How Does the average reporter not see what we do?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Hey I'm a resonable person, but come on, what is up with the press. The Government says " We are 99.9% compliant for our critical systems." Ok then why should people prepare. If we where told that the chance of a hurricane, or a huge winter storm would MISS us was 99.9% it wouldn't even be reported. There is no story then. We all have a better chance of getting hit by lighting than anything major going wrong with the gov's critical systems. How is it that everyone in government from the national level on down is totally compliant? Hello, not everyone can be ready. The press thinks so though. Every bank, power company, utility, small buisness, ect... all compliant. I have yet to hear of one company stating to the press, " Were not ready, sorry we should have been more prepared". The press just takes thier word that they are ready with no proof. Maybe I'm wrong, and they all are ready. Nobody really knows for sure, but where is the digging for answers by the press. How come none of the real dirt diggers are asking questions? Think about that for awhile. Peace, I'm out, and I really hope They are right and I am wrong this time.
-- chris (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 30, 1999
Well, I will not name the paper for obvious reasons, but I was asked to do a Y2K interview with a large Sunday broadsheet here in the UK. The reported I was speaking to had only started to research Y2K that day - She was a definite OMG ...
They didn't publish the interview as in the end all they wanted was happy face stories ...
-- merville (email@example.com), December 30, 1999.
Ruddy good question. I have thoughts and conjecture, but no concrete "this is it" anwers.
Press are people too, and subject to the same faults as the rest of us, like DENIAL, or GREED, or LAZINESS, or whatever. Do I see a conspiracy here? No. Too hard to make it happen. Do I see manipulation of people? YES. Easy to do when they don't want to be awake and independant...
Just my thoughts.
-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), December 30, 1999.
I'm with you, hope they are right. Unfortunately, my ability to analize and understand what is going on fly's in the face of this conclusion.
If someone had told me that the investigative reporters, and what I believed was an honest interpretation of the facts wouldn't be reported less than a year ago.
I would have challenged them, now I'm somewhat amazed that all, and I mean all, of the public (television, radio, print media. etc. etc.) have not given a warning of some kind, even back-handedly is somewhat amazing. Who would have thunk!!!
-- Michael (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 30, 1999.
I'm a former managing editor of a daily newspaper...quite a while ago...
I've asked myself the same question!! The first, and easy answer is that "it's not the 70's"...when journalists prided themselves on trying to find the truth.
But that's facile, and not a good answer.
The best that I can do is this. The press, like most of the population, is mesmerized by a status quo that has gone on for so long that they can't imagine -- truly -- it ever changing.
Life is good, the market always goes up, they get a raise every year, pump those credit cards, it's up and up and up, always. That's just the way it is! And, of course, this odd little programming bug thing is trivial. The government knows what they're doing, and saying, and anyone who thinks otherwise obviously has a screw loose. Hey, people with a screw loose are good (and easy!) copy!
Sad. I really hope nothing "bad" ever comes to our country, because we have a populace here that lives in a fantasy, that will not, and can not last, y2k aside.
-- joe (email@example.com), December 30, 1999.
I can answer part of your question, but I need to go because "I have other fish to fry," to quote one of my most favorite assignment desk editors.
Y2k would never have hit the mainstream press, unless the mainstream press smelled an "imminent corpse."
A long, long time ago, one of my predecessors in journalism stated, "If a dog bites a man, that is not news. If a man bites a dog, THAT'S NEWS!"
In short, until now, it has all been speculation.
Pretty interesting though, that Rick Cowles is scheduled to be on MSNBC tomorrow, and Peter de Jager was featured on one of the main networks tonight.
Ah, but I ramble....
(A funny aside though--my DH tonight suggested--for the first time--that we should store some water. In fact, he asked, "Do we have water?" Har!)
Blessings to all of you!
-- FM (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 30, 1999.
I asked why Ted Koppel or a magazine show other than 60 Minutes didn't do ths story. Simply because the government asked them not to. I am as sure of that as I am sure that the women in my writing loop decided behind my back that they would not answer my remarks on Y2K. The silence, in both cases, was deafening.
-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 30, 1999.
I just finished watching the press ask the Koskinen puppets questions.
It was unbelievable. Did you hear me?? unbelievable. They would ask a hard question. And the kosky puppets would side step with so much bull Sh@#.
I mean it is sooooooooooooooo obvious. You are watching this-- thinking---"why arent they asking why the stupid NON-ANSWERS and holding them to the fire.
A thought occured to me. The press is Afraid of making waves with this administration and this specific subject. No one has the B@#s to hit hard and not let up.
Because of the way they might look. I still submit its also the way the clinton Administration has intimidated people, and that includes the press.
I'm sure alot of you did not here the story over the summer when the press was invited to the white house for some afternoon open house or such. Well a certain reporter was asking Clinton some embarrasing questions at which point Clinton went up to one of his aids and ask. "Who is this guy"? "Take him off the list"
The reporter was subsequently black listed. Word spreads. What reporter wants to risk his career with this subject. Just be a good doobie and right down the stupid answers to good questions. Its obvious to anyone thats watching!!! At least to anyone with half a brain cell!!!!
-- d..... (email@example.com), December 30, 1999.
Thanks -d...., now THAT makes some sense. I didn't know about that little event.
-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), December 30, 1999.
As a former journalist with 30+ years experience and friends who are currently journalists for the Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Texas Monthly plus several weekly papers. I think I have an answer, of sorts.
1. Y2k is a technical issue and technical issues aren't "sexy". 2. What's going to happen is not news. 3. Most publications are owned by an establishment invested in maintaining the status quo. 4. Somebody had to die or violate the law. 5. Potential Y2K failures are seen by publishers and senior editors as prognostication (horoscopes, prophecy, etc.) They won't go there. 6. Most journalists don't know squat about the computers they use.
I've tried to get the interest of journalists & it was a waste of time. They simply didn't get it. Ask the next newspaper type you see and ask them what they know about embedded chips, BIOS, etc. Most don't even know how to defrag their computers.
Basically, they have failed their job as wacthdogs for the public welfare. Ignorance is their only excuse.
-- Ira Kennedy (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 30, 1999.
Could it be that today there is so much information moving so quickly that the media is "forced" into reporting by press release rather than investigation (sp)?
-- gary (email@example.com), December 30, 1999.
Most modern technology is nothing more than a form of magic to the average user. We have become transfixed by the magician, and never ask, "How'd you do that" because we know the answer will be "Very Well"
-- gary elliott (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 30, 1999.
How do the media really see y2k?
-- (From@the.archives), December 31, 1999.
I was the guest of a talk radio show here in Central Virginia on Monday. I had been on in Oct. 98 and it took them this long, and a third op-ed piece of mine in the local large news daily, to invite me back. Part of my "presentation" was this:
Me: "Who is the federal government's Y2k czar?"
Jocks: "Um, er, uh, er, uh, um." Me: "Come on! You are the media! You don't know this? Why don't you know this?"
Jocks: "Um, er, um, uh, er, um."
Me: "What does NERC stand for?"
Jocks: "Um, er, um, er, um...."
ETc. Even though they have done Y2k stuff before, THEY WERE CLUELESS.
-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), December 31, 1999.
Without a political bias, honest. If there had been anything but a democrat winning the executive branch in '94 the media would have saved instead of sold us out on this one. Sad commentary on both them and us.
-- nopatience (email@example.com), December 31, 1999.