Finally!

Here is the transcript many of you have been waiting for. (Note: I'm going to repost the oral transcript of hour one to a new thread, for those who missed it)

Written testimony submitted by all witnesses (which differ from the oral testimony, and do not include the question and answer sessions) can be found at:

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/052599/index.html

In my humble opinion, the strongest testimony of this second hour came from Kerry Brock and James Adams.

If any of you feel compelled to reward me for my torture in transcribing the oral testimony, you can either grovel here, (:)) or send a dollar to:

SCI Publications

5694 Plymouth Road, Suite 290

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Either way: read on:

:)

TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL TESTIMONY BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000 TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM.: IS THERE NEWS THEY CAN USE?

Second Panel (Media panel)

May 25, 1999

Senator Bennett: We'll now go to our second panel. We've heard from the community folks, now we're going to hear from some media people. First, representing the Freedom Forum's Media Studies Center, we have Mr. Lawrence McGill who is Director of Research. And Ms. Kerry Brock, Director of Broadcasting from that group. Next we have from the Radio Television News Directors Association, Ms. Barbara Cochran who is president of that group. Then Mr. James Adams who is CEO of Y2K Today, an Internet Y2K news source. And then Mr. Rich Jaroslovsky who is President of the Online News Association. So we'll start with the Freedom Forum's Media Study. Ms. Brock are you the spokesperson for that?

Brock: Actually Mr. McGill...

Bennett: Mr. McGill for that. All right.

McGill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Dodd. Let me begin by providing you with some background information on the Media Studies Center where I have been employed as Director of Research since 1994. The Media Studies Center, which is located in New York City, is devoted to improving understanding between the media and the public through a variety of initiatives. The center is an operating program of the Freedom Forum of Arlington, Virginia, a non-partisan, international foundation, dedicated to free press, free speech, and free spirit for all people.

The Freedom Forum does not take a stand on the issues it chooses for study, such as Y2K and the media. But is committed to providing a neutral forum for the discussion of differing perspectives on those issues. Late last year the media studies center determined that the news media had a vital role to play with respect to informing the public about potential problems stemming from the Y2K computer glitch. And at that time, it was unclear whether Y2K ought to be a matter of serious concern to the public. And it remains so to this day.

Based on surveys conducted by the Media Studies Center, and other organizations, we know that about half of all Americans think that Y2K is one of the most important problems facing the country. At the same time, about half of the public feels that Y2K is basically a technical issue that doesn't require their attention. Likewise up to half of all Americans say they are planning to take some steps to prepare for Y2K, either stocking up on food and water, withdrawing extra cash before January 1st, purchasing a portable generator, or some other action. Meanwhile, the other half say, they don't plan to take any steps to prepare for potential Y2K problems. What I have to say today, actually boils down to a single question. Is it acceptable if half of all Americans choose to do nothing to prepare for Y2K? If nothing changes between now and the end of the year, if the government continues to release mixed messages on the potential impact of Y2K on the public, if the news media continue to portray Y2K as an issue that might or might not be resolved by January 1st, if so called Y2K experts continue to waffle as to what sorts of Y2K problems are likely to occur and where: then a large number, perhaps a majority of Americans will choose to do nothing to prepare for the turn of the year.

Based on our analysis of the results of a national survey we conducted in January of this year, we encouraged local news media to focus their Y2K coverage on the kinds of information the citizens told us they needed to know in order to make up their minds about how or if they should prepare for Y2K. In particular we noted that Americans were especially eager to learn about the Y2K preparedness of medical establishments, the U.S. military, financial institutions and power companies. At the time we conducted the survey, it seemed to us that this was the appropriate message to send to the nation's news media. But what this particular approach assumed is that every person in the country should sift through whatever information comes his or her way about Y2K, and then make up his or her own mind about what steps need to be taken, or even whether steps need to be taken in preparation for Y2K.

My feeling today is that this is completely unrealistic. Not all-local news outlets are equally up to the task of ferreting out and disseminating the information local citizens need to make up their minds about Y2K. Not all-local institutions will be equally forthcoming about Y2K preparedness. As a result, some people will act on the basis of one set of information, while others will act on the basis of different information, with confusion likely to be the result. This strikes me as exactly the situation we want to try and avoid. But the only way we can prevent this from happening is by sending a clear and unambiguous message to everyone in the country about what to expect when January 1st rolls around.

