Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Words & ReflectionsReporting on Reproductive and Genetic TechnologiesAn author describes her experiences—good and bad—with the media.By Lori B. AndrewsThree years ago, just after Dollythe sheep was cloned, a Chicagotelevision talk show asked attorneyNanette Elster, a specialist in reproductivetechnologies, to debate theissue of cloning humans. Also on theshow that day was a doctor in favor ofadvancing this research so that one dayhumans might use it. The host invitedthe doctor to speak first and introducedhim with words of respect, referringto him as “a genius who leadsinfertile couples to the fertile delta.”He then allowed the doctor to take aslong as he wanted to explain his position.When it was Elster’s turn to speak,the host’s introduction was not nearlyas laudatory, nor was the time or attentionshe was given at all similar. Barelyhad she begun her rebuttal when thehost motioned to a surprise group ofadditional guests, the royal blue-facedperformance group, the Blue ManGroup, to appear on the set. Membersof Blue Man Group started lobbingcream cheese balls over Elster’s headinto each other’s mouths, diverting attentionfrom anything she might besaying.It was an appalling display of howsome media outposts treat coverage ofthese kinds of critical and curious topics.During my 21 years as a practicingattorney, law professor and author ofbooks about reproductive and genetictechnologies, I have had many opportunitiesto observe media coverage ofthese issues. And, on average, five reporterstry to reach me every day forcomment and background informationto inform their stories. The day theBaby M surrogate mother case wasdecided more than 100 reporters calledme. When Dolly was born, I had somany calls it was not possible to returneven one-tenth of them. Perhaps it isnot a coincidence that my telephoneLori B. Andrews stands next to some tools of reproductivetechnology. Photo by Paul Thurin.rings more often during“sweeps” week; producersrealize that these storieshave the potentialto appeal to a wide audience.Through all of this, Ihave been continuallystruck by the one-sidedcoverage I’ve seen in thebroadcast media. Thereis a herd mentality thatfocuses on one approachto the subject and then,after milking it, switchesto the opposite approach.Usually the onesidedcoverage is notevident in a single show,as it was in the situationthat Elster found herselfin when her perspectivewas all but obliteratedby a circus act. Generally,an entire show isdevoted to a particulartake on an issue. In fact,news and talk show producerswho call me oftenhave a particularviewpoint they want toply and they are seeking a “talkinghead” to mouth that perspective. As aresult, the broadcast coverage rarely, ifever, does justice to the complexitiesof these issues.If we look at the issue of surrogatemotherhood in terms of broadcastmedia coverage, we can locate some ofthese media trends that unfortunatelycontinue today. During the early 1980’s,when surrogate motherhood became atopic of national debate, producerswould call and ask me to appear onmorning news shows. They’d tell methey wanted me to talk about what theycalled “the gift of life:” a woman unselfishlyserving as a surrogate mother. Iwould try to explain that the issue wasmore complex. I’d describe how somewomen might be psychologicallyharmed by serving as the home for afetus but losing a maternal connectionwith the child after birth. But the producersdidn’t want to hear about this.Then, when surrogate Mary Beth Whiteheaddecided to keep the baby she hadcontracted to bear, all of a suddenthose same producers were calling toask me to discuss “reproductive prostitution.”Actually, they were asking meto talk about the same thing, surrogatemotherhood, but in their quest for a76 Nieman Reports / Fall 1999