Did anyone see ABC evening news with Peter Jennings on Jan 5,1999? My source says : that there was no mention of Y2k,Yardeni indicated positive outlook for technology-driven US economy over the next ten -twenty years, no mention of recession which was commonly a feature of Y2k talks by Yardeni..Any comments??????

-- rooster (logcabin@erinet.com), January 05, 1999

Answers

if this is true...I think I hear the music from X-files somewhere...

-- a (a@a.a), January 05, 1999.

I saw Ed Yardini too and the above comments are correct. I was amazed. Nothing about the 70% chance of recession either. Alan Greenspan was a programmer in an earlier career. The next time there is a decline in the market, he will probably come out with a comment to the effect that yes, there may be minor problems but they are working on it and the stock market will go up again. This clintonvarication is getting contagious. Is there anyone in public life that tells the truth anymore? I can think of one. Jesse Ventura. Watch for more of the same in 2000 when the public ignores major party candidates and elects new people not affiliated with the lying parties. No more lies. No more lies. No more lies. Kinda has a ring to it.

-- Steve (unbelievable@nettally.com), January 05, 1999.

Just watched that segment about jobs in the 21st Century on ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. There was a sound-byte with Ed Yardeni. Not one mention of Y2K!!!

Just a focus on the incredible job potential with the internet, etc. Amazing!!??!

Happy face, Yardeni?

Diane, with a new title of Information Navigator

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 05, 1999.

This is nothing new, folks. Yardeni has been on record for a while saying that the DOW would be at 15,000 by 2005. He's a short term pessimist and a long term optimist. He obviously isn't buying into TEOTWAWKI...

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), January 05, 1999.

There was nothing out of character in the Yardeni-jennings exchange. Only the convenient omission of a few years by both. Yardeni has always been a pollyanna with his assertions that the economy will come roaring back in 2001, with Dow 15000 by year 2005, or sooner. Yardeni is one of those who profess to believe that repairs, where needed, will only take a week or so, and then we are off and running again. Jennings, of course, isn't capable of and doesn't believe in anything.

dave

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), January 05, 1999.

I really hope they are right and I'm wrong. Then I can spend the next 2 years eating whole wheat bread and reconstituted potato soup and save big bucks by not buying food. I really hope they are right.

-- nine (nine_fingers@hotmail.com), January 06, 1999.

ABCNews.com did a profile on Dr. Yardeni on December 31st. He definitely knows his alarmist views on Y2K set him apart from other economists, but says optimistic thinking about Y2K's effect on the economy is because these economists haven't researched Y2K:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNews/whytookay981231.html "Economist Bucks Y2K Trend"

It could be that Yardeni's bank is putting pressure on him to help hold the financial system together. More likely, though, this is just a case of him being interviewed about a story that has nothing to do with Y2K. He doesn't have to talk about Y2K every single time he's interviewed, does he, especially if he's not asked about it?

Ed Yardeni is not a Pollyanna. His specialty, though, is economics-- so that's what he limits his comments to. He knows he has credibility when he discusses Y2K's probable effect on the economy.

Peter Jennings, in my opinion, is a Y2K GI as well. When the Galaxy IV satellite failed in the spring of 1998, I was watching ABC Evening News. After a story on the Galaxy IV failure and how it took down pagers and some credit card verification systems, Peter Jennings reported a story about how disruptive Y2K could be if the failure of just one satellite caused so many inconveniences.

Jennings said on that that evening in the spring of 1998 that Y2K was a story that you would be hearing a lot more of as time went on. He knows. The media just is not ready to recommend personal preparation yet.

By the way, I am NOT a Pollyanna. I expect a U.S. and global depression in 2000. I don't agree with Yardeni's stock market prediction for 2005. No flames, please.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 06, 1999.

I haven't watched the segment, but from the comments above, it seems to me that that ABC news segment was specifically meant to ease people's minds and prevent panic.

Diane you mentioned a "sound bite" from Yardeni, so that implies not an interview, but chosen clips to fit the purpose of the show.

You people also talk of Jennings as if he had anything to say in what will be said on the news. I don't buy that one second. ABC producers decide what will be said, Jennings is just a puppet and pretty voice to deliver it. It is not farfetched to say that ABC can be easily sold onto the idea of disinformation to assuage public panic and eventual bank runs.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 06, 1999.

've read reports from more than one person "interviewed" on network TV, who have said their statements were heavily edited before the program aired. Not only 'edited' as in 'deleted', but presented entirely out of context.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 06, 1999.

Chris- I used to intern at ABC News, and I still have friends who work there. Peter Jennings was at the time (four years ago) and, I believe, still is managing editor in addition to being anchor. He most certainly does have a great deal to say about what stories go on the air; in fact, in most cases he has final call. This is not true in the case of every anchor on every news broadcast, but in Jenning's case, it is.

