Please stop spreading fake news. Also, notice how it's always some liberal rag littered with 'super secret anonymous sources' and always negative for Trump? I assure you, it's not an honest mistake, or a coincidence. It's a circle jerk of Trump hate. They are not longer objective journalists. None of them. They're political activists.
They're all ate up with TDS and play one big game of telephone. For instance, WaPo first reported the story you linked above, and without finding their own sources, or independently verifying WaPo's sources/story, Yahoo, like many others, just piggybacked off of WaPo. That's not journalism, but they don't care as long as it's bad for Trump.
Then, the next thing you know, fake news is plastered on the pages of dozens of mainstream 'news' websites, while the peons eat it up and spread it far and wide. Come correction time, it gets zero attention and the peons barely even notice, still repeating the lies as if they were facts. Mission accomplished. You've been bamboozled... again.
There Is No Ban on Words at the CDC
On Friday, the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration had banned certain scientific words from use at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. According to an unnamed, outraged CDC source, higher-ups instructed staffers to avoid seven phrases in budget documents: vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based, and science-based.
In the days since, editorials have likened this to censorship in China, Cuba, and Belarus; to Polish laws prohibiting certain language to describe the Holocaust; and to the totalitarian regime described in 1984.* Follow-up reports said the “irrational and very dangerous” policy on budget language might put “millions of lives in danger” with its “an astonishing attack on reality-based medical treatment.”
But if reality is indeed in danger here, it’s not because of Donald Trump. The story of the language rules at CDC has quickly broken free of underlying facts. Despite what you may have heard, the alleged “ban” of seven words does not reveal a secret “War on Science” carried out by thought police in Washington; nor is it some evil plot to “enforce a political and ideological agenda,” as the Washington Posteditorial board suggested.
A more sober measure of this soggy crumb of news—one that’s, well, evidence-based rather than reflexive—suggests it should be understood as a byproduct of the Trump administration’s much-less-secret war on science funding. It appears that it is an attempt by bureaucrats to save their favorite projects from unforgiving budget cuts.
Revealed: Bogus 'Trump Banned Words at the CDC' Story Was Rooted in Suggested Guidelines From Liberal Bureaucrats
If you're just joining this flap, here's a short recap: Late last week, it was reported that Trump administration officials at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had sought to "ban" words they deemed to be controversial, including "transgender" and "fetus." This sparked an immediate outcry, as Orwellian censorship rarely plays well with the American people. The Trump-hostile media were in full throat, pounding the table against this anti-science outrage. The original story ("forbidden words") appeared in the Washington Post, then spread like wildfire.
Prominent Democrats and leftists quickly piled on, and just a few hours ago, the Baltimore Sun promulgated the story in an op/ed. As someone who co-authored an entire book arguing against the stifling of political speech, the initial details of this contretemps, as originally reported, were concerning to me.
Many conservatives were rightly aghast when the Obama administration insisted upon euphemisms (overseas contigency operations, workplace violence, etc) and censorship ("Islam" and "jihad") to airbrush national conversations about serious issues. It seemed to me that if the Trump administration were doing something similar here, we should push back.
Additionally, the New York Times quoted administration sources who debunked the "ban" claim, explaining that the new guidelines were merely (non-mandatroy) suggestions about how to present topics in budget-related documents, notscientific or medical content. In other words, the justifications for media hyperventilation over alleged Trump-imposed authoritarian word purges were slowly falling apart. But it gets even worse. Writing at National Review, former Bush administration official Yuval Levin did some digging and has now revealed the perfect punchline for this sadly-typical episode of journalistic laziness and confirmation bias. The anti-Trump narrative was "too good to check," then disintegrated completely when someone finally bothered to check.
The "banned" words were never banned, and were dreamed up as part of a list of suggested guidelines for budget documents by career (non-Trump-appointed) bureaucrats who were trying to avoid 'triggering' Congressional Republicans through the inclusion of those terms. So this entire freakout was based on comprehensively fake news -- yet it's virtually guaranteed that multiple days of dramatic news stories and breathless social media posts left a widespread and false impression on millions of news consumers. Many Americans do not trust the press for precisely this reason, and Trump-hostile journalists keep soiling their own reputations by reporting and repeating overwrought or totally inaccurate stories that happen to align with their pre-existing biases.
Actually, I just ignored your desperation. I've beaten you into submission. You're forced to resort to fat jokes. Thanks for proving my point. You're a dimwit. The lamest of lames. Happy Holidays.