It seems to me there are only two possible unambiguous messages that could be sent. One that Y2K is so unlikely to cause problems in the United States the people need not bother to prepare for it. Or, two, that Y2K may cause some problems and it is prudent to take some basic precautions.

Now, I don't have the expertise or enough specific knowledge about the Y2K problem to be able to recommend one position or the other. That is for you to decide, as you hear testimony on this issue. But I do know that we have to come to consensus around one position or the other. The jury cannot remain in deliberation the rest of the year. Keeping the public guessing about what they should do about Y2K is, in my view, the surest road to panic. A verdict must be reached, and a plan of national action must be created.

Once the message has been decided on, the federal government and the nation's news media will need to work together to deliver that message to everyone in the country. Television, in particular will play a key role in insuring that that message is heard. Our surveys have shown that more than half the country relies on television, particularly local TV news for most of their information about Y2K.

Again, let me leave you with the question that I proposed in the beginning, given what we know about Y2K is it acceptable if potentially a majority of Americans choose to do nothing to prepare for Y2K? Thank you.

Bennett: Thank you very much. Did you have an additional statement, Ms. Brock?

BROCK: Yes I do, actually.

Bennett: OK.

Brock: And thank you for inviting me here, Senators, and the committee. Y2K, we find at the Media Study Center is a unique tale playing itself out on the landscape of American Journalism, as part concern, and part cartoon. As you have said yourself, Senator Bennett, how do we strike a balance between Paul Revere and Chicken Little.

In recent months my organization, the Media Study Center has heard from hundreds of journalists who are all looking for the proper voice in which to tell this story. In the words of a reporter from the San Jose Mercury News, "Right now, Journalists on this beat are forced into guessing."

Many news organizations are not digging into the political and the technical vulnerabilities of their towns and cities and states, because they don't know they should be.

In part because of this lack of leadership from the federal government - present company excluded. Not only a lack of leadership but a lack of consensus that Larry speaks of and others who have testified before me.

The government's own Y2K Czar, John Koskinen advises journalists to continually drive toward that facts.

But it is obvious to journalists covering this story that Mr. Koskinen avoids the facts. At the same time he presents a fogged of ambiguous information. He tells us the power industry nationally has done well, but he is concerned about local power companies. He thinks the national telephone systems, but he is concerned about the 1400 small telephone companies. He indicates we should not worry, but we should worry.

These are not facts, but public Valium and the news media as a whole, unfortunately is (?) up on it.

Perhaps as Jeff Grollnic (sp) of CNN told us, "Journalists are drowning in this sea of conflicting information."

In the absence of consistent facts, government proclamations that are not stories become stories. For example: "FAA Head Books Flight for New Years," "Y2K Czar Sees Serene January 1," "Don't Panic Over Y2K, Senators Say."

Then journalists find conflicting information in the government's own Y2K Website. For starters, this Senate Committee's Website offers a very clear and understandable link to Mr. Koskinen's Y2K.gov Website.

But, Mr. Koskinen, his own Website buries its link, back to the Senate. And we see differences of opinion between the two. On your Website, Senator Dodd, you've stated, the world oil supply faces a series of Y2K risks from the well in the ground to the gas station in your neighborhood. On the other hand, on his Website, Mr. Koskinen says, although there may be some minor disruptions, the industries are confident that the supply of natural gas and petroleum products will be uninterrupted. I could give you many more examples, but I think you can see that journalists aren't getting the clear and consistent message.

Marcia Staponic (sp) of "Business Week" magazine tells us this story takes commitment and it takes manpower. And we say, senators, you need to explain why these organizations should give it both. A few journalist have been assigned to Y2K beat. They get it, they understand the issue is not black and white, that cannot be polarized.

Long ago they abandoned the claim falling out of the sky analogies in their reporting. These journalists merely want you to admit what you don't know, and admit why that worries you, then they can explain to the public how the lack of this information might signal a problem. And they can report how the government suggests we prepare a to cope with potential problems. Unfortunately journalists on this beat tell us they often discover information that looks suspiciously like a cover-up.

ABC's correspondent James Walker, in fact, found the following instructions on an electrical utilities Website regarding a Y2K drill, "Don't make the drill too complex, we want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication."

