A colleague of mine at NBC is looking for families in the New York/New Jersey area who are making Y2K preparations and planning to go off the grid. This would be for the evening news. The person working on it is a longtime technology reporter, not a novice. Email me with suggestions.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com), January 18, 1999

Answers

Are they planning to "poke fun" at these people. It sure falls dangerously close to the format many other reporters are mysteriously taking...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=000Opz

-- Reporter (foo@foo.bar), January 18, 1999.

I expect treatment will be fair and accurate. Don't jump to conclusions.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com), January 18, 1999.

After that abortion in Time, I doubt folks will be knocking down your door to be featured as the kook of the day.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), January 18, 1999.

"Fair and accurate" and "reporter" are contradictions in terms. "Jumping to conclusions" and "reporter", sadly, are not.

Mitch, in NNJ - and definitely not interested.

-- Mitch (youlookin@me.com), January 18, 1999.

Nobody needs to 'jump to conclusions' where YOU are concerned Declan. We saw your 'fair' treatment of Gary North and your ridiculous tripe in Time magazine. Why don't you go beat some more women and get arrested for domestic violence again? 200 dollar fine and what? Probation? Were you giving her 'fair treatment' too?

-- Paul Milne (fedibfo@halifax.com), January 18, 1999.

Declan, old sock -

There must be a break in U.S.A. vs. Microsoft. You still have not responded to the summary of the TIME article in the original TIME mag thread. The tone of the article is essentially one of mockery. Why would anyone allow themselves to be held up for ridicule in the press?

"Look at the loonies expecting the End of the World and storing water in a water bed?"

"Look at the crazies stockpiling toilet paper for barter!"

"Look at the religious millennialists!" OVER and OVER and OVER...

"Look at Scary Gary North!" and no mention of folks like Paloma and Ed Yardeni and Ed Yourdon...

Explain to us why anyone should open themselves up for this?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), January 19, 1999.

An open letter to Declan .. his reply .. and mine.
 
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:06:29 -0800 (PST)
From: DanTCC
Subject: Re: Your NBC colleague
To: declan@well.com
 
Hello Declan:
 
On behalf of an NBC colleague, you asked for assistance finding families in the NY/NJ region who are making Y2K preparations and planning to go off grid.
 
Perhaps I can help.
 
First we need to deal with an issue of geography. I'm not in New York or New Jersey. In fact, I live in the northwoods of the upper midwest, thousands of miles distant from your desired area.
 
Next .. I'd like to briefly introduce myself. I'm a 23 year veteran of the computer industry with a graduate degree in Engineering. My experience spans a host of computer, electronics, and allied fields from government and the military to the private sector. I'm also the former Director of Computer Services for a college. I presently teach college computer classes and also work as a volunteer with my state's Department of Emergency Services on the Y2K issue. Recently one of our state legislators asked me to participate with our Governor's Committee on Y2K.
 
As a part-time writer for a magazine for the past ten years, I am a low-key member of the media.
 
In my view, this doesn't paint me as an extremest, survivalist, or any of the other common names pundits so oft apply to people with a divergent yet prudent approach to life.
 
Now then .. your request didn't fall on deaf ears, but it did fall on very sensitized ones.
 
Many people view preparation as prudent, not alarmist, not extremest, nor any of the stereotypical labels often tagged to such actions.
 
Unfortunately, past attempts by network or other media to cover this type of story have portrayed them in an almost cynical light. The reporters take liberties with the people by attempting to sensationalize the story. To achieve this, they use the words that most often seem to catch the ear (and the ratings) of the viewers/listeners. Subsequently, those who've been interviewed have inevitably been portrayed in a very uncomplimentary and often incorrect manner.
 
On hearing of an approaching hurricane, people in Florida board up their homes and businesses and head inland. Are they labeled "survivalists". No. They're viewed as prudent. No one laughs when we insure our homes .. just in case. No one points a finger and calls a family foolish if they run for the basement after hearing a tornado warning .. just in case. No one thinks of a person as proffering "doom and gloom" if they advocate carrying the recommended winter-preparedness equipment in their cars in cold weather.
 
