|
Post by celawson on Dec 19, 2017 12:30:45 GMT -5
Back to the OP for a second -- it seems by now, if there really is a ban, we'd have some evidence of it. Apparently also, the WaPo (again, it's behind a paywall and I'm not paying to read sloppy and biased reporting.) has a THIRD article by the same reporter in which they've backtracked even more. The author is apparently now saying that it is a "style guide", not a ban, and it's 3 words, not seven, and fetus and transgender are not included, and the recs came from within the meeting not from CDC officials.
This is a great example of fake news. I suspect it was purposely published late on a Friday in order to get traction within anti-Trumpers. And it's a great example of people becoming extremely upset over something that was extremely suspect to begin with, if one didn't have Trump hate blinders on. I do not believe this is an honest mistake. And I believe it goes beyond sloppy reporting. A reporter, especially a health reporter, should be able to put aside their biases to write a news report. And this "an anonymous source" bullshit is...bullshit.
The most ironic thing is that I suspect (I have no proof) as I said the other day, that the "suggestions" were from people on the left, haha. That's the theory that makes the most logical sense. Wow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 12:36:31 GMT -5
So...you have not actually read the WaPo articles, but you are comfortable making all those statements and assumptions about them, their authors, their sources, and the motivations behind it all?
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 19, 2017 12:53:41 GMT -5
Yes, because I put "apparently", and "I suspect" in my post.
Edited to Add: My comments are actually way more measured than your first few posts on this topic, and I have way more to go on than you did at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 19, 2017 12:56:18 GMT -5
Back to the OP for a second -- it seems by now, if there really is a ban, we'd have some evidence of it. Apparently also, the WaPo (again, it's behind a paywall and I'm not paying to read sloppy and biased reporting.) has a THIRD article by the same reporter in which they've backtracked even more. The author is apparently now saying that it is a "style guide", not a ban, and it's 3 words, not seven, and fetus and transgender are not included, and the recs came from within the meeting not from CDC officials. This is a great example of fake news. I suspect it was purposely published late on a Friday in order to get traction within anti-Trumpers. And it's a great example of people becoming extremely upset over something that was extremely suspect to begin with, if one didn't have Trump hate blinders on. I do not believe this is an honest mistake. And I believe it goes beyond sloppy reporting. A reporter, especially a health reporter, should be able to put aside their biases to write a news report. And this "an anonymous source" bullshit is...bullshit. The most ironic thing is that I suspect (I have no proof) as I said the other day, that the "suggestions" were from people on the left, haha. That's the theory that makes the most logical sense. Wow. You were actually not sounding unreasonable until that last line. When I first heard the story, my initial impression, even reading some of the more "breathless" reports, was that there hadn't actually been an official ban, but that some officials had suggested that the CDC not use those words because they might set off the administration. So you're right that a lot of media (and anti-Trumpers) took that ball and ran with it, until within hours it had become "CDC is given a list of banned words"). Here's an article at the New York Times that is not behind a paywall. So, no, they were not literally ordered not to use those words by the White House. But they were told, basically, that using those words might result in their funding being cut. So... how much better is that? Yeah, you can complain about the news media distorting the story a bit, but the underlying facts are still that in the current political climate under Trump, the CDC is being strongly encouraged to prioritize Politically Correct language (i.e., don't use words that gets conservatives' panties in a twist) over science. And your response is "Fake news! Liberal conspiracy!"