Then there's the rest of the news media, reporters doing stories every day on health, finance, religion, politics, media, the arts, entertainment, news, weather and sports. There is a potential Y2K issue in each of these areas and more. Help journalists understand that it's not just a technology story. And then help them explain that to the rest of America. It is important to recognize there are individual examples of fine Y2K coverage every day, and if local news organizations take it upon themselves to make preparedness suggestions.

In Miami, news reports tell residents to prepare for a hurricane, in San Francisco an earthquake, the analogies with the weather go on and on. But, this remains a patchwork of reporting that has not formed a nationwide mosaic of understanding.

Big companies are admitting in increasing numbers they won't be ready in time. Perhaps the government could convene a summit that brings captains of industry together to explain how system breakdowns in the private sector might effect the public. For the news media you could instantly attach honesty, leadership, public understanding, and perhaps calm. So, planning a current environment of ignorance, confusion and already, in some cases, panic.

Let me close by saying, as you well know, Y2K is not a hurricane or an earthquake or a tornado, it is an expected event. In previous testimony before this committee indicates a growing fear of the unknown. You might as well engage journalist now, because they will certainly latch on to this story later. And in the post-millennium blame game, journalists will haunt those in government and out who put their own political, financial, and legal concerns ahead of the safety and well being of the American people. Thank you."

(More to come)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), May 31, 1999

Answers

Bennett: Ms. Cochran.

Cochran: Thank you, Chairman Bennett and Senator Dodd, I'm very pleased to have been invited to testify today on behalf of the Radio- Television News Directors Association, which is the world's largest professional organization devoted exclusively to electronic journalism.

RTNDA represents local and network news executives in broadcast, cable and other electronic media in more than 30 countries.

When you invited me to comment on media coverage of the Y2K situation, I went to the source. I asked radio and television news directors around the country what their coverage has involved, and their plans for the future. They shared their news philosophies on this issue and what guidelines they use in their newsrooms. And this is particularly important because local television news is the number one source of information for American. What follows is expert advice from local stations in markets as diverse as New York, Lexington, Sue Falls, and Oklahoma City.

Number one, our news directors said, set the stage for viewers and listeners. Explain the computer programming issue. Than explain the implications for services we all depend upon such as transportation, utilities, and emergency services. Marlowe Brower (sp) of KWTV in Oklahoma City, says her station started with a basic two part series from December of 1998, and now does weekly reports. Number two, be proactive in your coverage. Stations should have a plan in place, and not just react when new about Y2K breaks. Jim Ogle (sp) of WKYT TV of Lexington Kentucky says his station is running a weekly series called, "Our we ready for 2000?" To date the station has covered everything from the pizza shop on the corner to the 911 emergency service. Number three, avoid sensationalism. When covering the Y2K issue, as with any beat, reporters should do balanced stories. Avoid scary terms like chaos. And make sure your promotions department does the same.

Joel Lunstadt (sp) of KITV in Great Falls, Montana keeps things in perspective by avoiding stories about people on the outer fringes of society, stocking up on rations and preparing for the worst.

Number four, look for the local angle. WBAL radio in Baltimore has reported more than 80 stories since January 1st of this year. New director Mark Miller says that among them are stories on preparedness levels of local and Internet service providers, libraries, state and local government, local utilities, the state payroll, the food industry and the health care industry. Number five, become involved in local preparedness activities. WTVW TV in Evansville, Indiana got local Y2K experts to field calls from viewers. More than 175 calls came in as did more than 100 e-mail queries.

Number six, establish a beat so your staff can develop expertise. At WTVW, again Steve Berger (sp) has designated a news manager specifically for Y2K coverage, and assigned stories to two reporters as necessary. A beat system allows new staff to keep on top of the issue, and better prepares them for covering fringe groups pushing agendas.

Number seven, cover individual preparedness for Y2K. Talk about what the average person should do. Dave Uzak (sp) at KCCI TV in Des Moines produced a half-hour special last month on the Y2K issue, with news that viewers could use on information about banking, home appliances, hardware and software.

Number eight, use qualified experts. Avoid those pushing an agenda. Sunbelt Communications Company aired an hour-long show on all its stations that featured legislators, including Senator Bennett, and experts from industries.