Regrettably, media .. especially television .. seems bent on covering people who are preparing, and then add their particular bent or agenda to capture the attention of the viewer.
 
The American Red Cross and FEMA have both advised it, so why should people who follow their recommendations be called anything but prudent? They shouldn't .. but it happens.
 
Consider one year ago today. Quebec and New England were deep in the grips of a record ice storm. For many, power was off for five weeks. Even this year, some residents in the southeast US suffered through more than three weeks without power. Most were unprepared .. and some died. Had they taken steps to prepare in advance .. would they have been labeled "survivalists" too? It's difficult to say.
 
When a serious accident occurs, it's common to see an over-zealous reporter shove a mic and camera in the face of a suffering victim. The crass lack of sensitivity is inexcusable .. yet it happens daily. Why? Because it's often seen as bolstering ratings. News is a very competitive business. We need to be first. We need to be exclusive. We need to be the most attention-getting.
 
We also need to be aware of the feelings of those we interview. We need to be more empathetic. We need to show more understanding. Sadly .. these are all too absent.
 
 
That having been said .. one of the most important things that we in the media can do is educate ourselves before ever trying to cover a story. This includes your "longtime technology reporter". I'll be blunt here. Even with 23 years of experience in the computer industry .. even with a Master's Degree in Engineering .. even with my many years working with government, military, and industrial computer systems .. even with all of that and more .. the magnitude of the Y2K situation caught me completely off guard .. and I'm not one prone to be easily affected by such events.
 
The problem that we know as "Y2K" goes far beyond the computer on our desks. It's bigger than the computers in the office. Just because your company or organization thinks it's got its act together .. they better think again. Y2K goes beyond what almost anyone can begin to imagine.
 
The best thing you and your colleagues can do would be to educate yourselves on Y2K. It's a time-consuming task. If you don't think you have the time .. make time. You owe it to your viewers/listeners. There's nothing worse in this profession than a half-baked job of journalism. We have enough of that already. Don't add to it.
 
If you'd like to follow up on this in a fair and unbiased manner without a preconceived ratings-oriented or other sensationalist-based agenda .. I'll be happy to do what I can to assist. Conversely, if you wish to pursue the issue from any other perspective, please count me out. Based on responses from others who apparently know of your past treatment of this subject, and whom have replied to your post, I'm already predisposed to believe you're a member of the latter group. Am I in error?
 
I had planned to share a Y2K media source website with you .. but given what I've just read in the way of the responses to your query .. I'm reluctant to do so. Please forgive the misjudgement if I'm in error, but lacking evidence to the contrary, it's all I have on which to base my decision at this time.
 
As there are at least two sides to an issue, please feel free to clarify and/or refute the aformentioned impression.
 
You may contact me at: DanTCC@Yahoo.com
 
 
Regards from the upper midwest northwoods.
 
 
Dan
 
 
--- His reply .. and mine to his ... ---
 
 
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 22:39:46 -0800 (PST)
From: DanTCC
Subject: Re: Your NBC colleague #2
To: Declan McCullagh
 
---Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> Dan,
>
> Thanks for writing. But truly, I don't need the background! I was the first reporter to cover Y2K survivalism nearly a year ago -- check out http://www.well.com/user/declan/y2k/
>  
> I'm not sure what you mean by "media source website." Groups like the Cassandra Project list a bunch of local groups.
>  
> But playing hard to get will make reporters ignore you, not take you seriously.
>  
> -Declan
 
========== Reply Separator ==========
 
Declan:
 
Not playing hard to get at all. In fact .. the site I referenced contained media-specific information. It's not a commercial site nor does it offer anything for sale. It's a plain English, logically oriented site with a number of specific links to clearly credible sources.
 
And with regard to "...But playing hard to get will make reporters ignore you, not take you seriously."
 
Interesting to see that you view caution in approaching someone on this issue as "playing hard to get". The fact is .. It's just the opposite. I had planned to share. Being a writer myself .. and having already been misquoted by ill-informed reporters, I had no idea who you were or where you were coming from, so to speak. In contrast to your perceptions, I'm heavily booked with a variety of media including radio, television, and newspapers. I'm able to impart a message without labeling those involved.
 
