Unlike both Canadians you at least put a link in your first post. Once again showing American superiority.

USA!
USA!
USA!

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Aaaaaaaaaaaand we have, in not one, but two threads already. Thanks for the three-peat.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/.../?page=unread#unread

and

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/.../?page=unread#unread

---

DFL > DNF > DNS

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

More is better, right?

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

Yet an inability to search for already posted topics. Yeesh.

My God, but you're a fucking idiot.

"Someone please defend this:"


Three threads going on this and nobody has a legitimate defense. Hard to defend something that is indefensible.

Well, it's all about effective writing, and clearly inspired by George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language".
Here are Orwell's six rules:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous.

Pay close attention to the intention of #5. Obviously, those six overused liberal buzzwords are in danger of losing their meaning, and better writing would mean using words that more accurately and vividly convey what the author is trying to communicate.

If you can't say ANYTHING you want without using those six words, maybe you shouldn't be writing for a living.

Fake news. When will the national media understand that each time they don't check out sources before publishing, they lose the trust of even more Americans who can read.



https://www.snopes.com/...-words/[[/url]/font]

1) Your link is formatted wrong
2) The Snopes article doesn't actually contradict the WaPo's report. It just additionally reports on Dr. Fitzgerald's non-denial denial. Note how the article ends with "We have asked for clarification as to what would have lead Kelly to suggest that some words were problematic for the CDC budget process in the first place."

Not entirely fake news. The words were not banned, but HHS recommended to not use them in the budget proposals that go out to congress and are then used for funding opportunity announcements. Although it's very common to have a list of words to avoid in these proposals, what is far less common (read, unprecedented) is the actual list, with specific words such as evidence- and science-based, vulnerable, diversity being part of most FOAs coming from federal funding agencies.
Although it is indeed not a ban, it is worrisome nonetheless, and a step in the wrong direction. One more.

getting back to the original story from Wapo that the OP linked; I appreciate that it is not entirely fake news. What percent fake would you consider it? It's title has the term forbidden in it and it uses the term forbidden or banned at least 3 times in the body of the article.

It was an eye catching enough article to spawn 3 separate threads in this forum with "banned" "forbidden" and "Orwellean" as their themes. We have now moved from that to "far less common (read, unprecedented) and "worrisome" (both of which I agree with).

One can assume that the 3 people who started these 3 threads took what Wapo had to say as "credible" and not "fake news". Your take is that it is something less than that ("not entirely fake").

My question is how does one determine this when a main stream media source is doing the reporting?

thanks

Hard to quantify. But as a biomedical researcher I have reasons to be concerned even by the actual news. So in my mind it’s closer to true than not. I guess someone less involved in how funding works for research may see it as a lot more fake.

Either way, news media suck pretty much across the board. It’s so easy to present news now and only speed matters because you want to be the first to publish rather than being the one presenting things accurately.

I couldn't agree more and think this is probably the root of the issue (more so than "bias"). The inevitable consequence is to consider the source of the reporting (and those who are quick to jump on the reporting) and to "wait" for the potential "real story", which ironically takes longer than if the media source took the time to vet more.

Thanks for your opinion.

The piece below covers the whole saga. Should be another embarrassment to the media, but it ran loudly at the outset, then quietly was corrected. In cases like this I'm actually good with a Trump tweet decrying "FAKE NEWS!".



"By midday Sunday, CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald tweeted her agency’s response: “I want to assure you there are no banned words at CDC. We will continue to talk about all our important public health programs.” Fitzgerald used two of the supposedly forbidden words—science-based and evidence-based—in one of her subsequent tweets to underscore the message. She also posted a statement from the HHS that called the Post’s article a “complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process.”"
-
https://amgreatness.com/2017/12/18/no-the-trump-administration-didnt-ban-7-words-at-the-cdc/

Hmmm ... so she denies it and you believe it. Interdasting....

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

Sort of like using extremely careless rather than Gross Negligence, when the latter is more accurate?

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012