This is news.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday to consider whether Medtronic Inc. and other manufacturers of medical devices are shielded from product liability lawsuits by federal regulations.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal from a man who had a Medtronic-made catheter burst during an angioplasty, causing him permanent injury. Charles Riegel says he had to undergo emergency bypass surgery after the catheter burst and caused an immediate blockage during the procedure.

In this and other similar cases, lower courts have ruled that companies like Medtronic are shielded from such lawsuits. Courts have previously said that companies like Medtronic cannot change products once on the market without Food and Drug Administration's approval.

The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York noted that it is "almost impossible" for a device to stick to both FDA standards as well as jury verdicts.

The Fridley-based company defends itself in this case, stating that the catheter was inflated beyond restrictions by the physician. The catheter in question is no longer made by the company.

The coverage by the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune was very similar although both went about the story in a slightly different manner. The Pioneer Press put a larger focus on the person involved in the appeal while the Star Tribune's story seemed a bit less personal and a little more professional.

Posted by Andrea Wagenknecht at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The U.S. Supreme Court limited student free speech Wednesday when it ruled against a student who opened a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at a 2002 school event in Juneau, Alaska.

Joseph Frederick said he opened the banner as a prank to get himself on television while his school was watching the Winter Olympic torch relay pass by.

Frederick was suspended for 10 days after the incident because school officials said the banner promoted illegal drug use.

With a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that schools have the right to limit free speech when it is viewed as promoting illegal drug use.

The ruling, which was the first case in 20 years dealing with student free speech, was backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Center for Law and Justice as well as many conservative groups who fear the ruling would allow schools to limit students' rights to express religious views, especially those on abortion and homosexuality.

Covered by the British Broadcasting Corporation, Reuters and the Star Tribune, coverage of the ruling was very complete in the media.

One of the more interesting points was the difference in coverage between the local paper and the two larger news services. The local paper focused more on the student as a person, giving background information about his life since the event as well as plenty of direct quotes from him.

The two national news services focused more on the ruling and the message from the Supreme Court.

Between the two larger news services, Reuters seemed to be the most objective as it included quotations from both liberal and conservative justices.

Posted by Andrea Wagenknecht at 11:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The debate over embryonic stem cell research continued to rage Wednesday as President Bush vetoed a bill that would have expanded federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

The issue has been in the news often since Bush first restricted funding for embryonic stem cell research to current cells where embryos have already been destroyed. This is the second bill Bush has vetoed that would have lifted restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The first veto came when the Republicans introduced a similar measure last year.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives would need a two thirds vote in order to override the veto and make the bill law although Democrats were skeptical and said they did not think they would get enough support. This most recent veto will also most likely push the issue into the 2008 presidential campaigns.

Embryonic stem cell research is constantly a source of debate. The stem cells are of interest to scientists because they have the potential to give rise to any type of cell or tissue and possibly treat diseases.Critics claim it is morally wrong to destoy human embryos to derive stem cells. Advocates point out that the embryos used are left over from fertility treatments and are destined to be destroyed anyway.

Bush pointed out that scientists reported in tests with mice that progress had been made in research considering other ways of deriving stem cells. Scientists cautioned that this was not guaranteed and urged passage of the bill.

The coverage of the recently vetoed bill was covered by both the New York Times and Reuters. The New York Times gave more background for the debate that has raged over stem cell research so the reader is more informed about previous events and what led up to this most recent veto. The New York Times story also gives the responses of possible presidential candidates so the reader knows where some of them stand on the issue.

Reuters gave more direct quotations in the story, so the reader knew what each side was saying about the issue but it lacked in amount of background material.

Posted by Andrea Wagenknecht at 10:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Minnesota Vikings continued their attempts to secure a new stadium when they signed an intent to purchase agreement Wednesday, buying the land from Avista Capital Partners, the new owners of the Star Tribune. Avista Capital Partners sold land surrounding the current location of the Star Tribune to the Minnesota Vikings for an amount that has yet to be confirmed. Although sources put the amount at close to $45 million dollars, neither side would confirm it.

Zygi Wilf, owner of the Vikings, purchased the land near the Metrodome and added it to the $5 million purchase he made last month. Wilf wants to bulid a $1.6 billion retractable roof stadium to replace the Metrodome after the Vikings lease is up in 2011.

The story, covered by both the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press, has been in the news over the last few years when the Vikings first tried to secure a similar deal in Anoka County. The deal fell through and county officials blamed the Vikings, saying they refused to stop looking at the site in Minneapolis.

The coverage on both sides is fairly complete on this issue although there does seem to be a difference in attitude between the two stories. While the Star Tribune quotes those who made more positive remarks, the Pioneer Press quoted people from both sides of the story. The Pioneer Press story, therefore, sounds less biased about the deal.

Neither story answers all questions, leaving the price tag hanging with quotations from those simply referred to as "sources" who were close to the deal. This raises quite a few questions about the story and the motives behind the sources who reported the information.

Posted by Andrea Wagenknecht at 9:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The House Wednesday passed a bill that, if enacted into law, would improve state reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in order to stop gun purchase by people who are not allowed to possess firearms.

This bill, which was passed on a voice vote, could become the first major federal gun control bill passed since 1994. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Rep Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. drafted the bill with the help of the National Rifle Association.

The legislation comes in response to the Virginia Tech attack in April. Va. Tech student Seung Hui-Cho killed himself and 32 others. He had been ordered to undergo mental treatment and should not have been allowed to buy the two guns he used for the shooting, however his records were never passed on to the background check system.

Currently, legislation states that anyone found to be mentally defective cannot possess a gun. The legislation also prohibits felons, fugitives, drug addicts and wife beaters from purchasing firearms.

According to Reuters, certain laws and restraints have deterred states from fully reporting these records to the NICS.

Both Reuters and USA Today reported on the number of states currently providing mental records to the NICS. Reuters reported that number to be 23 states while USA Today, who attributed their information to Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, reported that number to be 22.

The new bill would improve these numbers by requiring states to share disqualifying records with the NICS database. It also provides $250 million in funding to help states meet goals outlined in the bill and imposes penalties for states failing to meet these goals.

In order for the bill to be enacted into law, the Senate must approve it. USA Today reported that Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the chances of Senate passing the bill were "very strong."

The bill can be viewed here.

The two different news stories both reported essentially the same basic information on the new bill, however USA Today was more thorough with quotations from senators and legislators as well as background information to help the reader understand the story. Reuters' story was more basic but still covered the important details of the story and got the point across effectively.

Posted by Andrea Wagenknecht at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)