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.
Would have been officially send out documentation using the words "fetus," "transgender," "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "evidence-based" and "science-based". The fact that her statement carefully avoided saying any of those just throws more fuel on the fire.
She said that the words are NOT banned, BUT when asked if they had been banned, she would not answer the question.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you have to put out a list of words which shouldn't be used for whatever reason, it's still a de facto ban.
They can try to spin it all they want, but if real words, words used in the medical and scientific community, cause that much outrage in certain people, perhaps the people are the problem and not the words.
Trump's lawyer may have said that Mueller's acquisition of transition e-mails was unlaful, but that does not make it so. IIRC, the lawyer's argument was that these e-mails are privileged. That's BS. Trump was not yet president, so he and his team did not enjoy the protection of privilege at that time.
This attempt to discredit Mueller in the right-wing media has been quite intense lately. In the opinion of many, it's an attempt to weaken his image and set up cover for Trump to fire him.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Fake news gets mixed up a bunch. There is fake news that is misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or jumping to conclusions. "Chocolate is healthy for you!" Not fake per se, but the reporter could have done a better job rather than rushing to print. Then there's the fake news which is deliberate exaggeration, pushing a small story to make it a big story or other sensationalism. Still, there's a shred of truth hidden behind a whole lot of outrage, the sort of stuff Fox News is known for.
Then there's the real fake news. Stories that are made up from beginning to end. For instance the story about a town in Texas which is where the Mexican drug lords send all their families to live in safety and get decent medical care. Totally made up and pushed by Brietbart news. It is interesting that the president shouting the most about fake news had as his primary campaign adviser the head of Brietbart news. A deflection strategy; either shouting wolf all the time in order to make people cnfused about what's fake or not, or calling stuff fake so often at the drop of a hat in order to diminish the seriousness of "fake news".
Anyway, real fake news is a serious matter, and as time goes on it will become easier and easier to just make stuff up and still provide doctored photos, videos, and audio that make it sound convincing. But the other "fake news" that is just exaggeration or mistakes, while certainly a major failing of news media, should not be treated as the same level of dishonesty.
Problem is that everything these days turns into a partisan fight. Everyone's trying to find "gotchas", uncover political misdealings by the other side, and so on. So there are a lot of people who just won't accept that the CDC is trying to improve public health, they assume there's some political agenda behind everything.
"They'll issue a retraction, half the people will hear that, then half of those will remember there was a retraction."
The thing with this is that if it was an occasional error, it could conceivably be a mistake, but when, as it is now, it's a consistent reliable pattern of behaviour, it is pretty clearly a method of propaganda.
Step 1: Tell a whopper of a lie. Let it get in everyone's minds.
Step 2: Issue a retraction that 20% of the original group will see, if that. (And let's be serious here, your estimate of 50% is preposterously optimistic.)
Step 3: The other 80% of people that didn't see the retraction (or wilfully ignored it due to previous examples of this technique influencing their internal narratives) use this whopper to fuel the fires of hysteria and reinforce their pre-existing biases.
So, what's the goal here? To introduce biases into people, and reinforce them in people where they exist already. Where do we most see this shit going on? Personally, I see it the most in anti-Trump "news", especially in the Russia collusion BS.
A Health and Human Services official who asked not to be named told STAT it was not accurate to say that CDC had been ordered not to use the seven words. Instead, he said, agency budget analysts were told that some words and phrasing might be more likely to win support for the CDC’s budget in the current Congress.
It goes on
Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said discussion of words that are banned or to be avoided sends a dangerous message to the agency. “There’s as much of a risk of self-censorship that comes out of this than actual direct censorship,” he told STAT. “This is the part that’s much more pernicious than any direct pronouncement.” “So of course the administration and its defenders are going to argue that this is only about what goes into the budget,” Jha noted. “But we know that the signal to the agency is much stronger than that. And it’s going to change behavior of people who work there. And that’s much more damaging than any direct censorship.”
Keep in mind the republicans are slashing money for research right and left in an orgy of giving public money back to the robber barons. Scientists and doctors interested in serving public health aren't stupid, they know a "guideline" from their funding agency isn't an order, but they do know it's how they win funding and keep their jobs.
To suggest this is fake news is to ignore the obvious reality: republicans are intentionally subordinating science to the wishes of their evangelical base.