Slashdot Mirror
CDC Director Says No Words Are Actually Banned At the CDC (pbs.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from PBS: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald on Sunday addressed a report that President Donald Trump's administration had banned the CDC from using seven words or phrases in next year's budget documents. The terms are "fetus," "transgender," "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "evidence-based" and "science-based," according to a story first reported on Friday in The Washington Post. But Fitzgerald said in a series of tweets on Sunday said there are "no banned words," while emphasizing the agency's commitment to data-driven science. "CDC has a long-standing history of making public health and budget decisions that are based on the best available science and data and for the benefit of all people -- and we will continue to do so," she said.
A group of the agency's policy analysts said senior officials at the CDC informed them about the banned words on Thursday, according to the Post's report. In some cases, the analysts were reportedly given replacement phrases to use instead. But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited "a few" CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, said the reported decree on banned words was a misrepresentation.
A group of the agency's policy analysts said senior officials at the CDC informed them about the banned words on Thursday, according to the Post's report. In some cases, the analysts were reportedly given replacement phrases to use instead. But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited "a few" CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, said the reported decree on banned words was a misrepresentation.
...to *prevent* controversial topics from getting blocked by ideologues in the budget approval chain.
" the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases."
IOW the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help not getting fired by eliminating certain words and phrases.
"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "
If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
Because not using the terms would only apply to a budget proposal, not general communications and even then it was only a suggestion...
Apparently is was guidance how how best to craft one document, not guidelines for every document. But who can resist the allure of #FakeNews, the faker the better!! Spread On #FakeNews soldier!!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The assertion that H.H.S. has 'banned words' is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process.
So, such a discussion about what words not to use in a budget really did exist!
The news that kicked off these stories was a piece taken out of context. Purposefully or not, we'll never really know. They'll issue a retraction, half the people will hear that, then half of those will remember there was a retraction.
Without the drive for non-stop, headline news, this wouldn't have been news as it would have been vetted. The editors are clearly in a race for time, to all of our detriment.
This nonsense is terrible for everyone that prints it, ingests it and has to try to un-ingest it. Of course, until everyone puts down their devices, and we all stop, this will happen unless we deter it in a meaningful way. While profits outweigh penalties, the editor will err on the side of being the first to publish.
--
"I'm sure to have a brain" - Scarecrow
Except it was the department recommending to not use such words. The headlines were implying that Trump banned them. When in reality it's bureaucrats recommending certain language in order to avoid conflict with those that control the budget in Congress. The type of thing that people throughout government and in private industry do in order to secure funding for projects -- know your audience and play to it.
This was made out to be something entirely different than it really is. It was very irresponsible journalism.
They are shining a bright light on the world they live in and operate in right now. If they put those words in there, you have a large group of ideologues that will outright, not look at it, therefore not fund the CDC, as "those people" aren't "their people."
It is them yelling HELP! They are not allowed to tread into politics per their job titles. They are screaming that there is a large number of people that already can not hear these words for sake of them not being re-elected, or that they simply don't care that there is science, and other *things* outside of their religion (and I use the term very loosely here).
It should be a very stark warning to all of us, that this isn't just happening now, it has already happened. Their hands are being tied by entire groups that thinks science that accepts anything other than their own is bad science. They have a base that believes this as well, and will back them up.
These people don't look at a world of people that are different. They look at the world through a lens where only they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Anything not serving their own self interests is a waste of time and money, and a clear example of a bloated government.
--
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
I can't believe how willing so may of you are to spread #FakeNews. Even I believed it was real (and stupid) at the time, so compelling and well-crafted has the #FakeNews industry become.
My good man, this isn't twitter. It's kind of tacky trying to use hashtags here.
Also, you know, it's not precisely fake news now is it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
So the HHS said calling it a ban was a "mischaracterization", which means they have admitted something was said on the topic but are claiming the reporting was bad. But, they've not gone further and relased a statement of what they said.
Bleatig about fake ews makes you sounds foolish, because you're drawing an equivalence between this and something like pizzagate which was completely fabricated.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Except it was the department recommending to not use such words. The headlines were implying that Trump banned them. When in reality it's bureaucrats recommending certain language in order to avoid conflict with those that control the budget in Congress.
Those bureaucrats may not be physically situated in the White House, but they are indeed part of the Trump administration, which is what the headline said was the source of the word-ban.
And it is not a stretch to imagine that this kind of lexicographic micromanaging came from the White House. Far from being "iresponsible journalism" or "fake news", this was journalism doing what it is supposed to do: uncover and report stories that could indicate changes in policy in the administration that the POTUS controls.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Most of the actual bureaucrats are non-political employees that were likely there during the previous administration. They're the work horses and adjust strategy based on getting things done as political winds change. If you want funding, you avoid saying things that those with the purse strings might not want to fund.
Notice that nothing in this report says they're going to change actual policy or programs, just that they're being directed to use different wording in budget proposals. Had this been done because of ideological changes of direction, the directive would have been to cancel programs rather than change the wording in budget proposals.
Show of hands, please:
Who believes anything a Trump appointee says? She was put in place by Tom Price, the disgraced Health and Human Services secretary who resigned when he was caught lying about using military jets as his private airline.
Here is a list of the 15 Trump appointees who had to leave in the first 11 months of his administration due to indictment or embarrassment.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Thought so. The 'banned words' is really more of a guide for scientists on "How to talk to politicians."
"Don't say 'fetus!' To you it's a science word, but to a politician that's a flag of liberalism. If you utter that word they'll see you as the enemy and cut your funding. Just call it a pre-born child and they'll treat you as one of their own."
Problem is that everything these days turns into a partisan fight.
Which includes your comment too! All those fake news perpetrators you called out were only right wing news. But I know you know there are major fake news examples on both sides.