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 19, 2017 13:02:41 GMT -5
Amadan, anyone who asks for money whether it be a high school student trying to win a scholarship, or a researcher writing a grant proposal, thinks of the best words to use to win over those who are handing out the money. This is no different. In my theory, if the perception is that those crazy Republicans will hold budgetary money due to certain trigger words or issues, then part of that could be a problem with those crazy Republicans, or part of that could be irrational suspicion from those wanting to head any problems off at the pass, if you will. It would be nice if we could have a randomized, double blind study with budget/grant requests and see how it plays out. But I think if the congress were majority Democrats, then request for military funding would have similar issues, etc. I think this is simply how things work out in a polarized, two party system.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 19, 2017 13:09:37 GMT -5
Amadan, anyone who asks for money whether it be a high school student trying to win a scholarship, or a researcher writing a grant proposal, thinks of the best words to use to win over those who are handing out the money. This is no different. In my theory, if the perception is that those crazy Republicans will hold budgetary money due to certain trigger words or issues, then part of that could be a problem with those crazy Republicans, or part of that could be irrational suspicion from those wanting to head any problems off at the pass, if you will. It would be nice if we could have a randomized, double blind study with budget/grant requests and see how it plays out. But I think if the congress were majority Democrats, then request for military funding would have similar issues, etc. I think this is simply how things work out in a polarized, two party system. Yes, I realize every organization asking for money from politicians has to deal with political realities and modulate their language accordingly. But if you think those fears are irrational then you haven't been paying attention to how the GOP tries to cut funding for government agencies since the 80s. Sorry, but it is very clearly conservatives with a long track record of wanting to defund that which offends them. From whence do you get this persistent idea you keep throwing out there that the Democrats hate the military? Yeah, Democrats generally want to spend less money on the military than Republicans do, but Obama and Clinton were not exactly forcing the DoD to hold bake sales - no Democrat President or Congress ever has. The comparison is specious - you're talking about "Wants to do away with if they had their druthers" vs. "Might maybe give them a little less money than they'd like."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 13:11:29 GMT -5
Yes, because I put "apparently", and "I suspect" in my post. Edited to Add: My comments are actually way more measured than your first few posts on this topic, and I have way more to go on than you did at the time. Your comments, unfortunately, measured or not, are not based on the actual articles. I'm afraid I don't think much praise or deference is due to "measured" opinions that are based entirely on second-hand opinions about the articles -- as yours in this instance (and others, I'm afraid) clearly are. I also believe that passion and anger have their place. I have already said this, and I'll reiterate it -- even if the CDC and other agencies are voluntarily using these workarounds purely for purposes of getting their funding from Congress, it's perfectly appalling to me that this is what they need to do. You are quibbling over the use of "ban" (if it's inaccurate, and again, you have not even read the articles), as though such a misstatement (if it is one) makes it all OK. And you are leaning on your "measured"ness as though that alone makes your arguments correct. It doesn't. [ETA: by the way, all, please don't miss the Atlantic article I posted towards the bottom on the previous page. Perhaps it belongs in its own thread. I posted it here because I felt it tied in to our conversation here. But I think it's terrific and terribly important and I don't want it to get lost -- please give it a look. I believe a few people here will find that it resonates.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 19, 2017 13:22:03 GMT -5
Putting out a piece of fluff is not the same thing as flooding the airwaves with fluff while major breaking news is happening. There has always been some fluff. Even when televised news was limited was limited to an hour from 6 pm and 11 pm, there was a daily fluff segment. That's not the same as covering up or ignoring real news, or spinning false reports about things that matter. And really, truly Rob -- you think WaPo, the NYTimes, CNN etc. and Fox are indistinguishable? I think that when a TV news station runs a "breaking news banner continuously during a segment, they are pretty much saying that what they are reporting is important, critical, and/or shocking. "Breaking news: hundreds dead in terrorist attack," "Breaking news: newly released files indicate CIA responsible for killing Kennedy," "Breaking news: Donald Trump wins Presidency." I don't think "Breaking news: wingnut claims aliens are visiting earth" is in the same category at all. And no, I don't think those sources you listed are indistinguishable at all. Where did I say that? For the record, I think the online news sites are not terribly different; they all make editorial choices, to be sure, and Fox is probably the worst, when it comes to slant and opinion, as far as that goes (because frankly, most of the stories on current events are basically the same; not all, just most). When it comes to TV, I think the Fox shows are waaaaaay worse than the ones on the other 24-hour networks. Yet, MSNBC is trying hard to catch up, imo. As I said, Morning Joe is becoming close to a pajama party, from what I've seen. And CNN, for its part, seems to think Chris Cilizza is the absolute greatest thing ever, which I think is funny. And I guess it's fair to note that the NYT continues to run columns from people like Friedman, who hasn't had anything interesting to say for decades, imo. And WaPo has columnists like *cough* E.J. Dionne, who is--imo--perhaps the biggest political shill out there.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 19, 2017 13:33:08 GMT -5
I don't think "Breaking news: wingnut claims aliens are visiting earth" is in the same category at all. I mean, if there really were aliens visiting Earth, I think that would qualify. But seriously, I didn't see the story, or if the guy in question was indeed a retired nobody turned wingnut, but if someone fairly high in the DoD was seriously yelling about UFOs, I think it would at least merit interest.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 19, 2017 13:34:22 GMT -5
Yes, passion and anger have their place, and it's not everywhere Trump, IMO. It might even be most places Trump, but really, it's not everywhere Trump. If it is directed towards everything Trump, like what is being displayed by a lot of people currently, then that dilutes the reaction to truly egregious things. Just my opinion. But there is an old adage about a boy who cried wolf, and sometimes old adages have a lot of truth to them.