 
Re: "... I was the first reporter to cover Y2K survivalism nearly a year ago..."
 
Longevity on an issue doesn't automatically convey credibility, accuracy or understanding of feelings of others. What caught my eye was your choice of the word "survivalism" with which you elect to label people who prefer to take the steps they feel are prudent. That to me is at the heart of the issue. Do you label people who wear seatbelts "survivalists"? How about those who take precautionary steps to avoid the wrath of severe weather? Why then do you insist on attaching it to those who feel it necessary to follow the advice of the Red Cross and various federal agencies? It's up to each individual to take what steps they deem prudent, appropriate, and proper. Some people in the path of a level-5 hurricane see fit to go hundreds of miles inland away from the storm. Some don't. Do those who elect to leave get labeled as "survivalists". No. They are usually called "residents of an area" .. and sometimes "victims". I have yet to hear any network coverage referring to them as "survivalists".
 
Perhaps by your term, it's unfortunate that there weren't more "survivalists" in Central America. Perhaps the death toll would not have been in the tens of thousands when Hurricane Mitch slammed ashore.
 
Sadly .. people abhor labels. Labels tend to detract from the truth. Mr. Roger Boisjoly was labeled a "kook" by some. Ever hear of him? I'm sure you have. You strike me as fairly articulate and well-read. He was labeled too. They called him a "trouble maker" and a "whistle-blower". His message was ignored. As a result, our nation watched in horror as the Challenger blew up a mere 73 seconds after liftoff. By labeling him, he was put into a box. It meant to many that he was no longer credible. Morton Thiokol management bet that he was wrong. They lost the bet. Seven people paid the ultimate price for that gut-wrenching error.
 
 
It appears to me that you prefer to play up the typical media agenda for ratings. By insisting on labeling people "survivalists", you impart an image of wild-eyed radicals to the uninformed public.
 
That's a shame. For in doing so, I feel that I too must then be considered a "survivalist". I too am following the advice of the Red Cross. I too am doing what I can to help educate others to prepare .. just in case. You see .. those are the three magic words .. "just in case".
 
I'd suggest you review the State of the State address given recently by the Governor of South Dakota. He was very blunt in his assessment of the situation. He was candid in his admission when he stated that he'd "bit his lip and kept quiet" on the issue until he could do so no longer. Perhaps you consider him a "survivalist" too?
 
I also suggest you contact various credible sources in your own back yard. I've met many people in my recent travels who are members of the media, government, law enforcement, and other everyday groups who are preparing. I guess we're all "survivalists" in your book.
 
It's regrettable that reporters of your ilk insist on covering this aspect of the issue in the manner you've selected. It does serious injustice to the public and to reputable reporters. It also gives cause to the public to ignore both the messenger the message at a time when they need to devote their fullest attention to both.
 
Try dropping the lable. Try looking at people as just what they are. Everyday people. They are teachers. Members of government. College administrators. County maintenance workers. Employees of University Extension Services. Auto mechanics. Ministers and other clergy. Doctors. Nurses. Reporters. Yes .. even other reporters. By doing what they deem appropriate, are they all "survivalists" in your book too?
 
Consider this:
If Y2k turns out to be a big bump in the road as some predict, and people have taken prudent precautionary steps just in case, what harm is done? If people start now to gradually stockpile food and water, and this all is a big ado about nothing, they can eat the food, drink the water, and go on with a big smile on their face. They may even be a bit better equipped to deal with future unforeseen events.
 
However... if Y2k turns out to be something serious, and people have NOT acted... can you even begin to imagine the potentially tragic outcome?
 
By labling people .. the uninformed public tunes out to the message. When they tune out, they take no action. Wisconsin State Representative Sheryl Albers said it best .. "People who are prepared don't panic." By causing people to tune out, consider the possible consequences.
 
Try sleeping on this for a bit and take another run at it .. without labels. What will it hurt?
 
Regards from the northwoods.
 
Dan


-- Dan (DanTCC@Yahoo.com), January 19, 1999.

Dan,

Perfect!

-pshannon - living in NYC and preparing with the family in NJ and wouldn't touch this offer with a ten foot pole.

