[Ed. note: I half-ass rewrote this to reflect that some reporters are stupid. I’m going back to the original. Let the reporters plead their case in the comments.]
A recent study out of Canada has proven once and for all that reporters are only slightly more stupid than some medical journal editors.
What they did
They took intact penises and circumcised ones. They compared two discreet points on the remains of the circumcised penis with the anatomical equivalent points on the intact penis. They discovered that in the remaining tissue of the circumcised penis and the equivalent points in the intact penis, the two are more or less capable of reacting to stimulation
at the same level to the same degree.
What they didn’t show
They failed to show that circumcised penises are capable of equivalent sensitivity to stimuli as intact penises, the circumcised penises having lacked the necessary parts to compare. They merely succeeded in showing that as for the remaining tissue, stimuli can be said to be more or less equally felt.
Why this study
This study appears to be calculated to pave the way to greater acceptability of circumcision, particularly in light of the current push to circumcise the world in the name of AIDS. It further appears to be an exercise in over-simplification to appeal to lazy, uncritical medical reporters with a quota of stories to file on deadline.
Reporters are stupid, gullible, or both.