is that it is unusual to read an accurate mainstream story about this topic. There is no other reason to be surprised.”