Number nine, put information on your Website for continued access. Mark Millage (sp) at KELO TV in Sue Falls, South Dakota, provides links to additional sites through his station's web site.

Number ten, go to your network for the global angle. Local stations for the most part stick to local angles, and look to their networks for the national and global outlooks. The networks have been on top of this story to different degrees. Andrew Tindahl (sp) who monitors the network nightly news programs for his Tindahl (sp) Report says that over a 16-month period, ABC covered the story most heavily with 45 minutes of coverage, followed by NBC at 21 minutes, and CBS at 13. I'd also like to share with you what RTNDA is doing to help our members to cover the Y2K problem. Last November, we published a cover story in our magazine, the Communicator entitled "The Y2K, getting the Bug Out." This fall at our annual convention we will also have a session for news directors on this topic. And finally we plan to use this testimony as the basis for another article in Communicator. We feel it is vital for news directors to hear about what their colleagues are doing so they can develop or fine tune their own coverage plans. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Bennett: Thank you, very much. Mr. Adams, may I comment, I'm sure you won't be up set. I read your book, which you were kind enough to give me, and recommend it very highly, even though it's not directly connected with Y2K, it really is. Because it talks about -the name of the book is, "The Next World War," for those of you who are waiting for the commercial.

He talks about the impact of computers in the information revolution warfare. And that's one of the things that's come out of my experience with Y2K is the discovery that computers are everywhere. And we're all connected, in one way or another. And Y2K will be an interruption in our ability to function, that we know about and are working on. But, his book, Mr. Adams' book talks about other kinds of interruptions in our computers that can occur in the National Security arena

And it isn't essential for us to get ready for Y2K, to read the book, but it might be essential for us to get ready for the future, to read the book. So, with that commercial, I don't think you'd object to me doing that?

Adams: Thank you Mr. Chairman for that ringing endorsement. And I'll just add, that you've got to hurry while stock lasts. Members of the committee, good morning. And thank you for including me on this distinguished panel. I'm the CEO of Infrastructure Defense, a company focused on gathering and disseminating knowledge of the many cyber vulnerabilities and threats that confront business in the public sector. Of particular relevance in today's discussion, iDefense sponsors the web-based news site, Y2K Today, one of the premier sources of information on the F2000 problem, and a model for the kind of customized news content that is transforming the news industry. I would like to thank Chairman Bennett for his contribution to that value, by providing editorial content to the site, and supporting our Y2K Today initiatives.

By way of further background, prior to founding iDefense, I was CEO of United Press International, and was also Managing Editor of the London Sunday Times. For the past several months I have been directly engaged in working with the public and private sector in trying to understand and mitigate the Y2K crisis.

In every meeting, without exception, it is accepted as fact that the media will have a pivotal role to play as we move toward January 1, 2000. It is no exaggeration to say that the media can control whether this is a global crisis or simply a difficult time, whether there is panic or simply an acceptance of a hard reality, whether that Titanic of the global economy has its watertight doors pierced by the iceberg of Y2K or whether those doors hold fast. It is appropriate here to stake out the broader context in which this debate is unfolding.

First, there is what might be described as the moral high ground, where words like leadership, integrity, trust and honesty can be found.

There lies the reliable knowledge that every person, every family and every business needs to understand and manage this crisis.

Second, there is the reality of today's media. Journalism has traditionally had three pillars that it upholds: to inform, to educate, and to entertain.

Today we see two of those pillars crumbling as the third, entertainment, is daily reinforced. In the last 20 years, media coverage of policy and ideas has declined, while stories about health, news, lifestyle and celebrity entertainment rise. For example, a mere eight percent of the stories on TV news magazines cover the combined areas of education, economics, foreign affairs, the military, national security, politics and social welfare. In the last 20 years, the number of front-page newspaper stories dealing with government has dropped by more than 11 percent. Stories dealing with foreign affairs down 22 percent. Stories dealing with business and commerce down 40 percent.

This trend is true of newspapers, print news magazines, television Network news, and TV news magazines. What this means is that Y2K is the perfect story for today's media. It offers drama, conflict, the threat of chaos, and the lack of character that allows every view to be aired, however marginal. As we move into the summer, I can guarantee that unless something happens, the crisis will begin to unfold, fueled by a media who do not fully understand the issues.