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

Scott, it may have appeared to you that Jennings is a forceful personality with considerable latitude. However, the earlier posters are correct. Jennings has already been "self-selected" as a person with safe corporate/media instincts. The reason he exhibits that apparent autonomy is that his corporate lords and masters have observed that he stays within bounds at all times. He's like any other mainstream journalist in this respect. All the better, in that he's given some people at least the impression that he's fearlessly independent. This is a self-selective corporate process - toe the line, or you have no future. The masters don't need to copyedit every comma, they know there man is on the job.

Read Edward Herman on this topic. -RC

-- runway cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), January 06, 1999.

Just one more comment from me about ABC. The ABC Evening News did a story about once a month on Y2K during 1998. That may not sound like much, but it's far more than CBS or NBC did.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 06, 1999.

Cat: forgive me when I say to you that I have a hell of a lot better idea how things work at ABC News than you or anyone else on this forum do, since I was there. Is there a grain of truth in these posts? Sure... mainstream media is to a large extent a tool of corporate interests. I know that, pal; I've been there. But I was referring to the comment that Peter Jennings, essentially, just reads the news. That ain't true. Until you've worked at a network, I suggest you defer to people who have. That seems to be one of the (few, in my view) problems with this forum: a lot of people profess expertise about things that they know very little about.

Scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

Scott, I respect your inside knowledge, and I'm taking it into consideration. Buy Jennings is still an employee. The independance of reporting stops at the buck. That is, I concede to your knowledge that Jennings has a lot of say in what is being reported. But the top honchos at the network have the final say. Jennings being happy with it or not. If the top brass have been convinced, they convinced Jennings or he would not be aloud to show his face on the tv for this report.

Ofcourse it's only my opinion and I have no inside knowledge at ABC, but it makes sense doesn't it Scott?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 06, 1999.

Chris- your last post makes much more sense. But I'm queasy on saying that that's what is going on here, because I still think there is a high level of DGI in the mass media rather than overt conspiracy-type stuff. ABC is closer to being GIs than some others, but they still haven't quite gotten the big picture, at least not as reflected in their coverage.

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

Well,

For those portions of the general public that are Y2K aware, Peter Jennings's editorial "sound bite" from Yardeni, sure was a powerful punch, IMPLYING, "all is normal" and jobs are growing in the burgeoning internet industry for the 21st Century.

Powerful piece of "editing. Also, I have watched ABC World News tonight, and Peter mentions little about Y2K in contrast to his other network contemporaries.

I defer to your inside knowledge Scott. Do "share" more with us all.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

Diane- my only point was that Jennings is not a mere newsreader, that he is the managing editor of ABC News. As for the rest, it is conjecture. ABC has done Y2K reports that were anything but Polyannish, as most of you know. I didn't see this particular report, unfortunately, so I can't comment on it.

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

Have to say that ABC has covered Y2K the best of the Big Three (which may be damning with faint praise.) The recent GMA with Declan and Paloma was brief, but still quite good. Quoting Yardeni on his long-term views will certainly result in hearing an upbeat scenario; he's always said that short-term (1999-2000) is negative, but long-term is very positive. He's provided a huge service in hosting the 500 Days and 400 Days conference, so far be it for me to slam him for a long-term optimistic view. I'm focussing on getting through the near-term negative.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), January 06, 1999.

Even with all the exploding media coverage of Y2K, I think that many of the DGIs feel that "If this were really a serious problem, there would be a lot more said about it by those who should know". To have Ed Yardeni interviewed about the future economy, and for not one word to be said about Y2K, actually does say something....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 06, 1999.

So Scott,

Could one then surmise that Peter Jennings is "managing" what we are shown about Y2K in "manageable" increments?

Gotta just love that kind of help, don'cha? Hummm. More past Y2K transcript seaching is in order Kevin and other interested Y2K post toasties.

Maybe time for more e-mails.

Does public suggestion and programming response do any good at ABC Scott?? Would Peter even see what we send him? How would I just happen to catch hold of his private e-mail address?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

"Could one then surmise that Peter Jennings is "managing" what we are shown about Y2K in "manageable" increments?"

One could indeed surmise that, but that is all it would be -- surmising. Again, I didn't see the report so I really can't comment, but I have to advise that paranoia, even if generally well-founded, has a way of spreading like a virus to situations where it might not apply.

"Does public suggestion and programming response do any good at ABC Scott?? Would Peter even see what we send him? How would I just happen to catch hold of his private e-mail address?"

I don't know, probably not, and I don't know. :) Now I am going to take a breather from this thread, as I've already posted more than my monthly quota and I didn't see the offending report in the first place...

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.