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 19, 1999.

Declan's request is duplicitous unless he acknowledges that he knows very well that this "veteran's" intent is going to be to spin the kook angle. But he won't do this.

His particular, specific use of the word "survivalist" and his arrogant assertion that he was the first reporter to cover "survivalism" (yawn) shows all by itself that he doesn't understand the first thing about Y2K "preparation".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 19, 1999.

This is just another example of the arrogance of the media and their unlimited faith in the gullibility of us lesser lights. Can you imagine the gall of this man after the Time article?

-- James (b@b.com), January 19, 1999.

This is the note I sent Dan... For all the public moaning and groaning here, I've had a pleasant response to my query. Obviously some folks are interested enough in TV cameos that they'll "defect" from the party line. This is as it should be. This probably will be my last post in this thread.

*****

Dan, I'll be honest: I found your message long and patronizing. If you're a writer, I hope you get paid by the word. You clearly did not read my back articles, but wrote a tedious message based on my choice of one phrase.

Check out survivalist discussion groups. Half of the posts in some are Y2K-related. Of course it doesn't mean everyone who prepares for Y2K is a hardcore survivalist, but clearly it's happening.

-Declan

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com), January 19, 1999.

Is Paul right Declan, do you slap the 'bitches' around a little?

That explains alot about where you're head is at in regard to this issue.

Frightened little child lashing out

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), January 19, 1999.

Declan, looks like your coleague might have a hard time finding a survivalist family now, after the nasty trick Time pulled on everyone. Hmmm... how about he tries interviewing the survivalist plans of the Red Cross or FEMA or the National Guards instead?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 19, 1999.

Police report on the Net, Uncle.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 19, 1999.

Upon further reflection, I've changed my mind about the "ten foot pole" remark. Make that a five foot pole.

Declan,

I'd be willing to do a studio "talking head" interview about the preps that my famimliy is making. I can give good sound-byte, but I won't give any picture bytes or specifics. I'm sure this is not what they're looking for for this piece, but I'd be willing to do this much.

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 19, 1999.

Declan:

In contrast to your allegation that I did not read your articles, you once again make a faulty assumption. Not only did I visit your website, but I spent considerable time reading.

It is not your past articles that are at issue. It's your continued insistence on labeling people. Calling prudent people "survivalists" is tantamount to referring to your articles as "tabloid" reporting. Both carry a negative connotation with the public.

I made a simple request. Please drop the labels.

With regard to your claim which stated "... I've had a pleasant response to my query. Obviously some folks are interested enough in TV cameos that they'll "defect" from the party line. This is as it should be."

That's all it is .. a claim. This whole Y2K debacle is littered with claims .. many from theoretically accurate sources .. such as the Pentagon, the US Air Force .. the White House .. utilities .. and others. We also know how inaccurate many of those claims ultimately are discovered to be.

Perhaps Abe Lincoln said it best.. "You can fool some of the people some of the time .. some of the people all of the time .. but not all of the people all of the time". You've obvously found some of the former two groups .. if the claim itself is even true.

Remember .. unbiased reporting also includes not labeling the very subjects about whom you write. The moment you label .. your bias becomes blatently apparent. It's unfortunate that some are not able to see it until it's too late.

And finally .. with regard to your allegation of being the "first reporter to cover Y2K survivalism nearly a year ago .." ....

John Westergaard has been reporting on the Y2K issue since 1996 ..

Granted he didn't use the word "survivalist" .. but then I've noticed that he doesn't have a penchant for labeling people. Perhaps it all depends on what your definition of "is" .. is.

Regards from the northwoods...

Dan

-- Dan (DanTCC@Yahoo.com), January 19, 1999.

I was aproached a short time ago by a producer with WCAU who was looking for subjects for a story on Y2K. I declined. He was nice enough, and probably wanted to do a good job. Problem is doing a good job in his genre is simply not possible. At least, not with this issue.

Let me be blunt. One of the reasons I declined and will continue to decline is family security. When the situation arises that makes serious preparations a life saver, those conditions also make it inadvisable to have done so publicly. I don't intend to have my family mistaken for chinese/indonesian grocers if you understand the referance. Don't tell me it can't happen in this country. It already has and many times.

