"Howzat?"

What’s the old cliché? Optimist versus pessimist--it depends on whether you see the glass as half-empty or half-full.

Well, there was an interesting twist on that old bromide last month. The Washington Post and the New York Times took exactly the same story--the status of the abortifacient RU486--and came to diametrically opposite conclusions.

Understand, both newspapers are by-the-number abortion supporters. But the reporter in one instance actually took the time to examine claims of “success.” By all appearances the other didn’t.

I asked Director of Education Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon to examine the conflicting stories, see what they say, and give us his analysis of why they came out the way they did.

It was such stark contrast that even the media reporter for the Washington Post couldn't help but notice. Under a subheading reading "Howzat?," Howard Kurtz simply printed two headlines: "Abortion Pill Slow to Win Users Among Women and Their Doctors"-- New York Times

"Abortion Pill Sales Rising, Firm Says" -- Washington. Post.

Kurtz’s amusing reference was to the contradictory headlines for articles appearing in the September 25, 2002, editions of the New York Times and the Washington Post, respectively. Both dealt with a press release put out the day before by Danco Laboratories, the U.S. distributor of RU486, the abortion pill.

In his short article, Post reporter Marc Kaufman largely reproduces highlights from the Danco press release--increases in U.S. sales and a rise in sales to doctors in private practice, for instance. He makes only a brief reference to a citizen's petition filed with the Food and Drug Administration in September, produced by women's and doctors' groups, which maintained that the two-drug abortion technique was too dangerous to be left on the market.

In addition the Post article devotes only a few sentences to the serious complications, including two deaths, about which the company reported earlier this year. Kaufman quotes a company spokesperson who reasserts the drug's safety and efficacy and who dutifully notes that the company sent out a letter notifying doctors of the adverse events, all the while maintaining that no causal link had been established between the drug and the deaths.

The reporter closes by repeating the Danco press release's declaration that the drug has been approved for use in 26 countries and has now been used by 1 million women worldwide.

Gina Kolata’s New York Times’ article also reports some of the same details from the Danco press release. However Kolata points out that the number of RU486 abortions reported by Danco represent only a tiny percentage of women obtaining abortions. Equally important she notes that few doctors outside of abortion clinics are actually offering the abortion pill to their patients.

Kolata interviewed a number of RU486 promoters and supporters who try to put the best face on the figures, arguing that the product takes time to catch on, for instance. But she also quotes Ron Fitzsimmons.

Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, a trade federation representing about 150 independent abortion clinics, admits, "It's not the social revolution that people predicted."

Kolata goes further, investigating why the abortion technique isn't selling. In contrast to popular misconceptions that treat RU486 as some sort of "magic pill" that makes the baby suddenly “disappear,” Kolata says forthrightly that a chemical abortion "is not a simple procedure."

The typical RU486 abortion involves at least two drugs (the second, misoprostol, expels the child killed by the RU486) and three office visits spread over a two-week period. Nausea, abdominal pain, and bleeding lasting anywhere from nine to 16 days are common side effects of an RU486 abortion.

Moreover, two of the doctors Kolata interviewed say they offer RU486 but have found few takers once women find out the complexity of the regimen. According to Kolata, requirements put in place by the FDA to protect women's safety--that pregnancies be dated, that ectopic pregnancies be diagnosed, that arrangements for surgical backup be made--are also features that keep many doctors from offering the drug.

A lot is left unsaid. Neither reporter really goes into the details of the citizens’ petition. The petition outlines the dangers the drug poses to women and shows why statements that "no causal link" has been established between the drug and the deaths reported last April are, at best, disingenuous.

Yet there is a clear contrast in the approaches. One takes statements largely at face value and simply relates the messages pushed by the interested party. The other makes a serious effort to cut through the spin and uncover the truth.

What the positions of these reporters are on abortion, we don't know. Chances are, if they're like most of their colleagues in the media, they're sympathetic to the pro-abortion side. One can see, however, the difference that journalistic effort makes in how a story gets told.

Read the story in the Post and you'll think things are going swimmingly for the abortion pill's promoters, despite a few unrelated glitches and some minor political opposition.

Read the story in the Times and you'll see a struggling product failing to meet its marketing hype. At least one reporter did her homework.