Why Has Y2K Gone 'Out Of Print'?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I work for a company that has a division which manufactures products for the preparedness marketplace. We are located in a major metropolitan area that is serviced by two (2) newspapers. Starting in August 1998, our staff would clip articles from each paper that related to Y2K issues, 7 days a week. Most of these articles were quite serious in content and covered all areas of concern. Up to the end of March of this year, there was not one day that at least six (6) of these articles were not clipped out. Yes, it is true that on many days the same subject area would be covered by both papers but we still had at least three different stories pertaining to Y2K issues. There were 17 days when the clippings totaled 12 or more.

Fast forward to the present. Since the end of March, for two and a half months, we have clipped a total of five (5) articles that even mentioned Y2K at all. I am most aware of the threshold dates of 4/1 and 4/9 that supposedly came and left with no problems. My concern, as well as many others, is this: 'What happened to the massive and virtually all inclusive problem projections that had been part of our daily news input'? Did the passing of these two dates insure that Y2K should be treated as a non-issue? Please excuse me for asking this often addressed question but I would like to hear some rational explanation for this scenario. Can anyone explain why the Forth Estate is ignoring Y2K as if it did not exist?

-- Iben (lurking@work.sum), June 15, 1999

Answers

Come on now. This is easy.

Two things: 1. Y2k has been solved, it's not a problem anymore, and 2. everyone is sick sick sick of hearing about it.

Remember that most Americans have the attention span of a puppy. Y2k has had its "15 minutes of fame," but now it's merely annoying, & it's time to move on to other important issues, like the new Austin Powers movie. Yeah baby.

And oh yes, it's summer. Sunshine, bbq, birds tweeting, etc. etc. Maybe we'll do something in the fall, maybe hit the ATM, & get a few extra cans of beans. That should be enough.

-- where did I (put@the.sunscreen), June 15, 1999.


" I work for a company that has a division which manufactures products for the preparedness marketplace."

Tanslation: "My job is being threatened because there are not enough Y2K rubes and suckers to buy our crap."

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 15, 1999.


Good old Y2K Pro, always quick for an old fashioned character assassination... stupid jerk.

-- (I hate @ y2kPro. com), June 15, 1999.

Yes, the preparedness industry has dropped dramatically since March. Yes, it's some peoples bread and butter, but they are working day and night to help others, a profit is just the benifit. What is more important right now, Beanie Babies or 50 lbs. of beans?

-- me (y2k@asheville.com), June 15, 1999.

Um . . . is it the beanie baby ?

BTW. Has anyone assessed the risk to the planet post-Y2K from the huge increment in greenhouse gasses which are bound to be created by the large number of doomer-inspired preparationists scoffing all these darn beans ?

I think we should be told.

-- Bean (There@done.that.com), June 15, 1999.



Dear Iben - Somebody else said it more elequently than I can, so I shall defer.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000XF7

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), June 15, 1999.


Hello Y2K PRO....

Your reply, although somewhat narrow in scope, has some merit. I'm sure there are many companies that have enjoyed a vertical sales boom due to the preparedness awareness issues brought forth by the Y2K media coverage, ours included. However, we have been at this for some time and will continue to be involved in this industry for years to come. You still did not offer any views regarding the questions raised in my post. Are you suggesting that the entire media structure has put a hold on Y2K reporting because the general public has asked them to? Or maybe all of the editors got together and decided that it was time to shut down the preparedness industry..that must be it. By the way, I found it interesting that it took you only 1 minute and 23 seconds to respond to my post. You must be on DefCon 4 alert, don't snooze!!

-- Iben (lurking@work.sum), June 15, 1999.


Iben, Y2Kazoo is in attack mode today. She's gettin' even. Don't expect her to be reasonable for a couple days.......

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 15, 1999.

Lisa, I don't expect her to be resonable from here on in.

-- Iben (lurking@work.sum), June 15, 1999.

