More Copy Editing From the Bush Administration

MORE COPY EDITING FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION….Another day, another scientific report rewritten in Newspeak. This one is about grazing rules on public land:

The original draft of the environmental analysis warned that the new rules would have a “significant adverse impact” on wildlife, but that phrase was removed. The BLM now concludes that the grazing regulations are “beneficial to animals.”

….”This is a whitewash, they took all of our science and reversed it 180 degrees,” said Erick Campbell, a former BLM state biologist in Nevada and a 30-year BLM employee who retired this year. Campbell was the author of sections of the report pertaining to impacts on wildlife and threatened and endangered species.

I really wish “scientists” would quit their incessant whining about the commendable amount of time and effort the Bush administration takes to make their reports more accessible to average folks. The fact is, “beneficial” is just a whole lot easier to understand than bureaucratic mumbo jumbo like “significant adverse impact.” If the science community would take more care with their language in the first place, none of this would happen.

Washington Monthly - Donate today and your gift will be doubled!

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation