In a column expressing disgust at the media’s frenzied coverage
of the Clonaid claim, St. Paul Pioneer Press columnist Joe
Soucheray
writes, “I know that many people worry that the media leans to
the left. I would be more worried that the media has cracked up.”
Is it possible that the media has cracked up because it leans to
the left? Surely, the media’s willingness to listen to the claim
was due at least in part to the excitement journalists feel when
taboos are toppled. Moral rebellion is a story journalists never
tire of telling.
But will journalists tell the story of all the defective and
disfigured clones produced? Will the grisly cloning trial runs
command widespread coverage? Will the creation of a class of
parentless cripples feed their sensationalistic appetite?
The consequences of moral rebellion usually don’t receive as
much detailed coverage as the rebellion itself. How many
pro-abortion reporters have actually watched the performance of an
abortion? A highly detailed description of abortion never makes it
in to their stories about “choice.” Similarly, the thousands upon
thousands of frozen and forgotten embryos created through In Vitro
fertilization are not frequently mentioned in stories about the
glories of that practice.
The inevitability of a prohibition collapsing is also a powerful
intoxicant to many journalists. Inevitability equals moral good in
their minds. Cloning is inevitable? Well, then it must be morally
acceptable. What scientists can do they should do, right? Moral
rebellion joined to “scientific progress” is an irresistible story
to a media in thrall to liberal social change.
Some journalists are angry at the coverage of Clonaid not
because they oppose cloning, but because they fear crackpots will
tarnish a great scientific advance. A UFO cult is crazy to them,
but cloning is not. That the craziness of cloning might attract
crazies hasn’t yet occurred to them.
We don’t support the aims of Clonaid, they say. All liberal
journalists want is a “debate” about cloning. But does anybody
start a debate about a prohibition if they intend to keep it? The
moment society “debates” a prohibition it is gone. If we are
morally confused enough to debate cloning, we are morally confused
enough to permit it.
The Washington Post’s editorial last week, “All
About Eve,” contained the revealing line, “This country is not
ready for the cloning of human beings,” which implied that it may
be ready later. It seems that the Washington Post is ready
for the cloning of human beings — as long as they remain in the
lab for research.
“The Bush administration has been known at times to allow
religious — or political — considerations to trump scientific
ones,” its editorialist writes. “But in a world where both the
scientific and ethical goalposts keep changing, the best thing may
be to stay open-minded. There are plenty of options in that gray
zone. The least permissive would be to ban all forms of research on
cloned embryos, as Mr. Bush and Mr. Frist would like, but
reconsider the ban after some limited number of years.”
Let’s all stay open-minded so our consciences can float away.
The Post fears that the “specter” of Clonaid’s claim could
“shut down the scientific debate completely.”
If only it were just a scientific debate. It is above all a
moral issue, not a scientific one. That it is characterized as a
scientific debate shows why the debate is already lost.
It is not surprising that journalists, unable to see the limits
of science clearly, would treat fantasists as scientists.
Journalists’ eager coverage of Clonaid suggests that their
scientific expertise and moral judgment are not much more refined
than the Raelians’.
