It’s such a tough process, and requires such a commitment of time and self-examination, that it must really weed out those who are serious and committed to the process. Actually I can’t think of one I’ve ever put my hat into the ring for in my entire life (public, feel free to fact check this and let me know if I’ve got this wrong). As many would know, I’ve also commented publicly, how much I disagree, with very few exceptions, with women’s only lists, events etc.
Over the last few months, I’ve participated as an applicant, in Queensland’s Telstra Business Woman of the Year (Corporate and Private) awards.
Honestly, more joyful than the concept of whether I’ll be selected to move forward in the process, is the concept that someone actually went to the effort of nominating me. Don’t misunderstand me, this post is not at all a slight on the Telstra Business Woman award or the platform that Telstra has spent the last two decades faithfully pursuing. I’ve seen so many fabulous women recognised for their achievements and it’s done an unprecedented job of providing a profile to women, their businesses and their achievements that ten years of PR would never be able to achieve. The award process is really, really tough — the initial application is long, detailed and took weeks to complete and required a large amount of self-examination which I found fairly confronting yet surprisingly valuable.
But there's no evidence it's going to kill Meals on Wheels.
And yet Meals on Wheels quickly became the rallying point in the protest against the budget's sweeping awfulness. For starters, there are those overblown headlines and stories, like the one from the Dallas TV station that reported Meals on Wheels would lose "all of its federal funding."That's false. True: The proposed budget would eliminate a federal block grant program that provides money to states. A small percentage of the program's money goes to Meals on Wheels.
However, some common elements help identify shaky stories and poorly-sourced claims.
It doesn’t take long to do a quick credulity check, and a healthy skepticism is the first step towards reducing the promulgation of nonsense on the Internet.
Use the links provided in such outrageous items to trace them back to their original sources (you may have to follow several links in a chain to get there) and check their publication dates.
Often you’ll find that whatever it is you’re supposed to be outraged about took place several years ago and/or has long since been resolved.
It’s fair to say that the majority of users on social media sites wish to share interesting, funny, compelling, unique, or otherwise discussion-worthy material having to run full-scale fact checks on everything.