How Serve the Common Weal?

One can readily agree with William P. Cheshire (2004): "a society that seeks the truth and prefers thoughtful ethical debate to political fiat will insist on accurate word choice and responsible editorial nuance" in media reports on human embryo research. And, if he is correct that "journalism has a vested interest in polarizing and prolonging debate," he may also be right to claim that journalism tends more to indulge in "semantic pyrotechnics" than to value "reasoned discourse" or that the language most often used in reporting controversial research is too often seriously skewed.

It might even be inarguable to say that "sensational promises of cures combined with disparaging language about embryos is the kind of emotional rhetoric that grabs the attention of an audience more quickly than does plain accuracy" and does not serve the common weal. One might also agree that, "if journalism is to preserve its credibility, editors must persist in holding truth and fairness to a higher standard than short-term economic gain."

If this study is correct, the media articles do more to promote the "bottom line" than to advance moral consensus. In place of a commitment to its own finances, journalism, Cheshire believes, ought to exhibit a principled commitment to truth and accuracy in all reporting. After all, we are reminded, most people get whatever they know about such significant research topics as embryo research, cloning, stem cells, and so on mostly through the media, only rarely from scientific studies. Thus, while journalism could be far more helpful by providing a "ready forum" for airing controversial topics, too often just the opposite occurs.

Reviewing a number of newspaper articles and editorials for the way their terms could help or hinder "evaluating the moral status of the human embryo," Cheshire found that for the most part such writings were more skewed, one way or the other, than fair and accurate. Interpreting these results, Cheshire concludes in part that "freedom of the press alone guarantees neither balance nor accuracy of the ideas reported." In trying to evaluate the reported moral status of human embryos, he advises that readers "should beware whether news reporting is conveying a full and impartial account." Truth and fairness might thus seem more nostalgia than actual goals of journalism.

Two things are imperative to consider. First, we must wonder just where reporters and editors get the terms he claims to have found in newspaper reports of human embryo research. Terms he mentions as "upgrading" (morally positive) are "human being, human life, human individual, human organism, person, actual or entire human being, baby, brother or sister, or humanity." Contrasted with these are terms he classifies as "downgrading":

tissue, cluster of cells, research tools, discarded or leftover cells, no longer wanted, research embryos, embryos just for research purposes, cells that are going to be thrown away, cells to be used as medical treatment, potential life, embryos that will never be used to create life, not human life, or not actual human beings.

One question to be posed is, quite simply, what's the source of such terms? Are reporters and editors merely citing what one or another scientist tells them in interviews? Or, are they concocted by the reporters and editors on their own—based, it might be, on what they've heard from scientists but basically reflective of their own bias?

It is not as easy as might be thought to settle this rather straightforward question. To be sure, at one point Cheshire does state that "the responsibility for reliable journalism lies not just with journalists," citing George Orwell in support—but the citation is little more than a generalized complaint against the "bad English" indulged in by many of us, reporters and scientists alike. To be sure, Cheshire claims that both professionals interviewed by the press and the public have obligations: for the first, "to communicate clearly and accurately;" for the second, "to read selectively and to interpret cautiously...