CLONES

CLONES

Clones are always in the news these days, or so it seems. While we hear a lot of coverage of South Korean advances in human cloning (as well as questions about the veracity of the research), another interesting topic is whether this technology ought to be used to resurrect extinct species.

This has become a live issue, so to speak, in recent days with the discussion about the possibility of cloning mammoths, a species of elephant that fell extinct about 10,000 years ago. It has also come up in relation to work being done by the Royal Australian Museum in an effort to bring back the Thylocene (Tasmanian Tiger) which became extinct in the 1930’s.

Regarding the mammoth, the news this week was that scientists had recovered DNA from a well preserved specimen frozen in the Russian ice about 20,000 years ago. As a result, there appears to be some confidence that they will be able to completely map the mammoth’s genome within a reasonable period of time. This in turn, we are told, will lead to the ability to genetically create an embryo which can be nurtured to birth in the womb of an Indian elephant (the closest existing relative of the extinct mammoths).

Scientists have has less luck with the Thylocene genome. Though an intact specimen exists in the Australian museum, it has been preserved in chemicals which have destroyed the DNA. Though efforts to sequence the genome have been underway since the late 1990’s, the work has not been a success. Though it continues we may, ironically, be closer to seeing a live mammoth than a living Tasmanian Tiger.

One thing both these extinctions have in common is humans may have been wholly or partially at fault. With the Thylocene it is clear...they were hunted to extinction by Tasmanian and Australian farmers who considered the doglike marsupial to be a pest. As for the mammoth, though climate change may have contributed to its demise, archaeological evidence now seems to indicate that human hunting was also a factor in the species being wiped out.

Some people have raised ethical issues about the efforts to bring back these extinct species. They say that it is unethical and that they should be left to the history books.

The Renaissance Man takes a different view of this. He fully supports efforts to bring back the mammoth, mastodon, thylocene, dodo or any other animal rendered extinct by the acts of man. If man was the cause of these animals becoming extinct then, it seems, if man can rectify the wrong by reviving the species he should do so.

We rightly expend great efforts in trying to prevent the extinction of the Panda, though the panda itself seems hell bound to render itself extinct (it is a fussy eater and seems most reluctant to reproduce). There seems little ethical difference between fighting to prevent the extinction of one species and bringing another back where we have been the cause of its extinction.

As far as the Renaissance Man is concerned, “Bring on the Clones!”

WHERE DOES FREEDOM OF THE PRESS END AND DEMOCRACY BEGIN?

What do the following have in common?

• This week, the United States media, led by the New York Times, has pressured President Bush warrantless domestic electronic surveillance. The story broke in the New York Times in time (arguably deliberately so) to derail the renewal of the Patriot Act.
  
• Canadian media coverage (particularly in the CBC and Torstar Corporation newspapers) of the legalization of gay marriage featured massively pro-legalization coverage and coverage of opposition forces as religious extremists.
  
• BBC World coverage of the Ugandan elections has focussed on the incumbent President Yoweri Museveni as an incipient strongman and would-be dictator. His opponent Kizza Besigye is in jail on charges of treason. While the existence of the charges has been mentioned, no information whatever is supplied as to what those charges are about.

The common thread linking these items and many others in the western news media is the blurring of the lines between news reporting and editorializing. Though they won’t admit it, the perception among many today is that the free media in the democratic world appears to no longer feel a responsibility to report the news in such a way that the public may assess facts and draw its own conclusions. Rather, its role is to form public opinion by framing the issues as it wishes them to be seen. While pretending to be objective, it actually supplies as news facts that support its views in a positive light, while ignoring, or presenting as caricature, facts running in the other direction.

This is not original thought. Conservative commentators around the United States have been railing about the phenomenon for years and even decades. Radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, media monitoring organizations such as Accuracy in Media and a multitude of bloggers (Debbie Schlussel, Michelle Malkin, American Thinker to name a few ) devote significant space to debunking what they call the Mainstream Media (MSM). In the US an entire news network, Fox News, was created to balance off the leftward tilt of the main news media (CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC). Its slogan, “Fair and Balanced” is meant to stand in contradistinction to the news operations of its competitors.

