Here's just another small example of why the media cannot be counted upon any longer to provide reliable and objective information: When ACT misled the world by claiming it had created embryonic stem cell lines using one cell from an embryo that survived, its bioethics adviser, Ronald Green, either lied or spoke out of total ignorance when he told the Washington Post, "You can honestly say this cell line is from an embryo that was in no way harmed or destroyed."
That was flat-out wrong. Yet, Green is again quoted by the AP, as if he is he remains a credible source. "'I think the degree of protest here is the result of the importance of this breakthrough,' said Ronald Green, chairman of Advanced Cell Technology's ethics advisory board and a professor of religion at Dartmouth College. 'If the president were to turn around tomorrow and authorize stem cell lines produced in this way, in two years' time we could have three to four hundred stem cells lines.'"
The procedure may not be able to be done at all, Green actively misled the media previously about what ACT had done, and yet, he is allowed to opine that if only Bush would change his funding policy this procedure would lead to the creation of hundreds of stem cell lines without destroying a single embryo. (Wait: Wasn't a big deal made by the media that this non breakthrough would comply with the Bush policy because it would not destroy embryos?)
I would write that this is unbelievable, but alas, it is all too predictable. The only message one can take from Green continuing to be treated by the MSM as a reliable source is that it is okay to mislead reporters--if you are on the side of the issue that the media wants to support.