3 ms·
Color me shocked that an article that's supposed to be about some topic manages to find a way to convert itself into another "Trump Bad" story halfway through.
by vanniv 7y ago
Color me shocked that an article that's supposed to be about some topic manages to find a way to convert itself into another "Trump Bad" story halfway through.
Is WaPo actually capable of writing an article that doesn't have a "Trump Bad" angle?
- belltaco 7y agoThe article had specific criticisms about the actions of a new administration. Do you have any specific issues with those criticisms or do you think administrations should be immune from criticism? Every new admin has it's own priorities.
- vanniv 7y agoThe entire analysis starts from the assumption that any administration goal is inherently either a fabrication or misguided. "efficiencies" is clearly just code word for destroying all things good, obviously, and totally not worth even considering whether there is any meaning to the idea. I mean, if Trump wants it, it must be bad amirite? Occasionally, they quote folks, like Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University in support of Trump. But every time, they carefully treat the quote and the person as obviously either stupid or corrupted, surrounding the quote with statements like "But critics say it will allow biotech companies to lobby for more of their specialized, and often more expensive, drugs to be included[...]" Direct quote from an expert, treated as obviously worthless, followed by a weasel-words "some critics" which is treated as the clearly superior refutation of the idea from the actual knowledgeable person. It's almost like they started with a narrative of "Trump is trying to kill us all by destroying our disease preparedness" and then sat down to write an article that looked like journalism but actually just told that story.
- belltaco 7y agoTrump's budget proposals always include big cuts to CDC's budget. After recent criticism of this, the administration said it is just a negotiation opening tactic. i.e Basically, "Hey democrats, if you want more funds to fight pandemics to stop us all from dying, you gotta give us something else, like even bigger increases to the military budget and Space Force, or even more tax cuts to companies". There used to be a pandemic specialist on the National Security Council, that position has been cut. Not to mention other positions. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/ Can you address these facts from Trump's perspective instead of just taking cheap shots at the media?
- vanniv 7y agoWasting karma trying to respond to every Orange Man Bad that someone can dream up is not a particularly good use of my energy. Go on believing he is the most evil man in all of human history of you like.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- masonic 7y agoThis Snopes article, in fact, contradicts you. Quoting: "funding for the CDC’s global disease outbreak prevention efforts had been reduced by 80%, including funding for the agency’s efforts in China. But that was the result of the anticipated depletion of previously allotted funding, not a direct cut by the Trump administration.