Part of my y2k updating has me checking out "y2k today" and "year 2000 press clippings". Just as recently as last month, articles poking fun at people who prepared were not hard to come by, and articles wearing a smiley face abounded. Now, however it is unmistakeable the switch in tone-to a more negative-but-not-enough-to-panic tone. I know it is not me, because I had found myself going through a "denial phase-part two" last month. I'm hard pressed anymore to find editorials of arrogant "journalists" spouting off why no one needs to worry about y2k. I'm finding instead articles about the emmense, under-estimated cost of y2k, how the government is covering up the progress, and the shortage of IT workers, and people recommending storing food and water for 3-5 days. Now we know that 3-5 days is laughable, but to the people who wanted to dismiss y2k as a non-event, this is an irrefutable sign that they are wrong. Anyone else noticing the change?

-- madeline (runner@bcpl.net), December 03, 1998

Answers

Oh, yes, Madeline, we've all probably noticed a difference. Sunday's 60 Minutes broadcast probably has a lot to do with it. That show's attention to y2k lent a lot of currency to the situation. And, by golly, December, 1998 brings the spectre of 1-1-00 into a much clearer focus than, say, September 1998.

-- Vic Parker (rdrunner@internetwork.net), December 03, 1998.

Its an oxy-moron isn't it "truthful newspapers". The trend I see is that the main y2k pundits are now working closer with the "authorities" and toning down their warnings.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 03, 1998.

If you still want to see one of those arrogant editorials, here's a doozy:

http://www.zdnet.com/zdy2k/1998/11/5231.html

Flame him mercifully. Also note his title/vested interest: exec. VP of MArket Intelligence.

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), December 03, 1998.

Richard,

They believe they have to "tone down" their warnings or they'll collapse the economy (more than it already is). It's really walking a tightrope without a safety net.

At least they ARE shifting from the smiling Y2K heads and starting to point out serious flaw in the Y2K systems, et. al.

Diane, here's hoping Y2K Shift Happens

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 03, 1998.

Newspaper articles are getting more truthful. At the same time there is also an obvious effort being made to control public panic. Something definitely has changed in the past week.

Here's an example of the new bluntness in mainstream media reporting:

http://www.abcnews.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/govy2k981202.html

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 03, 1998.

Kevin, That article is one of the ones I read yesterday that made me say that. There were a few from yesterday on "Y2K Today".

-- madeline (runner@bcpl.net), December 03, 1998.

I don't have a link but I have an article I was impressed by from the Sacramento Bee. Friday Nov. 27, 1998 "Pentagon nuke arms office admits falsifying Y2K reports"

It says " The Defense Special Weapons Agency never conducted required tests on three of five "mission critical" computer systems complied with Y2K standards, a Defense Department inspector general's report concluded" and "Does it come as any surprize to you that the Pentagon on occasion fudges on the truth?..................." And he says there is improvement among agencies: There aren't as many people lying to us as there used to be".

I think that is pretty truthful, pathetic as it may be.

-- Nancy (Shakhina@aol.com), December 04, 1998.

Yes, I notice the media in general acknowledging that there might be a serious problem with Y2K, where previously they didn't. And that's a good thing.

What I don't see is those who subscribe to the worst-case scenario lightening up, where it's warranted. And that's a bad thing.

To wit:

All I heard about a couple of months ago was what an absolute disaster the Leonid meteor shower was going to be. Well it was no big deal. There were just a few mentions about that good news on this forum, near as I could tell. If there had been even medium damage, that would have been all we would have heard about, ad nauseum.

Embedded chips have not been nearly the problem that they were predicted to be, by all credible reports. That's supposed to be the biggest Y2K problem. Any recognition of that good news on this forum? Not much, that I've been able to see.

And on and on. A few people talk about anything good. The majority moan and groan about what they see that's bad. (Even when it doesn't come to pass. Then, it's silence about that horrible predicted event that didn't transpire.)

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), December 08, 1998.

The meteor shower was a natural event, no-one on this forum including yourself had any idea how it would turn out. Y2k is man made, everyone working on it knows the effect it would have had or will have on their microcosm (that word again) of society. Put it all together, but how? We will never be told the truth by organisations that are far behind. We would only know from whistle blowers, how many of these would tell the truth. Logically there is no more or less justification for the pollyanna or pessimistic view, since there is not enough data on which to base an entirely thorough conclusion, may this will come later, probably too late. I repeat my assertion most organisations will be ready, the question is how many will not be.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 08, 1998.

Boy Richard we're hitting tit for tat LOL

Lot of truth in what you say there. What I was getting at was the pre-existing attitude about the Leonids....PESSIMISM. Pessimism sucks. There's a difference between pessimism and realism. I like realism. (I suppose we could argue those terms for a coupla weeks too....)

Point is, pre-existing attitude often affects resulting actions. Self-fulfilling prophecy, all that. We've heard that term with respect to bank runs, but how about other aspects? If we expect things to just all blow up, won't that make it easier to throw up one's hands and say, "Oh it was going to happen anyway"?

That's what I was getting at in that thread about Infomagic and Winston Churchill. People can talk about the historical differences all they want; there's still the basic similarity that we can give up, roll over, and let it happen, play dead; or we can say heck no, we'll not allow it.

Of course that's just my opinion.

If you disagree, that's just your opinion, too. And mine's just as good as yours!

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), December 08, 1998.

There is a difference between informed opinion and uninformed opinion. I'm not saying your is uninformed, I just don't know. Y2k is not a subject I believe where a non-informed opinion is of any validity. I do not have an opinion about the feasibility of say producing fusion power within a certain period, I do not have any technical knowledge on which to base it (at this moment). I don't have an opinion about the possibility of y2k power supply interruption. It is a failure of the English language to label people as either "pessimists" or "optimists" when real thought and opinion is of many shades of grey. The language itself does not have enough words to describe subtlety of meaning. Also I am "optimistic" about some things "pessimistic" about others. I still like to base my opinions on fact and preferably personal experience.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 08, 1998.