If it is this bad, why is the media totally ingnoring it?

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

Thank you for your comments to my earlier question. If there is the potential for a scenario somewhere between 8 and 10, why the media black-out? Is it conceivable that there are absolutely NO reporters (not one!) there is investigating this below the surface?

I find it incredible to consider these desaster scenarios and then to flip on the evening news and listen to the same old, blah, blah, blah. I feel like I am living in the twilight zone.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), November 11, 1999


Welcome to the club.

Just 'dig in' and keep on Prepping. Its all we can do. As far as the media. Just think of the "..I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski!" The media ate it up and sided with the Pig until there was conclusive evidence that couldn't be denied. Face it. The media is controlled. The first amendment is damned near dead. Keep prepping and save yourself. Best of Luck

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan@Yahoo.com), November 11, 1999.

I'm sure there are many reporters who would like to report about issues surrounding the swirling vortex of Y2K....but I bet their reports are spiked before publication by the media wigs. It is also possible that Y2K is not PC and not reported as it probably should be.

-- loveitinthecountry (marshall2@iname.com), November 11, 1999.

I think for reporters to truly GI, they have to spend an awful lot of time on the issue, which few can afford to, and are not being paid to, do. In many ways Y2k is an issue that you either immediately get or don't get. Others here have talked about the issue of imagination: if you have a good imagination, you can envision how the whole thing works; if you don't, you have a harder time. Yes, you are in the twilight zone, along with the rest of us. If you have a job, a real life and on top of that do serious Y2k research, you're probably not getting 8 hours of sleep a night. I haven't lost any sleep over worrying about Y2k, but I have lost it from reading about it. Oh, the sleep I've lost to Y2k!! I wish I could get it back. If you find a reporter who's lost as much sleep to Y2k as GIs generally have, then you'll find a reporter who will address the issue with the gravity it deserves.

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), November 11, 1999.

If it isn't about Klinton's dong, it ain't news.

-- (I'm@here.com), November 11, 1999.

We must be under a special emergency rule and have been for about one year now.

No other explanation works.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 11, 1999.

It is pretty obvious that they have been instruced to be very careful in what they say. Only a very few reports have had any seriousness or depth to any degree--such as an old Vanity Fair article and some 60 Minutes coverage.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), November 12, 1999.

.....The "media" has been taken over by the global elite since before the advent of television. I don't apologize for stating the facts, and if you are unaware of these facts, you simply need to do more homework. Even our "beloved" Walter Cronkite was simply a whore to the elite who prostituted his soul to perpetuate the lies from the globalists, (we used to call them communists).

.....I've stated on this forum before that if you don't recognize the "leadership" of this country as "communistiic" then you don't know what the term means. There is a reason for this as well... in 1954 we gave them our educational system's curriculum and you've been educated right on past your intelligence. I know most of you will just shake your head or worse yet, laugh about what I'm saying, that's okay, you will only be showing your ignorance - not mine. I've done the extensive political study to know from whence I speak. You were probably busy watching sports or some such silliness.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 12, 1999.

Repeating myself, it's the money. The singular scare preventing honesty is that the first thing John Q would do, if frightened, is run to the bank. To paraphrase my favorite Cajun, *it's the money stupid*. My dark side muses that after rollover accounts could be conviently frozen blaming those stupid furriners for screwing up our world's economy because THEY didn't prepare. Gnite.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), November 12, 1999.

Geeze Patrick, talk down to us once in awhile. That there's only interested, involved people here shouldn't slow you down.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), November 12, 1999.

On a less conspiritorial note -

Y2K is not a high priority news item for a few reasons.

1) Both reporters and the people who watch television are often not terribly bright. They are not willing to spend much time exploring issues in depth. "IRS has y2k troubles? Good I won't have to pay." No consideration on the effects if the government not able to collect revenue.

2) Y2K tends to make people very nervous. Its implications are extremely alarming. So most people don't like to think about it or hear about it. Something deep inside their subconcious makes them think that if they ignore it, it will just go away.

3) There are no stunning visuals. Nothing is on fire (yet), nobody has died (yet). So its all very abstract to most people. Just numbers on a computer screen.

