Stem Cell Research (Part II)

To make myself feel less guilty about not posting in a while, i have decided to turn this into a 2 part post.

Are there other alternatives?
That would be the really important question. Embryo's are not the only place that stem cells exist. A scientist can harvest stem cells from numerous other areas such as adult blood, bone marrow, and umbilical cords from newly born babies. There are also other ways of producing embryonic type stem cells without having to worry about killing an unborn child (This month's Wired magazine has an article about this here). As far as i can tell the biggest reason for using embryonic stem cells instead of these other alternatives is that as of right now we know how to harvest ESC's and the other areas still need a little more research to be fully viable.

Why is there such a big focus on ESC's when there are so many more ethical ways to obtain stem cells?
I really think that there are only 2 real reasons for this.
1) As stated before, as of right now ESC's are easily harvested and mostly ready for research and use. Attempting to explain the finer points in this argument is currently beyond my exhaustion factor and current research knowledge. So i will leave that to others.
What i really want to bring to light is the second reason.
2) The controversy factor. ESC's are controversial. As such they garner all kinds of attention when you talk about them. The media wants to focus primarily on them because in doing so they get the attention. After all, who wants to write a story about the benefits of umbilical cord stem cells that will garner only a little bit of attention when you could write a controversial story about a controversial topic like ESC? After all, more readers means more money. On top of that, with the majority of the media being liberal, ESC support means more support for their own pro-choice and anti-pro-life agendas.
So, where does the real problem lie?