Hollywood will launch the Y2K disaster movies, a few will begin to dig their wells, and buy their generators, a much more interesting story than the majority who do not. The perception will grow that we are about to plunge off the cliff.

This brings me back to trust on state integrity and leadership. The media are only as good as the sources that are available to them. And where can reporters go for reliable trusted information. Where is the leadership that will help the mediaand the public steer through this difficult period. The leadership in the administration has abrogated its responsibility, and left the stage largely empty. It is striking, for example, to contrast the political leadership in Britain and Canada with that of America.

In those countries, the government in concert with industry leaders has been orchestrating a national publicity campaign to alert the public to the risks associated with Y2K. By contrast, in America, there has been no national advertising campaign, no coordinated effort, and with the notable exception of some members of this committee, and a handful of others in Congress, no real effort to address this vital issue. One senior administration official told me the other day, that the way this government is dealing with Y2K reminded him of Czarist Russia just before the Revolution. It is not surprising that in this vacuum, the media have been doing, based on what they think, and not on what they know. Because public reaction during this crisis will have as great an effect on our society as does the problem itself, there is a gaping void here that needs to be filled. Mr. Chairman, time is now very short. And the level of ignorance remains alarmingly high. Tailored, accurate knowledge can combat ignorance, allowing for a proportionate response to what we know is going to be a serious issue.

In my judgment, this is the most serious crisis to confront the information revolution. And the public and private sector must unite to step up to this challenge. It is time for leadership, for honesty, for trust, and integrity. And that time is now. Thank you.

Bennett: Thank you very much. Mr. Jaroslovsky.

Jaroslovsky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Rich Jaroslovsky, I'm the Managing Editor of the Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition, based in New York. And I'm also President of the Online News Association. The Online News Association is a brand new organization of and for professional journalists. One that seeks to educate the public about and to foster public interest in quality online journalism.

The group began light with a preliminary organizational meeting only last December. And was incorporated only about eight weeks ago. We like the medium in which we labor are very much still a work in progress.

But although we're a new organization and a new medium, the standards we seek to encourage and the values we stand for aren't new at all. Our fundamental aims are to further freedom of information, freedom of expression, editorial integrity and editorial independence on the Internet.

Our founders include respected professionals from the web operations of such traditional news providers as Time, Knight-Ridder, ABC and National Public Radio, as well as from new journalistic organizations that have emerged to take advantage of the new medium, entities such as CNEXNews.com, MSNBC on the Internet, and thestreet.com.

A few years ago in the first rush of enthusiasm over the emergence of the web, we heard a lot of predictions that it was sounding the death knell for traditional journalism.

With so much information, so accessible, the argument went, each individual could function as his own reporter and editor. And there would no longer be a need for people whose job it was to sift and interpret information. Instead what we've seen is that the Net has made the role of the journalist even more important.

Precisely because there is so much information out there, a good deal of it from sources of dubious reliability, people have an even more critical need for help in separating fact from fiction, and for developing perspective on events and issues. We at the Online News Association believe we can play a positive role in preventing what one observer of the Web has called, "journalistic entropy", where bad information drives out good, and everyone sinks to the lowest standard going.

The year 2000 issue provides a clear challenge to online news organizations to demonstrate how our medium can be put to use in the public interest. The issues surrounding Y2K, as you well know, are significant ones. As journalists, the most constructive role we can play is to bring those issues before the public in a coolheaded rational way that gives people the information and tools to prepare for what may be ahead.

We can't lose sight of the fact that there is a world of difference between informing people about a problem, and panicking them about it.

Let me offer for example the efforts of Zip Davis' ZDNet. ZDNet's core audience consists of serious information technology professionals, the kinds of people who are on the front lines of the Year 2000 issue and precisely the kinds of people who are most likely to turn to the Internet for their news and information.

ZDNet has a special Y2K site featuring daily news and commentary plus diagnostic software that can be downloaded directly over the net, discussion groups where users can share information and the results of public opinion surveys that ZDNet has conducted on the topic. ZDNet's competitor, News.com, meanwhile has its own Y2K site offering its own news and information as well as links to other sites that can offer additional useful resources. It also provides case studies about companies that have found particularly innovative ways to tackle the problem.

