portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

health | human & civil rights | technology

The Nose Knows (it was pulled)

I reposted a story which I titled "The Nose Knows" taken from Reuters via Yahoo to this effect -- "With the help of the Catholic Church, Australian researchers have successfully grown adult stem cells harvested from the human nose, avoiding the ethical and legal problems associated with embryonic stem cells."

The story appeared briefly on the news wire, but has now disappeared.
I thought it was interesting and relevant to matters discussed at PIMC.

Was I wrong to post the entire story?

If so, here is just the link --

empower yourself and others 24.Mar.2005 01:49

indy volunteer #742

I (and other volunteers) have been composting verbatim corporate reposts. There's no problem posting the full text so long as you add some commentary as to why you think the story is interesting and relevant. My goal is to empower people to write non-corporate news, not to further the consumption of corporate "news". If something strikes you as being relevant and interesting please consider that other people may not see the story as either. The best thing you can do is explain why it is important, thereby empowering yourself to write, encouraging others to write, and giving people a reason to read the piece.

Except ....... 24.Mar.2005 04:42

Mike stepbystepfarm <a> mtdata.com

"The story appeared briefly on the news wire, but has now disappeared."

You NEED to include that information. Doing what you were just advised, to repost from the original source with your explanation of why the story is important, what it means, etc. should not hide if the story was "removed" from the original source.

Do you understand why? Yes of course, you are entitiled to believe because of some conspiracy to hide things. But you also need to recognize that no wire service is 100% accurate in reporting. Sometimes they get suckered with false or misleading verisons of a story. If that was a BIG story, then maybe the fact that they got suckered is in of itself a significant enough event for them to consider it "news" <in addition to yanking the original, they put up a "correction"> But if the original is what they would consider a minor story, they wouldn't bother to do anything but yank the stgory in error.

Confused .. and 24.Mar.2005 07:02


I'm sort of confused, so what is the average stance around here on Stem Cells and genetic altering of human beings? It seems to me that when it comes to genetically altered crops, plants and other lower life forms the average PIMC is dead set agains it, but when it comes to Humans, or other animals for that matter it seems to be OK?

It just seems to me that there are some serious issues here, maybe I'm wrong, but are not plants still lower life forms, hence the big vegan movement.

Okay 24.Mar.2005 13:39

reposter 2

Maybe I should have named the article "A Different Kind of Pro-Life Story."

What I mean is that with all the Terry Schiavo news, it just seemed like the story from Reuters was relevant -- it relates to what life is, is it a dna code? is it just enough tissue to imagine growing (cloning) another Terry Schiavo (and then would it be alright to let her, actually her undead body, move on past this media madness that currently traps her, or maybe just her body, but if her soul is somewhat lingering on this plane, because of all the to-do, maybe even her soul needs and craves some release.)

I'm sorry for rambling like that, but that's how I have been thinking and why I thought the "nose" story was relevant.

As for a PIMC position on ANYTHING --- that would be real news to me. Lots of stories on GM and so forth, and thank goodness for that, because you won't get any of that on the corporate bullshit.

Also, while corporate media covers scientific and biomed stuff pretty good, I think a lot of people miss it, because it gets buried back there on page 33. Myself, I appreciate the scientific reposts and also original such that's on PIMC because I get all my info off of IMC's and foreign sources. Reuters is corporate, but it's a little better than the domestic stuff. I like Yahoo also because it carries Agence France Presse, which gives a unAmerican (?) point of view. Reuters isn't so good, it's like BBC. But BBC is also pretty good for science and technology news.

I try to be discriminating in what I repost at PIMC but theres my own bias for sure. Can't hel-p that.