Rant - Media - On media portrayals of the morally inconceivable.
Warning: This post contains references to and descriptions of material that some may find offensive (I certainly did). Read on at your own discretion.
I am a regular reader of BBC news. I am also vaguely interested in animal welfare (I don't get high and mighty about it, I'm not a vegetarian and I'm not insane; but I do have a degree of respect for animals, I try only to buy organic meat and I find deliberate animal cruelty disgusting). Usually, I'm quite satisfied with the way the BBC relates its article to the public - but now I'm beginning to wonder if I haven't been led astray all these years.
Bear chemical brings heart hope
A synthesised compound also found in bear bile may help the recovery of some people who have had a heart attack.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14364862
That article basically validates the alternative idea that bear bile is a worthwhile means of medicine. By 'validates', I mean talks highly about the small (literally tiny, practically insignificant) possibility of it helping with a rare heart disease. Words like 'could' are thrown around like sugar grains. In China, the stuff is already used to dissolve gallstones, but apparently research in London's Imperial College has led to the discovery of ~magic bile~. This is not the problem with the article. The problem is that it contains one - one - throwaway line regarding the "critics" of such a 'medicine', saying "the way it is collected is cruel".
“...but critics say the way it is collected is cruel.”
And that's it. I was generally under the impression that the BBC was of a more balanced, impartial route towards news. How wrong I've been. That's it for the cons regarding this article. So I'm going to take some time to explain what it should have said - the message it should be relaying.
Now, I'm hardly an expert on the process of harvesting bear bile, nor do I live in China so I have no way of really knowing (alas, Wikipedia has been my best bet for research and we all know how reliable that is), but I'm generally under the impression that the process is this:
Hunt bear --> Catch bear --> Imprison bear (in tiny cage where it can't move) --> Harvest bile, whilst the bear is alive, over the period of many years, until the bear dies.
The processes? Here's what even my hardly-scraping-the-surface research led me to:
“[T]he bile is usually extracted twice a day through an implanted tube, producing 10-20 mL of bile each time; the process is believed to be painful, as the bears can be seen moaning and chewing their paws while being milked. Other methods include pushing a hollow steel stick through the bear's abdomen. The use of metal catheters has been banned, though HSUS writes that bile bears are still seen with catheters in them.
The "free drip" method is regarded as more humane. A permanent hole or fistula is made in the bear's abdomen and gall bladder, from which bile drips out freely. The wound is vulnerable to infection and bile can bleed back into the abdomen, causing a high mortality rate. Sometimes the hole is kept open with a perspex catheter, which HSUS writes causes severe pain. Source.
The method is disgusting and appalling, and anyone who knows anything about animal rights will have heard of the bear biling that goes on in some parts of China. It's considered horrible, inhumane, and one of the worst portrayals (or perhaps the best, if you're cynical) of what human beings can really be like. There are people out there working to close these farms down because the level of good they do is so insignificant compared to the harm caused.
And then the BBC swans in with a report like the one above and validates it. "Oh, it's all right, smudge over the details and portray to the public the benefits!". When I read that, I felt sick to the stomach with anger and disbelief.
At the very least, the article should have gone into more depth about the process. It should have presented the actual method of collecting bile, not just glossed over it with a "critics think it's cruel" statement. I'm pretty sure it's not just critics who think that process is cruel - every fucking person on this planet who possesses an ounce of humanity would call that process cruel. Whether or not the cruelty is worth it should be the real debate. Generally, people don't go away to do their own research on a topic they read in the news -- which is why it's so important that media companies (especially those who claim to be impartial) actually give both sides of the facts.
God knows how many people will wander around after reading that article and think "Wow, bear bile can cure heart disease, how awesome!". Ugh. Just, ugh.
It makes me wonder how often I've been misled in the past. No media source is perfect, I know that. But this is gross misconduct and I'm well of a mind to write to the BBC telling them as much. And perhaps I'll start looking elsewhere for my daily dose of 'news'.
I am a regular reader of BBC news. I am also vaguely interested in animal welfare (I don't get high and mighty about it, I'm not a vegetarian and I'm not insane; but I do have a degree of respect for animals, I try only to buy organic meat and I find deliberate animal cruelty disgusting). Usually, I'm quite satisfied with the way the BBC relates its article to the public - but now I'm beginning to wonder if I haven't been led astray all these years.
Bear chemical brings heart hope
A synthesised compound also found in bear bile may help the recovery of some people who have had a heart attack.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14364862
That article basically validates the alternative idea that bear bile is a worthwhile means of medicine. By 'validates', I mean talks highly about the small (literally tiny, practically insignificant) possibility of it helping with a rare heart disease. Words like 'could' are thrown around like sugar grains. In China, the stuff is already used to dissolve gallstones, but apparently research in London's Imperial College has led to the discovery of ~magic bile~. This is not the problem with the article. The problem is that it contains one - one - throwaway line regarding the "critics" of such a 'medicine', saying "the way it is collected is cruel".
“...but critics say the way it is collected is cruel.”
And that's it. I was generally under the impression that the BBC was of a more balanced, impartial route towards news. How wrong I've been. That's it for the cons regarding this article. So I'm going to take some time to explain what it should have said - the message it should be relaying.
Now, I'm hardly an expert on the process of harvesting bear bile, nor do I live in China so I have no way of really knowing (alas, Wikipedia has been my best bet for research and we all know how reliable that is), but I'm generally under the impression that the process is this:
Hunt bear --> Catch bear --> Imprison bear (in tiny cage where it can't move) --> Harvest bile, whilst the bear is alive, over the period of many years, until the bear dies.
The processes? Here's what even my hardly-scraping-the-surface research led me to:
“[T]he bile is usually extracted twice a day through an implanted tube, producing 10-20 mL of bile each time; the process is believed to be painful, as the bears can be seen moaning and chewing their paws while being milked. Other methods include pushing a hollow steel stick through the bear's abdomen. The use of metal catheters has been banned, though HSUS writes that bile bears are still seen with catheters in them.
The "free drip" method is regarded as more humane. A permanent hole or fistula is made in the bear's abdomen and gall bladder, from which bile drips out freely. The wound is vulnerable to infection and bile can bleed back into the abdomen, causing a high mortality rate. Sometimes the hole is kept open with a perspex catheter, which HSUS writes causes severe pain. Source.
The method is disgusting and appalling, and anyone who knows anything about animal rights will have heard of the bear biling that goes on in some parts of China. It's considered horrible, inhumane, and one of the worst portrayals (or perhaps the best, if you're cynical) of what human beings can really be like. There are people out there working to close these farms down because the level of good they do is so insignificant compared to the harm caused.
And then the BBC swans in with a report like the one above and validates it. "Oh, it's all right, smudge over the details and portray to the public the benefits!". When I read that, I felt sick to the stomach with anger and disbelief.
At the very least, the article should have gone into more depth about the process. It should have presented the actual method of collecting bile, not just glossed over it with a "critics think it's cruel" statement. I'm pretty sure it's not just critics who think that process is cruel - every fucking person on this planet who possesses an ounce of humanity would call that process cruel. Whether or not the cruelty is worth it should be the real debate. Generally, people don't go away to do their own research on a topic they read in the news -- which is why it's so important that media companies (especially those who claim to be impartial) actually give both sides of the facts.
God knows how many people will wander around after reading that article and think "Wow, bear bile can cure heart disease, how awesome!". Ugh. Just, ugh.
It makes me wonder how often I've been misled in the past. No media source is perfect, I know that. But this is gross misconduct and I'm well of a mind to write to the BBC telling them as much. And perhaps I'll start looking elsewhere for my daily dose of 'news'.