A TV news show must shove a story into 60-90 seconds. Even the hour long news shows have only 10-15 minutes to portray a story. Y2K can take a year of study just to begin to understand. Some people manage to grasp it in days or weeks, but these are people already inoculated in technology and social architecture. A TV news program? Not a prayer. Easier to shove an angry cat into a limp flour sack. Y2K will easily have more of an effect on society than the 'great' depression ever did. Try covering the depression in 90 seconds.

The reporter simply cannot say "This is a serious situation that will change all your lives and possibly cause 500,000 deaths" without spending another two hours backing up what he said. The format of the show itself limits what this reporter can say. In an impossible attempt to be fair the reporter will probably spend 30 seconds showing someone who is preparing for possible trouble, allowing perhaps a 10 second statement from them. Then a 30 second spot with someone who says "Problem? What problem?". In neither direction will a case be made. Facts will be few and the only way this reporter will get attention is to dramatize the situation. He can't dramatize it by saying "We are all in trouble" because he can't take the time to back it up. He can only dramatize by poking fun at the preparer. He can do this in 20 seconds because it's easier to laugh at someone than it is to understand them. It's easier to ignore a bad situation than it is to deal with it.

Why should I expose my family to the risk of going public? In exchange for what? Paul Milne seems to believe we should lead the masses, lead by example. SHOW them what that other people are doing something so they'll sit up and take notice. He thinks it's important enough to do that he risks his entire family even when speaking from a position of tactical strength. I don't agree with him, though I applaud his efforts. I deal with the public everyday. I just don't see them being swayed by anything less than a drastic blow to their lifestyles. Until the lights go out, or the checks don't arrive, or their cash won't buy anything anymore, or they lose their jobs at a failed company, or the rioting reaches their block, or their kids say "we're hungry" and they realize they can't feed them. Not till this HAPPENS to them will they take it seriously. So....in exchange for damaging my families security I get what? A chance to spend 20-30 seconds as an example who gets played in whatever light the reporter wishes? The return on investment is practically zero from my viewpoint. I am not the humanitarian that Milne is.

Am I a "survivalist"? You betcha I am! So are some of my friends. I plan everyday to survive till the next day and bring my family with me. The only differance between me and everybody else who wears a seatbelt and buys insurance is I plan on a longer time scale and wider scenario range. I am willing to learn from history.

Another point to bring up for this reporter. Is he looking for a "survivalist" to interview on TV? By definition he has failed before he started. No true survivalist would allow his efforts at preparing his family to be broadcast in the media. It would defeat the effort. You might find someone who thinks community preparedness is the way to go and publicity is great. But, finding someone like that means you can no longer fairly fit him into that narrow and bigoted title of 'survivalist'. The term 'survivalist' has been corrupted and denigrated by the media for so long that no one above moron intelligence would allow themselves to be publicly labeled that without a great reason.

It's like being labeled 'racist', there is no recovery from that. No matter that the NAACP practices real racism every day, judging people solely be their skin color (a sin in my view). Some labels carry such a heavy burden that people have literally died from the load. I predict that sometime soon 'survivalist' will be included in that group.

Words can kill. There is no one in the media I would trust to wield that power over my family.

-- Art Welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), January 19, 1999.

Art ---

Agree 100%. And you are exactly right about security and "survivalist" too.

This has NOTHING to do, BTW, with helping our communities (however narrowly or broadly defined) because most of us need others to survive and they us. Show me one 60-second report that hasn't LESSENED the motivation of ordinary people to prepare by ridiculing those who do, whether explicitly or tacitly.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 19, 1999.

Let me add a line or two about whereforth I speak. I earned my private's stripes by writing a newspaper column for an eons long year. I am not a 'media' person but I did gain some insight, however limited. I have also done a radio spot on a national talk show, speaking as the 'expert' on Y2K. (In truth, the host needed someone to fill that spot with an hours notice and he asked me very nicely to bail him out). Add in a scrap book filled with my editorials clipped from local papers.

-- Art Welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), January 19, 1999.