4) There is very little incentive for a reporter to investigate this issue below the surface. First, its an incredible amount of work to sift through the contradictory reports and the spin. Second, modern journalistic practices demand that you present two sides to every story. So, Kosky has a chance to spin every issue that is brought up. Third, once the story is completed an editor may not allow it to be aired because it would a) anger a key advertiser b) is too doomish. Fourth, if there is public panic but BITR, you may be directly blamed for causing the panic. Fifth, if you are right about TEOTWAWKI, no one will pat you on the back for being right.

-- John Ainsworth (ainsje00@wfu.edu), November 12, 1999.


There have been a couple of national conferences regarding "How the Media should Present Y2K". There was a link just a few days ago too a website that outlined how they should proceed. The main thrust of both were to depict Y2k in such a way as to not create a "panic".

Link anyone?

-- massmediaisownedbyafew (karlacalif@aol.com), November 12, 1999.

Or maybe they do investigate and find that there is no evidence to back up the belief that it will be an 8 or a 10.

That is a real possibility.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), November 12, 1999.

A recent CBS Evening News segment on Y2K:



Places people are worried about are:

"There's so many links in our global supply chains that all it takes is a few weak links to cause problems," says Ed Yardeni, chief economist at Deutsche Bank.


"Y2K: The Press and Preventing Panic":



"Feds Plan Y2K Spin Control":

http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/17527.html?wnpg =all

Then, after all that, take a look at this article:



(Published Sept. 27, 1999) WASHINGTON -- In one respect, the man responsible for preventing a Y2K debacle in this country may have done his job altogether too well. Less than two years ago, John Koskinen, head of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, was having trouble convincing anyone that a computer glitch could become a national disaster at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, 2000. Now, after governments and businesses spent billions of dollars on software and hardware fixes, Koskinen once again is worried that Americans are too complacent about the Y2K threat. "We can't surprise people," Koskinen said. "There are going to be Y2K failures on New Year's Day." The fact that Americans are once again shrugging off the Y2K menace reflects how much progress has been made during the last year. To a remarkable degree, industry experts now concur that any Y2K failures will be more nuisance than catastrophe as the new millennium begins.


-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 12, 1999.

"Coveri ng Y2k"

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), November 12, 1999.

Due to dissimilar education(s), training and experience(s), for what ever reason, a majority of humans display symptoms of selective [Y2K] acuity and myopia. One can only wonder, if we as a species, dinosaurs had similar discussions surrounding their dark cloud on the horizon?

-- nmi (bbccp@prodigy.net), November 12, 1999.

Every phone station in our statewide newspaper office and the AP cubicles has a little list beside it:

black helicopters UN surveilance for one-world order y2k anybody speaking in a whisper


Staff are instructed to disregard any calls involving such items.

I called once and asked why certain y2k issues weren't being investigated and the woman talked about ten minutes with me. I was trying to get her to see that failure to get welfare payments through would not be a glitch. So finally she says, "Well, I'n not one to panic. . . " And I said, "That's me, too." And she said, "That's not what I'm hearing. . . "

WHAT A REPORTER!! She was running everything I said through her predisposition filter labeled "Y2K" !!

I saw her later at a friend's party. I knew who she was but she didn't know I was The Y2K Caller. I had a few snickers over that one.

-- Becky (rmbolte@wvadventures.net), November 12, 1999.

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

It's not good for ad sales and subscription renewals.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 12, 1999.

they were told to say nothing probably. according the the McIlvaney (or whatever) Intelligence report, the journalist said that two years ago the White House made the decision that NOTHING would be said to the american public that might cause any chance of panic. IDIOTS.

-- tt (cuddluppy@yahoo.com), November 12, 1999.

The Know-Nothing Media

Newscasts' reporting on decline, study says

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), November 12, 1999.

See also Singing The Praises Of Government News and Lost in the Kosovo numbers game.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), November 12, 1999.

Thousands and thousands of reporters. Of course many are GIs but they don't get to pick what is printed. Thousands of reporters. How many owners.

