AW: Trump im Fadenkreuz der Medien
Vorsicht. In der heutigen Zeit muss man zunaechst einmal automatisch davon ausgehen das die Medien einen verschaukeln, in die Irre fuehren wollen. Also dich frech anzuluegen versuchen. Diese Geschichte von 1001-Nacht aus den Medien geht zurueck auf die Washington Post, welche sich auf einen anonymen Informanten beruft. Der Rest der Maulhuren hat dies aufgegriffen und im Netz verbreitet, etwa CNN oder in Deutschland die Welt.Zitat von Shahirrim
Auch die Gendersprache wird wieder zurück gefahren!
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]
Die Wahrheit ganz nuechtern und unaufgeregt:
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]The Trump administration, however, says the report of a word ban is a misrepresentation of discussions.
“The assertion that HHS has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process,” HHS spokesman Matt Lloyd said in a statement to Breitbart News. “HHS will continue to use the best scientific evidence available to improve the health of all Americans. HHS also strongly encourages the use of outcome and evidence data in program evaluations and budget decisions.”
Die Fakenews bzw. schlicht Falschdarstellung oder Luege der Washington Post, auf welche sich der Rest der Medienidioten beruft:
[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden terms at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden terms are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
In some instances, the analysts were given alternative phrases. Instead of “science-based” or *“evidence-based,” the suggested phrase is “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” the person said. In other cases, no replacement words were immediately offered.
Die nuechterne Aufklaerung:
By the next day, a [Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]cast doubt on whether the Washington Post's account was a fair depiction of the situation. "The Times confirmed some details of the report with several officials, although a few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans," wrote Sheila Kaplan and Donald McNeil. Their report quoted a "former federal official" as saying, "It’s absurd and Orwellian, it’s stupid and Orwellian, but they are not saying to not use the words in reports or articles or scientific publications or anything else the C.D.C. does... They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what C.D.C. can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded."[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]Indeed, writing in National Review on Sunday, Yuval Levin shed more light on the situation, further confirming the move was less of an ideological ban and more of a strategy to persuade Republicans in Congress primarily within the narrow scope of budget documents. Levin, who previously worked for the Department of Health and Human Services (which oversees the CDC), reached out to HHS officials for more information on the Post report. That information-gathering lead Levin to conclude there are "two significant caveats to the Post story and the firestorm that has followed it."
In specifically addressing the most politically charged words and phrases, Levin argued, "what happened regarding these other terms ('transgender,' 'fetus,' 'evidence-based,' and 'science-based') was not that retrograde Republicans ordered career CDC officials not to use these terms but that career CDC officials assumed retrograde Republicans would be triggered by such words and, in an effort to avoid having such Republicans cut their budgets, reasoned they might be best avoided."First, the question of these terms (both those in the style guide and those that came up in last week’s CDC meeting) relates only to a distinct subset of budget documents and not to the general work of the CDC or other agencies. No one is saying people can’t use these terms at HHS, though some people clearly think they shouldn’t be used in budget requests sent to Congress. And second, the most peculiar and alarming of the reported prohibitions on terms were not prohibitions at all and did not come from higher-ups in the department but emerged in the course of an internal conversation at CDC about how to avoid setting off congressional Republicans and so how to maximize the agency’s chances of getting its budget-request approved.
Man stelle dies das Gegackere, das Gekreische der Politiker und unnuetzen NGOs gegenueber. Diese Welt wird immer bloeder. Und eines ist klar: Die Informanten der Washington Post sind zu nichts gut, bis auf Fake-News. Es geht hier um eventuelle Haushaltskuerzungen naechstes Jahr. Und die Gesundheitsbehoerde versucht mit Empfehlungen beim Gebrauch der Sprache bei ihrer Behoerde moeglichst wenige Kuerzungen sich einzuhandeln. Trump hat damit nichts zu tun.
Und so etwas kommt bei Fakenews am Ende dabei heraus:[Links nur für registrierte Nutzer]
Mit Zitat antworten
