Today in the land of Oz...

Monkeys, witches, and a Massachusetts cardinal's denunciation of Democrats--the world seen through the headlines seems a little topsy-turvy today. Let's take a closer look.

More monkeys in the news today, but these could be helpful to humans, not harmful. A Washington Post article endeavors to explain scientists' recent success at cloning monkey embryos for stem cells. The article faces many challenges from the beginning, including how to explain science to the average reader, how to qualify results that have not yet been replicated and how to deal with the ethical and political ramifications. It succeeds at the latter two with a quote from a Catholic ethicist at the end of the article and by mentioning the future possibilities to be studied based on this research. Because of one omission, though, it does not explain the complicated science in layman's terms. The details of the experiment do not appear until the article more than half over, leaving unresolved the mention of skin cells in the lede. It would have been much clearer to include a brief description of the experiment in the third paragraph.

A horrifying story out of Africa today is treated comprehensively in The New York Times. An article on children accused of witches and cast out of their homes broaches the sad subject of child abuse without making it seem melodramatic. The article points out without belaboring the point that the people of Angola and the Congo believe in the existence of witches and cannot be convinced otherwise. In describing the abuses children face by their families after being accused of witchcraft, it eases into the more severe situations. The leading anecdote is of a child who survived an attempted killing by his family and does not give the roles of particular family members; this makes it easier for the reader to get accustomed to the idea before the article observes later that mothers and fathers are often behind the abuse.

The Boston Globe initiates what could be an interesting discussion during the course of the election cycle as it reports on Boston archbishop Cardinal Sean O'Malley's denunciation of the Democratic party's antipathy to pro-lifers. The article allows plenty of space for the archbishop to discuss his opinion and notes how such issues have played out in past elections. Its focus is on the document released by the U.S. Conference of Bishops. The article gave an interesting statistic though: there are 104 Catholics in Congress; of those, two have taken firm antiabortion stances. Why don't the rest? Or perhaps one should ask, why do those two? I think the article would present a stronger argument by examining how many other Catholics besides the bishops feel it is important not to support any candidates who wish for abortion to remain legal. What about the many Catholic Democrats across the state of Massachusetts? The article should include responses from the everyman, as well. The article brings up the bishops' declaration that supporting pro-choice candidates could lead to loss of salvation: this is a serious claim. How do Democratic Catholics feel about this? The issue is more complicated than it seems here.