These sites and others like them make use of the convenient capabilities of our medium. They are global in their reach of course, and the can be instantly updated. But they also allow individual users to drill deeper to continue seeking information until they find what they need. And they take advantage of the fact that this is a two-way medium, by allowing these users pose questions to experts in the field and even to each other.

In an environment like this, the role of news organizations is necessarily evolving. It isn't enough to merely be a provider of information. We also have to be a broker of information, a filter, a moderator, sometimes even a referee. But our changing role, if anything, places an even greater premium on what we as journalists stand for. Honesty, accuracy and fairness don't go out of fashion because technology has changed.

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we realize that the stakes have been raised for our craft. It is now infinitely easier than every before to disseminate misinformation around the globe. There's an old saying that a lie can be half way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots. The Net makes that concern startlingly real. We recognize that online journalism isn't and won't be spotless.

Perfection does not exist in our realm but we believe in the marketplace of ideas and believe firmly that that marketplace will ultimately reward those organizations that provide useful, reliable news and information.

As professional on-line journalists we're comfortable being judged on that basis and are confident that we, the organizations we represent, and the medium we are helping shape are up to that challenge.

Thank you very much for inviting me to appear today.

(More to come)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), May 31, 1999.

Bennett: Thank you all. We appreciate the panel and the comments. I'll do the same thing, I did with the previous panel. Do any of you wish to make any comments about what you have heard from any of the other of you, before we start the questioning?

Senator Christopher Dodd: A bunch of politicians over there.

Bennett: All right.

Brock: Well, just so that I'm not accused of being a politician...

Dodd: I knew if I raised that bait you'd go for it.

Brock: I can't help myself. Barbara Cochran mentioned some fabulous examples of what local journalists around the country, especially television journalists in her case are doing. But, I would say that we've heard, at the Media Studies Center from just as many journalists who can't get their stories on their air. And who face editors and assignment managers, and news directors every day who think the Y2K story is a joke, and don't take is seriously. And they fight for airtime. And that becomes frustrating, and their cynicism has grown with every day that ticks away on the clock.

Adams: I agree with that. And the reason why that is such a problem is that there has not been direct, very focused leadership from the top. Contrast Canada and the United Kingdom. You've had leadership from the highest political leaders in the country driving through the process.

So, they're saying from the top, this is an important issue, we have to focus on it, we must address it and that will drive the news cycle. Because if everybody understands it's a serious issue, if there is reliable consistent data coming out, if there is an understanding that yes, OK, if we fix it in Washington D.C., or we fix in San Diego, it's not going to be fixed in Beijing, and it's not going to be fixed in Moscow. And that is going to directly impact...

Dodd: Let me ask you this. I was trying to think as you were saying this -- and I don't want to be overly defensive about it. But, obviously, and I say it with all due respect, there's no other countries around the world. The agendas are either less or more complicated. And I don't know how many times -- I know I have been present on at least two or three or even four occasions -- when the President of the United States has made it the principal focus of his address over the last year. Now maybe he should have done it -- I don't know, I'm trying to get some sense of -

Adams: All right let me ask you this, then. Dodd: Yes.

Adams: What is it that the President of the United States believes that Y2K is? Is it a serious problem? Is it something that the nation needs to prepare for? Is it something that business is doing enough about? I mean, what actually does the President stand for, in this issue?

Dodd: I think he thinks it's a very serious problem, and that the country ought to be doing more to get prepared for it.

Adams: Is he articulating what that should be?

Dodd: Well the question is often enough? He's certainly has said that on a number of occasions. And what I'm trying to get at is, how often?

Adams: And yet I would reply that if you ask this room, this panel or the previous panel. And you said to each of them in turn, where does the President stand on Y2K, they'd say, "Don't know, haven't heard from him recently. I would guarantee that would be the answer.

Bennett: I think you're probably right. Let me give you a little bit of history. Senator Dodd and I sat down with Erskine Bowles the chief of staff and said to him, strongly and together, the president has to come out with this kind of a statement and Erskine agreed. And shortly after that, we were notified that the president was planning a Y2K event. It was, where? At the National Bureau of Standards? Dodd: I think that's where it was.

Bennett: Anywhere it was at a setting...

Dodd: Science, National...

