For Flint

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

Kerry Brock: Director of Broadcasting, Media Studies Center The Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/052599/brock.html May 25, 1999

Y2K is a unique tale playing itself out on the landscape of American journalism as part concern and part cartoon. And as you said, Senator Bennett, "How do we strike a balance between Paul Revere and Chicken Little?" In recent months my organization, the Media Studies Center, has heard from hundreds of journalists who are looking for the proper voice in which to tell this story. In the words of a reporter from the San Jose Mercury News, right now journalists on this beat are forced into guessing.

Many news organizations are not digging into the technical vulnerabilities of their towns, cities, and states. In part, because of a lack of leadership from the federal government. Not only a lack of leadership, but also a lack of consensus within government entities charged with gathering these facts.

The governments' own Y2K Czar, John Koskinen, advises journalists to continually drive toward the facts. Though it seems obvious to journalists in the know, Mr. Koskinen seems to avoid facts. Always in a calm and low key presentation, he tells us the power industry nationally has done well but he's concerned about local power companies. He thinks the national telephone systems will work but he is concerned about the 1400 small telephone companies. He indicates we should not worry but we should worry.

These are not facts, but public valium, and the news media as a whole is not picking up on it. As Jeff Gralnick of CNN told us "journalists are drowning in a sea of conflicting information."

In the absence of consistent facts, government proclamations that are not stories become stories. Consider these headlines; "FAA head books flight for New Year's," "Y2K Czar Sees Serene January 1," "Don't Panic Over Y2K, Senators Say."

Then, journalists find conflicting information in the government's own Y2K websites. For starters, this Senate committee's web site offers a clear link to Mr. Koskinen's Y2K. gov website but Mr Koskinen's buries its link back to the Senate's. Why? Is there a difference of opinion between the two?

Senator Dodd, you state: "The world oil supply faces a series of Y2K risks from the well in the ground to the gas station in your neighborhood." Mr. Koskinen says, " Although there may be some minor disruptions .... the industries are confident ... that the supply of natural gas and petroleum...products (will be) uninterrupted."

This committee cites a GAO survey that raises major concern over the readiness of America's water utilities. On the other hand, Mr Koskinen reports cautious optimism that water utility services will continue uninterrupted by Y2K issues. Journalists are not getting a clear and consistent message . Marsha Stepanek of Business Week magazine says "this story takes commitment and manpower" and Senators, you need to explain why news organization should give it both.

A few journalists have been assigned the Y2K beat and they get it; they understand this issue is not black and white - it cannot be polarized. Long ago they abandoned the plane-falling-out-of-the sky-analogies in their reporting. These are the reporters looking every day for hard information. Journalists want you to admit what you don't know and admit why that worries you. Then they can explain to the public how the lack of information might signal problems. And they can report how the government suggests we prepare to cope with potential problems.

Unfortunately, journalists on this beat tell us they now find information that looks suspiciously like a cover up. ABC correspondent, James Walker, found the following instructions on an electric utilities website regarding a Y2K drill.

"Do not make the drill too complex. We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication." Then there is the rest of the news media, reporters doing stories every day on health, finance, religion, politics, media, the arts, entertainment, news, weather and sports. There is a potential Y2K issue in each of these areas and more. Help journalists understand that it is not just a technology story and help them explain that to the rest of America.

It is important to recognize that there are individual examples of fine Y2K coverage every day and local news organizations taking it upon themselves to make preparedness suggestions. News reports in Miami tell residents to prepare as if for a hurricane, in San Francisco as if an earthquake, in Oklahoma as if a tornado. But it remains a patchwork of reporting that has not formed a nationwide mosaic of understanding.

Big companies are admitting in increasing numbers that they won't be ready in time. Perhaps the government could convene a summit that brings captains of industry together to explain to journalists how system breakdowns in the private sector might affect the public. Through the news media you could instantly attach honesty, leadership, public understanding and perhaps calm, supplanting the current environment of ignorance, confusion and in some cases, panic.

Y2K is not a hurricane earthquake or tornado: this is an expected event. If Y2K failures are a fraction of what the government believes they might be, in the post- millennium blame game, journalists will haunt the people responsible for duplicity.

-- a (a@a.a), June 21, 1999

Answers

Proactive Public Perception Management = SPIN.

Y2K will be whatever it becomes with or without a PANIC.

Today, at this time, the priority is to avoid over reaction because a PANIC fuels a self fulfilling prophecy. Look for the .gov to become more forthcoming after September G8 contingency planning summit.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), June 21, 1999.


So last week, the Newsy calls FBI Public Affairs in Dee Cee and inquires, "I understand that from December 15, 1999, until sometime in January, 2000, all FBI agents will be on call and all leave is cancelled because of Y2K. The Public Affairs officer asks, "Who told you that? We don't comment on internal FBI communications."

Ok all you very special agents, remember your kinesic and Reid interview techniques from FLETC and Quantico? What did the Public Affairs Office just admit?

12,000 FBI agents called out for a seventy-two hour storm? This has never happened in FBI history.

The emperor wears no clothes.

Deo Vindice,

BR

PS What about the IRS-CID y2k teams in Utah and Montana, attemptimg to stem bank runs?

-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), June 21, 1999.


You want to know why police and Federal agents aren't going to be partying come New Years? That is not a secret, and has been discussed here a bunch of times...this one was the scariest, as far as I was concerned.

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

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.


