After reading and watching news from international press online, I took notes on one particular issue and the different perspectives of that issue. First off, I wanted to take note that the New York Times and BBC News stood out to me. One thing was that the New York Times paper seemed to have a little bit more information about the Vitro Fertilization topic. In addition, "Advances in human reproductive technology arouse people's deepest concerns and often go through a cycle, first of outrage and charges of playing God, then of acceptance. The other news sources such as news.com.au seemed to have more quotations than the others, so less commentary.
The issue was about the vitro Ferlization winning the Nobel Prize. Robert G. Edwards who is an English biologist, "developed the in vitro fertilization procedure for treating human infertility" (NYT). Also, I learned that the Swedish committee is believed to avoid controversial people and issues. On the other hand, it seems as if BBC gets right to the point, unlike other sources. Robert Edwards treats nearly 10% of all people in the world, which says a lot. So some people trust this guy, right? However, BBC news appears to be against the whole idea that this guy should win the Noble Prize, rather than the other. For example it says that "A Vatican official has said the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Medicine to British IVF pioneer Robert Edwards is 'completely out of order'"(BBC). This shows that every different news source has different opinions and are not all completely biased reports. In conclusion, I learned that you must go to each different source to get better facts so that you can put the pieces together.
No comments:
Post a Comment