Bennett: OK, National Science Foundation. The president was there, of course we were there as invited guests. I think it was on a Monday. No, it was on a Tuesday. The following Wednesday, I had a speech before the National Press Club and we thought, well, the president would kick this off with a major kind of speech, I would follow it up for the Congress. John Koskinen and I talked about it, we thought this was a nice one-two punch. I don't think the president's speech was on a single news program that night. I know mine was not, the next day. I was told I was paid the ultimate complement, at the National Press Club in that nobody left during my speech.

Dodd: It was the lunch, Bob.

Bennett: Yes, it was the lunch.(LAUGHTER) But, unfortunately, there has been other news to report about the President, shall we say, that may not have been Present in Canada and Great Britain. And for whatever reason, his statement got swallowed up in the news coverage. I think your point about entertainment driving out other kinds of news is extremely well taken. And may be more pronounced in this country than some of the others. But, you are correct, we do not have the parallel experience in Great Britain, where Tony Blair's signature has been on how many hundreds of thousands of pieces of literature sent to small businesses. We talked about that in this hearing, when we held the hearing on the international impact of Y2K, or in this committee when we had the hearing on the international impact of Y2K. We talked about what Tony Blair has done in Great Britain. His signature has appeared in Billboards. Everybody in Great Britain knows that he has made this a major initiative and that has not happened here. Let me address the issue to stimulate some more conversation, about accurate information. Again, when this committee was formed, Senator Dodd and I laid down as one of its clear priorities was to become the repository of accurate information about Y2K.

Because the most frustrating thing for me, when the committee was being talked about is that there was no place where we could go for accurate information. You complain that the government isn't giving you any accurate information, there wasn't any place we could turn to find it. And I said to the staff, you know, we're going to hold hearings, we're going to do what we can, prod the agencies, etc., etc.

But, if we do nothing else, we are going to be the closest thing to a repository of accurate information to which people will come. Frankly, I'm very proud of the report that we issued, which I think comes as close to that as we can find. The complaint that things are changing, they're not solid, they're not firm is an accurate complaint. Because the issue is constantly changing. And as I said to the previous panel, I've had the experience of having my own speeches quoted back to me.

And I say, yes, that's the way it was nine months ago when I gave that speech. That's not the way it is today.

Brock: Journalists have told us they recognize that. They see that. That they know covering the story one-day may mean they have to go back the next and give an entirely different (unintelligible). And I apologize if I gave you the impression that they think in general your Website is not accurate. Just the opposite. They find much more plain spokenness in your Web site than they do in some other areas, which again makes them suspicious.

Bennett: Well, we do not have a parliamentary form of government where we all are on the same page. We have an adversarial kind of split government right now and yet we're doing what we can to try to cooperate with the administration. John Koskinen and I talk every week, every Wednesday afternoon, either by telephone or face to face. I tell him everything we are doing, he tells me everything he is doing. He was not, maybe, completely supportive of the report that we issued, because it was different, in a number of its assessments from what he was saying. But, we are doing everything we can, and I think successfully to keep lines of communication open between the administration and at least the Senate. I can't speak for the House. We have another division in the way we are structured.

Mr. Jaroslovsky, let me ask you, and then other members of the panel. You talk about some of the less credible sources of information that are on the Internet that tends to degrade the whole area also.

For example, I was told by someone from Wall Street, "Well, we have a rule of thumb on Wall Street. If there are three sources on the Internet of information about an issue, that means the market has all the information it needs, and will discount it.

So, Senator you're standing here saying the Market needs to pay more attention to Y2K, there are far more than three sources on the Internet, so the market doesn't really need to pay any attention, because it's already got the information it has. Well, if you take the number of Y2K Websites, you have to include the people that say we are one step away from Marshal Law. That this is going to be -- and I have seen this -- this is all a plot on the part of the Clinton Administration to avoid the 2000 elections. That they are going to declare Marshal Law, or declare an Emergency, nullify the elections, and keep Clinton in office indefinitely. Some other apocalyptic kinds of things. You are one of the responsible ones on the Internet, do you have any interaction with these people, or (unintelligble) from some of these websites? And does anybody else have a comment when he's through?

