I have been involved in conversations on this forum in which a number of people have claimed there is a vast media/government cover-up "conspiracy". It is obvious to anyone who's been paying attention that most "positive" mainstream media reports that find their way here are quickly dismissed by these people as nothing more than "spin". On the other hand, I have seen "negative" stories from the *same* media sources discussed at length. The "negative" article is discussed to death, held up as "evidence", and in the future it is referenced by links over and over again without any of these same conspiracy-minded people (or any regular here) stepping up to question or analyze the "validity" of the article.

Questions:

Can any of the media/government conspiracy theorists explain to me how you determine when a story is "spin" and when it is "the truth" when it comes from the same media source?

Can you also explain to me why you do not question the validity of the "negative" reports in the same manner as you would the "positive" reports?

If presented with the following scenerios, what criteria would you use to determine which media report is valid and which is just media/government conspiracy "spin"?

Scenerio 1 - ABC and AP announce a Navy report which reflects minimal Y2k utility disruptions for most of the nations cities. "Report agrees with previous White House Y2k position statements".

Scenerio 2 - ABC and AP announce a Navy report which reflects major Y2k utility dispruptions for many of the nations cities. "Report disagrees with previous White House Y2k position statements".

-- CD (not@here.com), August 22, 1999

Answers

Isn't it obvious by now that government agencies can't manage their own Y2K projects, much less a vast cover up conspiracy. Look at how the Navy assessed the utilities it depends on. Not exactly an example sophisticated project management.

-- for real (for@real.com), August 22, 1999.

Per your question I present two items that you might find of interest:

In 1987 or 1988 I watched a T.V. interview in which Petter Jennings was the quest. Peter stated "My job is not so much to report the news as it is to mold public opinion.".

While in the Air Force some years back I asked my first sergant why media stories about military prepardness were in direct conflict with each other within two days or less. He had previously held a job at the Pentagon which included writing stories to feed to the press. His answer was he enjoyed reading the news for he could read the same story as the masses and reach a completely different conclusion.

I think the above goes a long way in explaining while the White House wants to control internet content.

ED

-- Ed (ed@lizzardranch.com), August 22, 1999.

Event 1: Jim Lord announces a (secret) Navy report which reflects major Y2k utility dispruptions for many of the nations cities. "Report disagrees with previous White House Y2k position statements".

Event 2: ABC and AP (along with the NY Times, the post) acknowledge a Navy report which reflects major Y2k utility dispruptions for many of the nations cities. "Report disagrees with previous White House Y2k position statements",

*BUT*, blah blah blah "doomsayers" blah blah blah, *BUT* "John Koskinen, impartial observer says..." *BUT* "it really was public as recently as August 10th.."

CD, you are a dupe if you really think you've pointed out a double standard on the part of those concerned about y2k. You're not a dupe of the media (though you'd likely qualify for that too) but of your own cloudy powers of observation if you honestly believe that the media is not spinning this thing. It doesn't take a "vast conspiracy" to be pressured into not covering something, or making it look a little better, or rounding off the rough edges, etc. You should open your eyes to that before you go around pointing the finger of shame.

Let's face it, this report and its confirmation is troubling and worrisome. I am sorry that is inconvient for your read on the situation, but there it is.

Sean

-- Sean (cd@yourso.fine), August 22, 1999.

Q: Can any of the media/government conspiracy theorists explain to me how you determine when a story is "spin" and when it is "the truth" when it comes from the same media source?

A: Spin is determined by keywords, buzzwords that seem to be repeated over and over (planes falling, money is safe in bank, etc.). Truth, as hard as it is to come by, fits surveys, statistics, estimations and reports from the trenches.

Q: Can you also explain to me why you do not question the validity of the "negative" reports in the same manner as you would the "positive" reports?

A: Negative reports ARE questioned for validity and back-up data is cross referenced with links. The pollies only seem to have press- release reports and little data or verified/certified info to back-up the cheerie news. Doomers may lean towards the dark side, just like the pollies lean towards the happy, no-problemo side. The doomers may revel in the dark news slant, but where's the beef?! (proof?) Where is the meat that things ARE fixed? Happy reports seem to conflic with the raw data. They say they are compliant, but in November? December? The happy, "we are ready" reports are backed up by what?