I've also read that it is a federal crime to incite (maybe even just to encourage) a bank run. How many reporters have been told that ANY "Y2K could be a problem" story would be encouraging people to panic resulting in bank runs. How many reporters would want to risk jail to get out a story.

Not to say any of this has happened. Just looking for possible explanations

-- thomas thatcher (jabawaki@erols.com), November 12, 1999.

While I understand the attitude toward the media I must say there are some of us who are and have been covering Y2K. Since January I have been writing a weekly series which outlines much of what has been out there on the subject. The purpose of the series has been to enlighten, educate and hopefully encourage preparation. In my articles I've used material publicized nationally and brought the issues to the local level. I've put thousands of hours researching, reviewing and interviewing in order to put this series out. Give some of us a break. Unfortunately our society has come to think government is the wherewithall and protector of society. My purpose in educating on the issue of Y2K is to make people come to realize that they need to prepare individually because government won't be there for you. And that has been confirmed numerous times.

-- J. Blair (jeb@midmon.com), November 12, 1999.

  Dec 9-13, 1998 Mar 5-7, 1999 Aug 25-29, 1999
  % "likely" % "likely" % "likely"
Banking/accounting will fail 63 55 48
Air traffic control will fail 46 43 35
Food/retail distribution will fail 37 40 35
Emergency/ "911" will fail 36 32 27
Hospital equipment/services will fail 33 32 22
Nuclear power/defense systems will fail 30 27 18
Passenger cars/trucks will fail 17 -- 12

-- here's the short answer (lisa@work.now), November 12, 1999.

As it was put by a columnist in Sundays paper" A story will always be newsworthy if---make that "when"--a Y2K glitch causes serious difficulties, or at least serious inconveniences, especially if it affect Eastern Iowans. If a company doesn't get its pension checks issued, or if power goes off somewhere, thoese of us who are in the business of bringing you news will tell you about it, because its news". Go figure..

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), November 12, 1999.

Patrick, as a former John Bircher, I know exactly what research you've been doing. Do what I did, get professional help, and drop the communist (now "globalist") paranoia. It's a bunch of crap, for small minds mad about loss of control. It is not about reason and never will be. And yes, we're laughing at you.

-- T. (hearditallbefore@aot.com), November 12, 1999.

I've done the extensive political study to know from whence I speak. You were probably busy watching sports or some such silliness. -- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 12, 1999. Where are the nomination forms for that "full of theirselfs" thread?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 12, 1999.

I believe almost every answer has some truth. My spin is that early attempts at creating the story -- aka TWO serious 60 Minutes exposee's -- fell flat. I am convinced the reporters (as well as the terrorists and hackers) are locking and loading for some serious activity in the next couple of months. Whether the fund managers have their fingers over the red button is still in question. I have never been so confident in my opinions in the face of such overwhelming opposition - - the whole world IS nuts in this particular case.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), November 12, 1999.

Y2k is not sexy. The only sexy story to come out of Y2k so far is those cute survivalists off in the woods with their guns and gold and groceries. Not only does it have alliteration, but guns always draw readers, and any fringe cult wacko group is safe to laugh at.

What more could you ask - humor, drama, and a safe distance.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), November 12, 1999.

If reporters were interested in technical matters, they probably wouldn't be reporters in the first place. Y2k is difficult to understand even for those of us who have some technical background and spend a lot of time reading about it. I still don't know what to beleive concerning the embedded systems issue. It is easier for the reporters to quote government officials and stock brokerage employees. Sometimes they include a quote by someone like Yardeni to give an opposing point of view.

-- Danny (dcox@ix.netcom.com), November 12, 1999.


.....Not a Bircher, never was. They are part of the deception as well, (leading you down the "controlled opposition" road). I'm not paranoid either, but getting "professional help" as you suggest, would be a reliance on the false science of psychology, (ever heard of psychological warfare?). And tou can laugh all you want, you don't phase me.


.....Never mind.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 12, 1999.

Patrick, as a former John Bircher, I know exactly what research you've been doing. Do what I did, get professional help, and drop the communist (now "globalist") paranoia. It's a bunch of crap, for small minds mad about loss of control. It is not about reason and never will be. And yes, we're laughing at you.

