The media around the world seems at last to be taking a responsible attitude in their reporting on this issue, critically evaluating their sources and making sure their evidence is good before publishing.  A fine example of this was recent coverage in The Sun (see Thumbs up to The Sun) and it looks as if similar ethics are prevailing across the pond.

The Arizona Republic had a great article recently where they were not taken in by two of the US’ most disingenuous AR organisations: PETA and PCRM.  Choice quotes include;

… it must be remembered that those who yell the loudest are not always right, and should not always carry the day.

[On the applicability of animal research to humans]
Whom to believe on that point?  How about the American Academy of Neurology for one?  This organization, unlike the animal-rights outfit that calls itself a Physicians Committee [PCRM], is actually made up of doctors.  Brain surgeons, no less.  Smart people.

… Opposing Covance because it uses animals in its research is to inhabit an Alice-in-Wonderland universe where priorities are turned absolutely upside down.  It’s to indulge in raw emotionalism against the cold, hard fact that people – precious, wonderful people – get sick and medial advances based on animal research have helped mitigate that grim reality.
Arizona Republic, 8th June 2006, ‘Warm, fuzzy’ PETA really inhumane

It looks as though the silent majority amongst the readership are pleased with this critical evaluation of the issue, as shown by the comments:

It is good to see that at least some journalists are not taken in by the unthinking animal activists. I am alive and well today, as are many of the activists, because of medicines and procedures developed through animal experimentation. As an animal owner I am aware that my animals also benefit from medicines developed the same way.

…thanks to the Republic’s editors for understanding that naming oneself as “Ethical” or as a “Physician” does not make one so.
(Peter6887, June 15, 2006 08:23AM)