Q: If presented with the following scenerios, what criteria would you use to determine which media report is valid and which is just media/ government conspiracy "spin"?

A: Verified testing; Real time testing; TV images of computers showing 2000 rollover. Are they using windowing or full four digit dates? When the FAA "testing" was shown on CNN, the computers had 2 digit dates! IT was show for a few seconds and that was that. No comment, etc. How long have they been working on the problem. How many programmers? Are they still working on the systems? If so what repairs are left? VERY FEW OF THESE QUESTIONS AND MORE ARE EVER ASKED.

_______ Scenerio 1 - ABC and AP announce a Navy report which reflects minimal Y2k utility disruptions for most of the nations cities. "Report agrees with previous White House Y2k position statements".

Scenerio 2 - ABC and AP announce a Navy report which reflects major Y2k utility dispruptions for many of the nations cities. "Report disagrees with previous White House Y2k position statements". ________

The bottom line is MOST governments, businesses and corporations started inventory, etc. in the past two years. THERE IS NO WAY POSSIBLE FOR IT ALL TO BE FIXED IN TIME.

It's very hard for the "doomers" to believe the happy news, especially when lies and helf-truths are standard in the "legal" industry.

PS: I realize that the spinmasters are reading these postings and trying hard to create bigger bluffs, smarter spins. Personally, it is smart to ignore both sides and prepare for 6 months minimum. The banking/stock market problem is a no-brainer. The October surprise should NOT be a suprise to anyone!

-- dw (y2k@outhere.com), August 22, 1999.

Interesting answers all. Thanks

-- CD (not@here.com), August 22, 1999.

Great question. I call it the death of critical thinking in America. At some point when we (the collective masses) ceased reading and switched to TV watching, we stopped thinking. Video media moves at such a rapid pace, that it does not normally allow for critical thought. Reading does. Eventually, the print media, who had lost huge market share to TV began to adopt a more TV like stance (ex: NY Times adopts color print, WSJ adopts color) . Now TV has lost huge marketshare to the internet and is subsequently dumbing itself down to meet that criteria (witness MSNBC). One need only watch one broadcast of Brian Williams during a "crisis" to realize we're in real trouble when it comes to critical thought.

The answer is, you must decide what to believe or not. But think it through first. The only thing not to doubt is doubt itself (and you could probably doubt that too).

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), August 22, 1999.

I simply do not trust the media to tell me the truth about much of anything. What makes me suspect Y2K spin? The publication of glossy feel-good stories about readiness and "we'll be OK"...etc, ad nauseum. There is a pervasive undercurrent of micromanagement of the news. We NEVER hear or see proof that verifies all the good news. It is almost like the public is being told what it wants to hear rather than what it NEEDS to hear. I can't offer anything to verify my position, but I am certainly entitled to my reasonable doubts, of which I have many. In my opinion, Y2K is one of those issues where we the people have a dire need to know WHY as well as WHAT. One last point on this issue...remember the loser in the White House and his unholy alliance with misinformation, sex, lies and spin.

-- Irving (Irving@privacy.net), August 22, 1999.

Anyone who has been watching network news for the last 10 years or more will agree that, regardless of the administration--Republican or Democrat--the reporting is exactly the same on all three major networks. The same top three stories are featured with the same conclusions. The same filmed footage is used--I mean, identical. THe half-hour evening news offers seven to 10 minutes of news and about 12 minutes of features--some of which are provided by entities trying to influence the public (such as a drug comopany). The rest is advertising. How are people supposed to know anything about current events other than the surface?

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

CD,

I'll say this very slowly, so you don't miss it. If it agrees with me, it's truth. If it doesn't agree with me, it's spin. C'mon, man, where you been. Catch a clue...

But seriously, I think there's a couple of things at work here. One is DW's statement of, "It can't all be fixed in time." I don't pretend to know how true that statement is. I've heard people, who claim to be experts, say that statement is absolute truth, and I've heard people, who claim to be experts, claim it's cow flop. The conventional wisdom around here, however, is that it is true. Hence, any statement to the contrary carries the burden of proof.