The MSM deny the existence of bias and, at the same time, seek to deny the legitimacy not only of the complaints but of the complainers. The MSM continues its self portrayal as objective purveyors of information and its critics as crackpots and extremists.

There have been numerous studies in the past verifying to one degree or another the objective existence of media bias in the United States (studies, for example, indicating that voting patterns of journalists are massively pro- Democrat). This past week, however, a study released by UCLA political scientists backs up those who believe there is massive left-wing bias in the US media, even in such organizations as the Wall Street Journal considered conservative. They say:

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the
newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

(You can follow this link to the full UCLA news online article:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664 )

In Britain, the question of the written media’s bias is complicated by the distinction between the serious media (real newspapers) and the tabloids. The tabs, which occupy significant market share, lack credibility and are thus unpersuasive regardless of their biases. As for the broadsheets, they are so closely identified with their reader’s ideologies that they really preach to the converted.

The BBC, on the other hand, pretends to be an objective news gathering and reporting organization. Indeed, this is its statutory mandate. Yet, its biases have come in for criticism, official and otherwise, in recent years. Apart from the scandal about falsified news reporting on the events leading to the Iraq War (which led, after an official inquiry to the downfall of the BBC chairman), coverage of the United States in general and the Iraq war in particular have drawn complaints from many quarters. Its coverage of the difficulties encountered by US officials in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was almost gleeful. As recently as this week Guto Harri, the BBC reporter in New York covering the transit strike called efforts by the city government “bully boy tactics”, despite the fact that the remedies sought, in contrast to the strikers (whose strike is illegal) are completely within the law.

It is not, however, only in its US coverage that BBC is criticized. It has been accused of anti-Semitism in its coverage of Israel, and there are web-sites dedicated to efforts to hold accountable the BBC for this.

But even in respect of a matter as seemingly routine as covering an election in Uganda the BBC cannot report cleanly. Let’s be clear: the Renaissance Man is not a supporter of African dictators and strongmen. It is fair to say, however, that even a Renaissance Man does not keep up on day to day Ugandan politics. As such he, and almost everyone else, is dependent upon the news media to provide the basic facts. Who is Kizza Besigye? Why is he in jail? What is the evidence? Does this comprise an offence in Uganda? After that, if the BBC wants to editorialize, then fine. Do so, and I will gladly consider it. I may even agree with it, after seeing the facts. The Renaissance Man may oppose African dictators, but he also sees little difference in the news censorship of African (or other) dictators and the censorship of all powerful news editors and producers.

The failure to provide the basic facts suggests a basic weakness in the facts as a foundation for the conclusion propounded by the BBC about the elections. Thus, it detracts from the credibility of its coverage.

Is the media a monolith? Do its leaders have weekly meetings to discuss what misinformation they wish to dispense in upcoming weeks? Obviously not.

The answer, I believe, lies in a book written some years ago by Dinesh D’Sousa called ILLIBERAL EDUCATION. In that book Mr. D’Sousa posited that higher education in the United States was dominated by professors who had had their academic formation in the 1960`s. Over the years, they had gradually settled into academia and gained tenure. As leaders of faculties, editors of learned journals, and teachers of impressionable freshmen they have managed to direct the direction of academic thought and higher education in the US.

My point is that not all the students of the 60`’s went into academia. A lot went into journalism. And, just as their contemporaries were promoted up the academic ranks, so too were the reporters promoted. Now they are publishers and editors.

These new opinion leaders head what I believe are the most powerful institutions in the democratic world…the media. The media is unelected, unaccountable and not subject to review. It controls itself, which means, of course, there is no control.