I hear you, Amadan. Unfortunately, with changes of administration, some things people hold dear are at risk. And with our runaway deficit (which the GOP tax plan may make bigger, I'm not denying that), Republicans are more likely to cut things that Democrats want. Again, I don't think it's Orwellian or even appalling that people consider word choices -- it's just how things are done when money is a finite resource. And what's great about our government is that the next administration can change things, too, or the next congress.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 19, 2017 13:39:47 GMT -5
Just as an FYI, her's some actually data in the words in question and their usage in budget proposals from the CDC: www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/fight-over-seven-health-related-words-president-s-next-budgetThis isn't really earth-shaking stuff, when looked at from the above perspective. What made it seem earth-shaking was the WaPo's characterization of what happened as "banning words." I'm going to go back to Cass' theory from earlier in the thread: As I said, that seems plausible. But it's also plausible that the directive was to avoid using certain words if possible and the unidentified sources used by WaPo overstated that directive, told WaPo that the words were banned. No? Of course, "CDC avoids using certain terms in budget proposal" has no chance of getting as many clicks as "Trump admin bans words from CDC documents"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 13:47:09 GMT -5
It is not a few random fringe lefties yelling, c.e. The group of us yelling is larger than the group who think things are fine. It includes some prominent long-time conservatives.
We're all crying wolf?
This paragraph from my Atlantic article sums it up (for "Rubin", you can substitute all of us yelling about Trump):
IMO, you (and Trump defenders generally) are taking individual incidents, dissecting out whatever excuse you can find for them, putting the best gloss on them, and setting each separately on its own shelf as though it is unconnected to the rest (while pointing at and amplifying any nitpick you can find in criticism of Trump). We Trump criticizers are looking at a pattern, a continuing series of events, and are trembling at where it appears to be leading us. We don't want to wait until the entire country is on fire before calling it what we think it is.
I'm happy with the company I'm keeping on this, both on left and right. I believe we're on the right side of history. But given that I am none too confident about our future, I am not content to rest with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 16:14:46 GMT -5
I don't think "Breaking news: wingnut claims aliens are visiting earth" is in the same category at all. I mean, if there really were aliens visiting Earth, I think that would qualify. But seriously, I didn't see the story, or if the guy in question was indeed a retired nobody turned wingnut, but if someone fairly high in the DoD was seriously yelling about UFOs, I think it would at least merit interest. Is this what you're talking about, Rob? www.cnn.com/2017/12/18/politics/luis-elizondo-ufo-pentagon/index.html(It then goes into disputes on how much money the program cost, etc.) Um. OK, I actually think this IS news. Would I ignore Manafort's indictment or the disgraceful House vote for the tax bill (and yes, I do think it's just that awful, thank you very much, as do most Americans) in order to air it? No. But we have a former Pentagon official discussing a $22 million program I'll wager most of us didn't know about, and opining that aliens exist. This is not some random crackpot, or if it is, it is a random crackpot who used to be an official for the Pentagon discussing a $22 million program (which would be news in itself, since generally it is best not to put crackpots in such positions). It's news. Whether it is "breaking news" might depend on what else is "breaking" at the moment. But we now have a 24 hour news cycle, so there's that. And unless you can show that CNN was running this while excluding more important substantive news (and moreover doing so to further a partisan angle), this is a quibble at best with the word "breaking". And it's not at all comparable to Fox running an expose on kids' favorite Halloween candy while ignoring the Manafort indictment. ETA: And the diet coke thing -- come on. There has always been that kind of fluff story. Remember Obama and the dreaded tan suit? I'd argue that the coke story is actually more relevant, since a dozen cans of diet coke a day is pretty damn bad for you. I'd be a mess if I drank that much. But whatever -- there's nothing new about that kind of fluff story and I don't see it as particularly harmful. What I DO see as harmful is running fluff stories or redredging ancient stories or rustling up rumors as a way to divert from real news stories (especially when you're doing so to push a political agenda).
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 19, 2017 17:53:20 GMT -5
I flipped on CNN and watched that interview for a few minutes. It was Erin Burnett OutFront. And they were showing a couple of grainy black and white clips of shadowy objects while the guy went on and on about how these objects couldn't possibly be of this Earth because of their *apparent* capabilities. That's National Enquirer stuff. It reminds me of the stuuuuupid stories on a "missile contrail" over the Pacific some years ago (it was a plane) and the even stuuuuuuuuupider stories on the UFOs over downtown Denver (they were bugs). If you think that's a legitimate story, fine. Me, I expect a little more in the way of rationality from a major network on the air. Run the fluff on the website, there's real stuff happening in the world that can be covered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2017 18:06:31 GMT -5
To me, it's news because we have an ex Pentagon official saying that there's evidence of UFOs, and a $22 million dollar program to look into it. If it were just some random wingnut with a telescope in his backyard, that would be another thing.
If there's only national enquirer level evidence (I did not see the clip and am not in a position to judge it), then the story is WTF are we doing spending 22 million on it and WTF are we doing putting crackpots in official positions at the pentagon.
If there is some real evidence for UFOs, it's a story for a different reason.
In a 24 hour news cycle, covering the existence of this program and the basis for it does not seem ridiculous to me, unless it is displacing something more substantive.
|
|