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.
...to *prevent* controversial topics from getting blocked by ideologues in the budget approval chain.
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.
" 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 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
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.
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.
I agree. The race is a big factor and I think also the broken feeling of knowing that "is must be true" (in this case because obviously Trump administration would say such a thing, from the viewpoint of the reporter).
To your point about un-ingesting it, I remember a quote(*) from Churchill, "Public reads news and not retractions." That makes this all the more dangerous, though perhaps in the shorter news cycle some retractions may slip into the consciousness.
(*) Of course I don't know if it really was from Churchill, I wasn't there when he said it, if he did, I only think I read it years ago from a source I believe I thought reputable at the time.
The previous /. story explicitly included statements from several gov't official quoted by the New York Times saying it was likely nothing more than recommendation to ease budget approval process.
Buy you had to actually get beyond the click-baity headline screaming "Trump Administration bans words!" (That wasn't even supported by the brief excerpt provided) And read the summary.
Ken
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.
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.
The source of the recommendation (not a ban) was from senior career administrators at CDC itself (not the Trump Administration)...
Aside from getting those two facts 100% wrong, the only nugget of truth in the headline was that it involved the CDC.
Ken
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.
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.
Except it's extortion. Unless you use their doublespeak words your budget won't get approved. So it may not be a "ban" per-se but it's still intended to be chilling and is still an attack on science and alternative lifestyles.
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.
The source of the recommendation (not a ban) was from senior career administrators at CDC itself (not the Trump Administration)...
And the senior career administrators were basing this recommendation on a nightmare they had? These officials, you know TALK to the politicians and act accordingly. The government sent a message, quibbling over exactly how it was delivered is disingenuous or naive. This is typical republican behavior undercutting science they don't like but being too cowardly to do it outright.
My good man, this isn't twitter. It's kind of tacky trying to use hashtags here.
I'd normally agree but the the thing is, the term has come into such wide use it seems out of place without the hashtag, which obviously does nothing on Slashdot but does imply the totality of thought behind the term. Much like people actually use the word "hashtag" before something in normal conversation now...
You just have to except that language evolves, and that's one of the ways it is changing.
So the HHS said calling it a ban was a "mischaracterization", which means they have admitted something was said on the topic
Yes, BUT as I said there is rampant proof they are still using those terms so obviously the original story is #FakeNews, regardless of how much you waffle around that fact. The story claimed they were forbidden, they are not, you can also continue to "mischaracterize" (i.e. lie) about it, or people can do the adult thing, and admit when they are wrong.
Bleatig about fake ews
You complain about my use of Hashtag in a convo then you drop that.... #dadjoke
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.