Wilful misinformation?

I have no very strong views on the ethics of embryonic stem-cell research. I probably diasgree with the notion that it is tantamount to child murder, but am unhappy with the slightly gung-ho approach of the other side. But for the BBC to get the basic facts of the case so completely wrong seems either staggeringly incompetent or deliberately misleading.

Bush is accused of 'blocking embryonic stem cell research', and his attitude is described as being out of step with opinion polls that say that 'three in four are in favour of research on embryos if it could save lives'. But Bush hasn't banned embryonic research, or vetoed a bill legalising it. What he has done is vetoed a bill that allows federal funding for such research. There are other BBC articles that make this clear - so why isn't this mentioned at all in the feature article? The tagline is 'Weighing the political impact of the Bush veto on stem cell research' - a fundamentally inaccurate line.

Do they think we won't notice, or are they unable to see the difference?