The other is Irving's statement of, "I don't trust the media". The advent of 24-hour cable news channels has really only meant a daily increase of our dosage of "Infotainment". There are 4 major cable news channels: The two CNN's, MSNBC, and Fox, yet with all of that. It's usually just the same story, being beat to death, over and over again. Very little in the way of in-depth analysis. Most of what masquerades as in-depth analysis is usually just an opportunity for someone to put their own spin on a story. And it's not just the gov't putting on the spin, John Q Public, or at least people who claim to speak for J. P. Public, gets a go at it, too (family members of victims and outraged parents, are a favorite, here). It's one big Jerry Springer Show, without the chair throwing. For me, cynicism about the media comes from one main place. "The Media" is a business, plain and simple. The purpose of any business is to make money. Their collective concern is less about protecting our rights or, as some would state, trampling our rights, than it is about watching the bottom line. If a truth makes them richer, they'll tell it - If a truth makes them poorer, they'll bury it. They are not gov't shills, but rather the shills of their boards of directors. Those boards may have people o them, who stand to loose if certain truths get out, or are given too much emphasis. Welcome, citizen, to the dark underbelly of capitalism.

I don't believe they always lie, that would be bad for business. They have to tell the truth often enough to maintain some shred of credibility. But if someone's quarterly profits are affected, watch out.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 22, 1999.

Sometimes it *could* be attributed to editor directed focus. Or lack of it, from the upper levels.

At other times, could be plain old shrinking budgets and a lack of top management support for real investigative journalism. Ad revenue and ratings, are a more important priority, I suspect.

As Researcher indicated down on...

Network News Researcher Trying to Make a Difference

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Fpn

[snip]

I often pitch stories to my superiors, and if they ever get approved, give the correspondent the pertinent research. I give them the best experts (like Yourdon, Yardeni and others), a list of detailed investigative questions to ask government agencies and big businesses, and summariaries of GAO/Congressional/and Independent remediation reports. I present all of this research to the correspondent and producer in plain english - so their non-computer backgrounds won't hinder the story. I do everything I can to make sure we do a responsible story on y2k.

However, I have been greatly dismayed by the stories we actually air. I don't know if it's just the nature of the television new business- We do most stories on the day of air and the financial "bottom line" is very important - Time is money and correspondents here are now trained to do every story in the fastest, cheapest way possible - Or if it's the fact that we are owned by a major corperation that keeps us from doing good y2k stories. But all the blame can't be put on the media's shoulders.

[snip]

Perhaps a little of both? Its not always an either/or world. Shades of grey.

BTW, Researcher DOES appear to be from one of the top three evening news stations. Youd recognize Researchers national news anchor each evening on your TV.

Now... if you want to discuss "SPIN" have a "chat" or "Community Conversation" with Koskinen's P.R. team...

The Rendon Group...

http://www.rendon.com/

See also thread...

Check out the Navy's Virtual Community Conversation on 6/15, and a look at who created the .gov Community Conversation series.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 00106v

They make spinning, on the world stage, look like whirling dervishes!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 22, 1999.

< Event 2: ABC and AP (along with the NY Times, the post) acknowledge a Navy report which reflects major Y2k utility dispruptions for many of the nations cities. "Report disagrees with previous White House Y2k position statements", >>

Event 3: (12 hours later, after White House has decided on its version of the story) CNN, CBS, NYTimes, LA Times, ABC, NBC, .... all uniformly report that the "pentagon papers" are a product of the right-wing conspiracy that is based on old data and is intended to spread fear and panic...

Event 4: NYTimes dredges up same reprto and event 3, adds story of one city who has one manager affer rebuttal: no other information cited,b ut all White House hype is repeated and emphasized.

Event 5: (24 hours later) Pentagon re-issues database.

Event 6: .....but no utility (prior to the White House's spin) had ever said it was ready.......and none have since then.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 22, 1999.

There is so much pain to this question of media spin. We have caught on to the fact that the world has become way too complex to control it all, and are faced with an unchangeable deadline in 1/1/2000. This realization is enormously painful, especially when we consider the ramifications of human suffering, death and destruction of at least part of our familiar and comfortable lives.

A lot of very angry people are lashing out at "them"- the media, government, business, lawyers etc. etc. Frankly, I think a lot of us are almost on information overload, too. It just hurts too much to see clueless denial, or lying, or spinning, or shoddy reporting.

thats the emotional surge underlying our discontent with the media.

-- seraphima (seraphima@aol.com), August 22, 1999.