Organs from man with HIV transplanted into five patients

1. Play VIn a case of "critical medical negligence", Taiwan health authorities are investigating how organs from a donoThe fiva

According to the Daily Mail, the hospital posted on its website that the mistake occurred because a staffer believed he heard the English word 'non-reactive' (negative) on the donor's standard HIV test, while the word 'reactive' was actually given.
"The National Taiwan University Hospital is required to come up with a detailed report before the end of Tuesday," Wang Je-chau, a spokesman for the Department of Health told news agencies.
AFP reports the family of the 38-year-old man decided to donate his organs after he fell to his death in Hsinchu city last week.
The medical staff conducting standard blood tests found that the man was HIV positive and that the transplant could not be conducted.
However, the message was wrongly conveyed and the doctors were given the green signal for the operations.
Subsequently, his liver, lungs and kidneys were transplanted into patients.
A health department official says that the five organ receivers will very likely contract HIV, and their anti-AIDS treatment will be further complicated because of the medication to modify rejection of the new organs.
The five recipients are all Taiwanese.
Local media said the responsible staff, if found guilty, may face a jail term of up to 10 years and the National Taiwan University Hospital may be barred from doing similar operations for a year.

Well, this incident happened in Taiwan yet the photo of a white doctor is used.  I wonder if that photo is of the actual doctor or is meant to put a subliminal thought inside your head that white doctors are incompetent?  Would it be considered "biased" if a Taiwanese doctor's photo was used, even though the doctor WAS IN FACT TAIWANESE?  Why isn't the ACTUAL photo of the doctor on display for all to see?  What is the objective criteria for the news media in deciding whose photos, names and addresses are used and whose aren't?  

Do you think there is an OBJECTIVE or SUBJECTIVE agenda at work with regards to how the media presents stories?  It is clear to me that the news is only a small part news and a large part editorializing and is actually an inversion of truth rather than a harmonization with it.  It is 90% agenda with a dash of truth, just to not make it too obvious and to make you believe they (newsmedia & reporters) are a legitimate source of information.  I would even go so far as to say the entire impetus of reporting news is for propaganda purposes and it's intent by the powers that be is the spread of a certain philosophy rather than a reporting of events as they happen.

The fact is that they HAVE to report on SOME events, even if it doesn't fit an agenda but these stories are spun in such a way as to keep the cultural marxist status quo agenda alive and thriving.  Spotting the duplicity could save your life someday...TOD