CDC director says there are ‘no banned words’ at the agency

pbs.org

1 point·non_sequitur··4 comments

"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."

Can I just briefly rant about how annoying/bad/outright made up modern day reporting is? Good lord.

So true. Reminds me of the recent reporting by the SFBT about the surveillance bot that the SF SPCA used in its parking lot to deter crime.

From all other accounts it appears that SFBT (who said it was to deter the homeless from hanging around) got the report completely wrong. As a result of the poor reporting, the SPCA has now been vandalized multiple times.

So all in all, poor reporting made the problem worse.

It makes me more hesitant to share stories, even from what I consider reputable sources, because I don't want it to reflect poorly on me when the story is later found out to be completely incorrect.

So, really, the conflict is over whether the CDC has been ordered to avoid certain words in budget documents because the right-wing administration irrationally hates them or whether the same thing was done but instead because the right-wing Congress irrationally hates them so much that it would respond negatively to the same substantive requests if the words at issue were used than it would if they were not?

I don't really read WaPo anymore. They've got to the point where you can't really trust their articles because they distort the facts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com