-- T. (hearditallbefore@aot.com), November 12, 1999.


.....Your answer sounds strikingly similar to the standard answer given by those that wish to publically discredit those that are aware of the fate our country has suffered. The truth is still the truth. Do you post anonymously because you're a "change agent" or because you're ashamed that you had to seek "counseling?"

.....BTW - Prior to my research, I had never even heard of the John Birch Society. They do reveal some of the truth, but they even say that y2k is nothing to be conceerned about. Time will tell, and it won't be long now.


.....On second thought, perhaps a response is in order.

I've done the extensive political study to know from whence I speak. You were probably busy watching sports or some such silliness. -- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 12, 1999. "Where are the nomination forms for that "full of theirselfs" thread?"

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 12, 1999.

.....that coming from the only poster on board that attaches a picture of herself to every post. (I believe you meant "themselves.")

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 12, 1999.

Interestingly enough, the media themselves have often reported that this story has been covered to death, and everyone is sick of it. That's hardly "ignoring" it.

I think what you're really trying to ask is, Why haven't the media understood what us "Get It's" understand, and sounded a klaxon warning loud, clear and often? And the suggested answers are that they're lazy, they're stupid, they're controlled by evil forces, they're incompetent, etc. I suppose it's futile to suggest the possibility that they actually looked into this, found that it wasn't much, and went on to more important things. If the problem were as pervasive and severe as those here claim, the media would have no shortage of sources, and they'd be covering it like a blanket. When you can't provide anything more substantive than paranoid speculations based on dogmatic conviction, the media lose interest real fast.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 12, 1999.


.....Hey "T"! How come no reply? Have to check with your shrink to know what to say or think? Come out and play, sissy.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 12, 1999.


When the US Senate says global economic problems are likely, when the US State Department says every country, every sector will have problems, etc. etc. ad nauseum, does this qualify, in your mind, as "paranoid speculations based on dogmatic conviction"?

Your usually quasi-reasonable and for-the-most-part intelligent arguments often degenerate into nonsensical and inflammatory statements. Small wonder you get the amount of abuse you get here.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), November 13, 1999.

Patrick: Ahahahaha Touchi! The word "theirselfs" is an unfortunate embarassing typo. However, you probably wouldn't be impressed by what I really meant to type, "...full of theirself". Maybe one does have to be full of theirself to presume to use nonstandard language. Oh, well...

-- Dancr (
addy.available@my.webpage), November 13, 1999.


I think you're missing a sense of perspective here, or else you have fallen into the error of thinking that all problems are the same. At one extreme, you should realize that everyone is *always* having "problems." That's life. You should realize that because of this, politicians can speak in generalities and can't lose. At the other extreme, problems can be so severe that (as has been speculated here) half the world's population will die within a year!

Now, where on that spectrum is the Senate addressing? Conveniently enough, they don't say. So if we want to know how bad these problems will be, *recognizing* the huge range the word 'problem' can be applied to, then we have to try to figure it out ourselves.

And I think that if the 'problems' fall toward the severe extreme, they'd already be felt with a vengeance. They aren't. If the problems were as serious as many here believe, they'd have to be very strange problems indeed to be so very well hidden. You'd need to speculate that despite the many millions of people who have been working on them (and the hundreds of billions spent), their actual magnitude remains a mystery to all but a tiny group of people most of whom aren't even working on the problem, and most of whom seem inordinately willing to swallow conspiracy theories to explain why reality is not ratifying their convictions. Fat chance.

The media (IMO) probably feel that we'll see more computer glitches, some of them newsworthy. They'll report those. These glitches will be addressed, some of them more quickly and satisfactorily than others, and life will go on.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 13, 1999.


.....You seem like a sweet person, and I certainly don't wish to have any enemies. Suffice it to say that I'm a "nonstandard" person. We'll all have to be such in the very near future, I believe...

.....I do indeed understand now that I've followed your link. No offense intended, and none taken. ok?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), November 16, 1999.

np :>

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 16, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