Elected officials, even of the most powerful countries of the world are at the mercy of the media because politicians, in power or in opposition, have no access to the voters. The media filters and decides what portions of their message will reach the public, and how that information is spun.

This week the New York Times took an interesting position in relation to the release of the electronic monitoring story. It held out that it had considered the security consequences of releasing the story at this time and decided that there were no negative security implications in making it public. A great deal of evidence indicates that the information had been in the hands of the Times for many months and that the timing of the story had dual purposes. First, it would help promote a book being published by a Times reporter.Secondly, its release may have been designed to prevent the re-enactment of the Patriot Act.

Even if these ulterior motives did not exist, however, the sheer arrogance of the Times to assert that it had deemed there were no security implications in releasing the information is breathtaking. What standing does a newspaper have to embark on such an assessment? It does not stand in the shoes of the nation’s security establishment, it does not have the information that those charged with national security have, and it does not have an electoral mandate to make decisions about the country’s security.

Yet, it seems obvious that the attitudes of the Times editors are that of those who had their coming of age in the Vietnam era. For those whom Daniel Ellsberg is a hero this is a chance to recreate the excitement of their youth. There is a cause, again, for which to fight. What does NOT exist is a desire to report on whether there does or does not exist a legal basis for these measures. (See an interesting article by James Robbins in National Review Online which has a persuasive legal analysis. http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200512190859.asp). That work, I am afraid, will be left to the blogosphere which, by this writing has copious detail on the topic.



This attitude permeates the media in Canada, where they are from the same era but, being from north of the border, are “wannabe’s” , and the UK as well.

In the end, the power of the free media is a question that will have to be addressed in some way. The Renaissance Man does not advocate limits on the freedom of the press. He does suggest that governments should be fearless in opposing the press when its acts threaten the security of the country. That means when violations of national security occur illegally, they must be prosecuted regardless of the public relations consequences. Subversion is subversion, even when committed by leading news organizations.

As for the public…the public is turning its back on the MSM in increasing numbers. This is not enough, however, for the MSM can truthfully say that the alternative sources are biased. Indeed, the Rush Limbaugh’s of the media world make no pretence of objectivity. In this they are far more honest that the MSM because they make clear their biases.

The public has to insist on unbiased reporting from its media. This blog is my personal call for a return to objective reporting.

I have no illusions that it will come, but that is no excuse not to fight for it.

INTRODUCTORY BLOG

Leonardo da Vinci was the original “Renaissance man”. He was interested in everything. He studied art, anatomy, astronomy, music, engineering and, if Dan Brown is to be believed, he even sought the Holy Grail. It was said that he knew everything about everything.

But Leonardo lived in the 15th century. When he got started, it was possible to know everything…or at least almost everything.

Today, things are different. No one can know it all…not even Bill O’Reilly.

Of course, I am no Leonardo da Vinci. I am not a genius, have lousy spatial and can’t draw worth a damn. Yet like him and, I suspect, a lot of other people, I have a ridiculously broad range of interests. From astronomy to archaeology, from music to sports, from history to current events, I find more things to fascinate me than there are minutes in the day.

Rather than sating my appetite, the internet adds to the hunger. It is like driving along a country road…I always want to keep going to see what lies beyond the next hill. (Oh, by the way, I like travel too).

And so, this is the point of RENAISSANCE MAN. I hope to blog on things which interest me. The range of items will be broad, eclectic and maybe even eccentric. I also intend to include links to interesting sites with more information on the topic at hand. Whether it is cloning a mammoth, the discovery of a new planet Celtic music or Iran versus…well, versus pretty much everyone, there will be commentary about it.

I will also link to blogs and other sites that I find fascinating. Apart from interesting topics, I love good writing and, if I see something well stated I will make it available to you even if I disagree with it.

So, welcome to RENAISSANCE MAN.

The url is www.therenaissanceperson.com let no one say I am politically incorrect. I hope that, after you have looked in on it for awhile you will feel free to drop a line.