Jaroslovsky:: One of the scary things about the Net, and one of the wonderful things about the Net are precisely the same. It is, as I think the Supreme Court put it, an on-going national conversation and it's often times a cacophonous one. And frankly one of the motivating factors behind the formation of the Online News Association was precisely to try and give some separation and to not be lumped in, as it were, with all the sites that may be out there, and all the Usenet messages flying back and forth about apocalyptic visions of whatever.

The markets I can't speak to. The markets seem to have a logic of their own. But what we're trying to do is to establish that there are credible and reputable places to go on the Net, to get credible and reputable information. Not all of those places to go are places that, five years ago, most Americans would have heard about. Five years ago, I think, a lot of Americans knew what "The Wall Street Journal" was, but I'm not sure that five years ago a lot of people knew what News.com was.

And so the exciting thing, and I think ultimately the important thing about the growth of the medium is that it is allowing -- not only that it allows everybody to post anything. But, also it is allowing new organizations that can uphold values that I think we can all agree are the ones that professional news organizations ought to follow. But it gives newer organizations an opportunity to kind of crack the club, as it were.

Bennett: Senator Dodd, you have... Dodd: Well, I just, it's a very serious subject matter, obviously, but just as a moment of slight levity. Mr. Chairman, I want to present you with a shirt. This is the 100 percent Y2K compliant T-shirt. I want you to know, this was given to me, it's been -- it's prepared, "It's certified that this T-shirt is 100 percent Y2K compliant according to the standards established by the wholly non-technical and generally coolest staff of Wittycity.com. It's completely compatible with the dates December 31, 1999. But of course what the Hell do we know, anyway.

It's signed by Bill somebody-or-other. It says, "This shirt was recommended by three out of four horsemen of the Apocalypse." (LAUGHTER)

And why you need this 100 percent Y2K compliant T-shirt. "It will be required dress on UN black helicopters. Marauding bands of Amish will think you look sexy in it. It can be used as a really, really small lean-to or to fill with rocks and beat people who say the millennium really doesn't start until January 1, 2001. After all the Huggies looted from local CBS makes great baby diapers."

Anyway, this is a little moment of levity in this otherwise...

Bennett: Thank you very much. Is it worth more than $50? . . .

Dodd: Its from me, and Im a colleague of (unintelligible)

Bennett: OK... Dodd: We can give each other gifts more than $50.

Bennett: OK, then we're safe. In the entertainment vein, I will tell you that this reminds me of it. My nephew said to me, "My mother's tombstone is not Y2K compliant." I said, "Pardon me?" He said, "My mother's tomb stone is not Y2K compliant. When my father died, they put up a tombstone with the family name, then his name and birth and death date, and her name with birth and 19 -." So it will be prepared for her when she dies. And she's going to live to 2000, and he tombstone is not Y2K compliant. So, it strikes in all kinds of ways.

Mr. McGill, going back to your testimony. I think you may have given this committee a phrase that will be very useful, in saying that we can summarize this whole thing by saying this is an issue that "could be serious, and is worth being prepared."

That may be the phrase we're looking for. This strikes the balance between panic and complacency and will feed into the efforts of the first panel that didn't want to be labeled as being frantic, panickers.

This is something that could be serious and worth being prepared at the community level.

And, Mr. Adams, I think your point, which we have stressed on the committee, and will continue to stress, "In a world wide situation, it is far more likely than it is domestically to be very serious." And we've had some conversations with some very high level members of the administration as recently as last week trying to stress that out of this committee. Thank you all very much for coming.

I think while this has been a different kind of hearing, in that we have not had technical experts giving us specific information. It may be, in some ways, one of the most useful hearings we will have held. Because, you are talking directly to the people who control what comes out of these hearings in terms of the American people. The days in which Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas could spend three hours in the hot sun with a rapt group of their constituents listening to everything they said are long since over.

We are completely dependent upon the media for getting any kind of message out. And I kind of end as I began, with the comment if we turned off the television cameras, we still exist. And it's that dilemma that's brought us here today in this hearing. And we thank you all for your contribution. Committee is adjourned.

END OF TRANSCRIPT OF SECOND HOUR

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), May 31, 1999.

Hi there; Brock mentions Senator Bennet's website. Can someone tell me where to find it? And is it pretty realistic, do you think?

Malcolm Drake Grants Pass, Oregon

-- Malcolm Drake (jumpoff@echoweb.net), June 01, 1999.