>>Can anyone explain why the Forth Estate is ignoring Y2K as if it did not exist?>>

It is a combination of several factors, IMO. First, editors do not see anything "new" to report that they have not already reported in the past. They look at the news wire reports and fail to see any fundamental difference between the stories coming out now and the stories that they printed back in March. The press releases are all optimistic in tone, and vague on details. There is just not much to sink one's teeth into, so why take up valuable news space?

Give them a story with a good angle and they will gobble it up. For example, something that shows government bureaucrats as bumbling fools usually plays well. So would any story that could be portrayed as a menace to children (or puppies). Anything that supports a juicy headline or a soundbite. Footage of orange flames - that kind of thing.

Or perhaps a massive scandal, bribery, malfeasance, or conspiracy among evil big business leaders might be attractive. Presuming, of course, the editors didn't have to develop the story on their own, but are merely grabbing it off the wire. After all, investigative reporting is very costly and in order to justify it the editor would need to have a local angle - that means almost certainly antagonizing a locally powerful business interest. Editors find it much safer to report on government scandals than to stir up the dirt on local businesses. Must pay the bills, you know. Better to play it safe.

Then there is the "silly season" factor - that's what newsies call the summer market for news. People don't want doom and gloom speculations, or dry recitations of obscure technical problems during the summer. Readers or viewers are assumed to want fluff-pieces or sensational crime stories in summer. "Hard" news can wait until autumn.

Editors won't report much more on Y2K until the news wire sends them a story with some bite to it. Pictures at eleven!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 15, 1999.



Iben,

I noticed that the number of Y2K news articles out there dropped quite a bit beginning in the middle of March. In late May, interest in Y2K started to go back up again. 60 Minutes had their second segment ever on Y2K. Y2KNEWSWIRE noticed the trend with this article:

http://www.y2knewswire.com/19990523.htm

The interest in Y2K now seems to be a little different from what it was until mid-March. Before, much of it was individuals concerned with losing electricity for a period of time. Now I'd say it's more a case of businesses contemplating the closeness of the 01/01/00 date.

Ironically, while the U.S. was calm about Y2K in April, international interest in Y2K was just beginning in earnest then.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 15, 1999.


There is no "good news" (that the administration's press corps sees) "fit to print" - to paraphrase the famous "All the news that is fit to print."

Seriously, there is nothing to report but slow, steady progress by businesses who are terribly far behind their previous schedules, and who don't want to release that data.

And the government has already said it iwa scomplete in MArch - so they can't release new data showing compliance - although they are making better progress now. And the hollywood media realize they can't run more "yokels run for the hills" stories - it isn't working, but instead of laughing, people were learning that others are taking the threats seriously.

No, the media has been told to "shut up" - and they have. No press releases, no coverage. It isn't "wanted" to be covered.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 15, 1999.


And that's probably to worst typing I've ever done. Ah - the penalties of rushed jobs.....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 15, 1999.

It seems to me that all bad news is going out of print. People do not want to hear about any serious problems that we may face in the future. A few years ago, there was much concern that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons material and technology would pass from Russia to terriorists and countries that are our enemies. Now, no one seems to care. In spite of the recent NY Times report indicating that Iraq and N Korea may have acquired the smallpox virus for military use, it is really not getting much attention. Also, we have the most overvalued stock market in US history and most investors aren't concerned. Today it seems that people do not want to hear about anythink that could have a very negative effect on their lives.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), June 15, 1999.

NO, the press does not want to print anything that would have a negative impact on people's perceptions - unless its about guns, or smoking, or SUV's, or the latest White House crisis of the week.

Gotta keep them poll numbers up - its the only he's (she's) got.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 15, 1999.



"Why has Y2K gone out-of-print?"

It's not because there's nothing to report. For instance, an enterprising reporter could turn to these two sites:

Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project U.S. Naval War College Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Decision Support Department

Statement by KARLA W. CORCORAN, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 23, 1999

But the policy now seems to be "hands off."

Leibniz maintained that "This is the best of all possible worlds."

Some have responded to this with "That's just what I was afraid of."

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), June 16, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