Folks,

I've just uploaded the first-draft version of Chapter 13, which discusses the likelihood of changes in the media in a post-Y2K world.

I know that some of you will be puzzled or confused about the non-sequential nature in which the chapters are being written. There's nothing magic or mysterious about this; it just happens to be one of the privileges of being the author of a book. It's like eating a meal with several different items on the plate: some people start with the meat, and then move on to the potatoes. Others start with the peas and carrots, and then move to the salad. And some start with dessert and work backwards. As long as you've cleaned your plate when you get up from the table, it doesn't matter very much what sequence you followed.

I apologize for not having uploaded much in the past two weeks, or having responded to many of the postings. August was a lousy month -- dealing with a nasty case of walking pneumonia that still hasn't disappeared completely, plus the demands of doing both Y2K-related and non-Y2K-related consulting work to pay the bills. I'm hoping to get back to the manuscript on a more regular basis in the coming days and weeks....

Meanwhile, thanks for all the good threads on this forum. Some VERY interesting and provocative ideas are being discussed, and (thankfully!) very little in the way of distracting flame wars, etc.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), September 04, 1999

Answers

Linda,

I agree with you ... one of the things I've found most disturbing about the government's reaction to Y2K is their perceived need to "manage" the public's reaction to the event. This word has not only been used by our own politicians, but was also a theme in one of the sessions of the United Nations Y2K summit conference that I attended in Dec 1998. And a Y2K conference organized for members of the media in March 1999 listened to John Koskinen and Edward Kelly (from the Fed) tell them how important it was to report the Y2K story in a "responsible" fashion -- with very little doubt as to what they meant by "responsible."

However, I think the overall situation is still somewhat of a shade of gray -- not the pure white of NO censorship, but a long way away from the pure black of TOTAL gov't censorship. From what I understand, the UK government has more power than ours does when it comes to preventing the press from reporting on sensitive topics. Singapore is another good example, and it's reasonable to assume that the media is heavily censored in China, North Korea, etc etc.

Hopefully we'll never reach that point in the U.S., but if we do (as part of the aftermath of a Y2K crisis), I think it's the Internet that's most vulnerable. The government is already annoyed by such things as pornography, public-key encryption of Internet messages, using the Internet for off-shore banking (which evades taxation), and so forth ...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), September 05, 1999.

Thanks for glueing the Egg, Ed. You have a lot of fortitude to pick up the pieces and stitch, paste and reconstruct a shattered world, mentally, and share your thoughts/writing. There are not enough helpful disciplined creative minds giving principled re-empiring attention. In your world the leaders will emerge with visible clothes! But no cover-ups ;^)

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 04, 1999.

In your conclusion you discuss the possibility of gov't censorship - "if the government censors the Internet, then it might as well censor the newspapers, the television broadcasts, and the radio too."

I would argue that to a large extent that is already happening now, and with plans we have seen over the last few months, I have no reason to think it will decrease. You mentioned that major media often has a "Preconceived agenda". We know that media will will often omit or give short shrift to stories that aren't good for ratings, or say something bad about a sponser or whatever. We have also seen a shift from investigative reporting to "press release" reporting - whether it is about Y2K compliance or some political story. "Free press" now seems to mean "Free PR". My gawd, Oprah was SUED for saying she wouldn't eat hamburger anymore! She won.. but just the fact that she was sued says a lot. On any major story (pick your favorite conspiracy) you can see evidence of censorship - the first local stories contain some very *interesting* details and witness accounts that later disappear altogether. Regarding Y2K we have already seen there are plans to gather, organize, and manage news of any Y2K disruptions. Meanwhile repeated surveys show that few people even recognize the Bill of Rights, and most would gladly give up their rights for a *perceived* increase in security. I would like to hope that post-Y2K there will be a return to a more investigative style of journalism, but I have a feeling that in bad times we will see the strong getting stronger, which would mean even tighter controls over mass media (to include the internet). I fear that this time, pre-Y2K, with our access to unlimited information on the internet, is the Golden Age of information. I find it hard to conceive of a level of disruption in which the internet would survive, but Big Brother wouldn't.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 05, 1999.

Ed,

In the following three sentences from chaper 13 you may notice something amiss in the vicinity of the double semicolons (;;) :

But when the dust settles, I doubt that we'll;; any editors going to jail; and I seriously doubt that we'll see any proposals for "media reform" in order to ensure more responsible reporting of future crises.

And those;; us who believed that our newspaper and TV station honored its stated commitment to print "all the news" may be surprised to see how much news they don't report, because they feel it's too controversial, or too difficult to corroborate, or simply of too little interest to their audience.

Many of us are guilty of similar behavior on the Internet: we've programmed our Web browser to bring up a news summary as our "home page," which;; each news headline acting as a hyperlink that we can either "click" or ignore.

Separately, I seem to recall that in surveys of popular opinion about groups within society, that news media critters rank somewhere near politicians, lawyers and such. However, my recollection does not include any source.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 05, 1999.

How can this chapter be accessed? Thanks

Quietly

-- quietly (quietly@preparing.com), September 05, 1999.

Excellent chapter. My own intuition is that neither the government or media will be blamed AT ALL (check that, there will be some ineffectual grumbling about the gov as always). A better question will be, "who will the government and media blame?"

Answer: programmers.

Doesn't that meet the Occam's Razor test? Even MANAGERS will be able to blame programmers (you watch)!

I agree with your comments about the Net. I'd go a bit further: with or without major Y2K impacts, the future of our effective freedom is likely to be fought over free speech across the Net, augmented byt he securing of legitimate rights to encrypted privacy of email, etc. There is an entire career there for any of us who want to lay down on the barricades for the sake of the future.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 05, 1999.

The blame game can be a dangerous game. Whoever might be looking for scapegoats will consider carefully if the finger will point back to them. It's going to be a messy business however it plays out in 2000. But I still have confidence in independent publishers whether they are neighborhood newspapers or web based. Their connection to their community and lack of connection to bigger players still allows for independent opinion and free speech. As long as the internet stays up, I imagine that independent opinion will have some room to move-- even if it is sourced in off-shore isps and previously unknowns like tonga or armenia.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 05, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Quietly: Go to Humpty Dumpty Y2K

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 06, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

In contrast to the GI's who fairly unanimously agree that media coverage of Y2K has been non-existant, the DGI's that I've talked to, down to the last one, all seem to believe that the story has been done to death. In case of a panic or widespread lawlessness, no matter what the cause, whether due to some ill timed prominent gaff, or actual failures, I believe that the media will be blamed for the public reaction. I also think the media know this, and that's why they're not saying "S___!" The internet will end up as the scapegoat. Politicians and older media have every incentive to point in that direction.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 06, 1999.

Dancr...Thank you. got it!

-- queitly (quietly@preparing.com), September 06, 1999.

ed, this is a minor point, but in the introduction to chapter 13, in paragraphs 2 and 3, you somehow lost the "3" on your y2k scale.

btw, about the walking pneumonia. my husband had pneumonia earlier this spring, and did not know it until he had done damage to his arteries from coughing so much. in future, if he gets so much as a sniffle, i will march him off to his doctor for a treatment of ultraviolet blood irradiation. it doesn't take long, and produces marvelous results quickly, with only one treatment, and it's cheap. i would also recommend it highly to you. UBI is well-known by the more holistically inclined MDs and a lot of DOs (osteopaths) use it also. the interesting thing, in my opinion, is that it works great on VIRAL pneumonias too.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), September 07, 1999.