I should have added that the scary part starts about halfway down the thread.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 21, 1999.

And some of the FBI agents said "I thought it (y2k) was fixed!"

Who will look after my family?

-- brother rat (rldabney@usa.net), June 21, 1999.



[OK, 'a', it's late and I'm tired, but I'll take a crack at it]

Y2K is a unique tale playing itself out on the landscape of American journalism as part concern and part cartoon. And as you said, Senator Bennett, "How do we strike a balance between Paul Revere and Chicken Little?" In recent months my organization, the Media Studies Center, has heard from hundreds of journalists who are looking for the proper voice in which to tell this story. In the words of a reporter from the San Jose Mercury News, right now journalists on this beat are forced into guessing.

[OK, our interpedid investigative journalists have three choices here. They can guess, or they can investigate, or they can wait for the government to *tell* them what to write. So they guess, it's easiest right now.]

Many news organizations are not digging into the technical vulnerabilities of their towns, cities, and states. In part, because of a lack of leadership from the federal government. Not only a lack of leadership, but also a lack of consensus within government entities charged with gathering these facts.

[Gee, the government isn't telling us what to say. People within government don't even agree on what it all means. Golly, we don't know *what* to think. Please tell us, pretty please?]

The governments' own Y2K Czar, John Koskinen, advises journalists to continually drive toward the facts.

[Not fair! He wants us to do WORK! Hey, that's not how we do things in the media. Just *tell* us the facts, any facts, we'll be glad to print them. We have deadlines, and families, and too much work for too little pay. We can't *do* hard stuff.]

Though it seems obvious to journalists in the know, Mr. Koskinen seems to avoid facts.

[Koskinen, like all the rest of us, has *too many* facts. And they don't dovetail well at all. Bummer.]

Always in a calm and low key presentation, he tells us the power industry nationally has done well but he's concerned about local power companies. He thinks the national telephone systems will work but he is concerned about the 1400 small telephone companies. He indicates we should not worry but we should worry.

[Ain't it the truth. Us journalists don't know, Koskinen doesn't know, nobody knows. What a lousy story. And it's all the *government's* fault. It's not our fault. Please, won't you tell us what to say?]

These are not facts, but public valium, and the news media as a whole is not picking up on it. As Jeff Gralnick of CNN told us "journalists are drowning in a sea of conflicting information."

[Absolutely true. Nor will this ever change. It's a mess. Normal journalism techniques don't apply. Ignoring it doesn't work either. The harder we look, the confuseder we get. And Koskinen is drowning in that same sea.]

In the absence of consistent facts, government proclamations that are not stories become stories. Consider these headlines; "FAA head books flight for New Year's," "Y2K Czar Sees Serene January 1," "Don't Panic Over Y2K, Senators Say."

[Any sound bite in a storm, right? Get used to it, there just aren't going to *be* any consistent facts.]

Then, journalists find conflicting information in the government's own Y2K websites.

[Another conundrum. A whole lot of blind men, and a damn complicated elephant. Hey, feed us a consistent story. We don't care about right, we just don't want to look stupid. Where's the leadership around here?]

For starters, this Senate committee's web site offers a clear link to Mr. Koskinen's Y2K. gov website but Mr Koskinen's buries its link back to the Senate's. Why? Is there a difference of opinion between the two?

[Yes. Of course. And doubtless a disagreement between whoever created the website and whoever told him to do it. Agreement is a chimera.]

Senator Dodd, you state: "The world oil supply faces a series of Y2K risks from the well in the ground to the gas station in your neighborhood." Mr. Koskinen says, " Although there may be some minor disruptions .... the industries are confident ... that the supply of natural gas and petroleum...products (will be) uninterrupted."

[Basic disconnect, between possibility and probability. Our readers are too dumb to make this subtle distinction. We don't want to hear that there's a risk, but we don't know how large. We want FACTS (preferably quotable and in less than 15 seconds, of course).]

This committee cites a GAO survey that raises major concern over the readiness of America's water utilities. On the other hand, Mr Koskinen reports cautious optimism that water utility services will continue uninterrupted by Y2K issues. Journalists are not getting a clear and consistent message .

[Because there isn't one. Concerns are just as cheap as reassurances. The government is doing all it can to say they don't know without actually admitting ignorance]

Marsha Stepanek of Business Week magazine says "this story takes commitment and manpower" and Senators, you need to explain why news organization should give it both.

[Leadership! That's the ticket. You want us to spend money because you're clueless? Why should we, when nobody's listening? Just make some pronouncements using taxpayer dollars, create an issue, whatever. Then we can cover it cheap. We're just investigative journalists, we can't waste money on investigation until you make it profitable. Start leading, dammit.]

A few journalists have been assigned the Y2K beat and they get it; they understand this issue is not black and white - it cannot be polarized.

[Fancy that]

Long ago they abandoned the plane-falling-out-of-the sky-analogies in their reporting. These are the reporters looking every day for hard information. Journalists want you to admit what you don't know and admit why that worries you.

[Journalists want to you to cover their butts and do their legwork. Cheaper that way.]

Then they can explain to the public how the lack of information might signal problems. And they can report how the government suggests we prepare to cope with potential problems.

[Like we said before, just tell us what to write, we'll do it. We'll report whatever the government suggests]

Unfortunately, journalists on this beat tell us they now find information that looks suspiciously like a cover up.

[If you won't tell us what to write, we'll threaten you]

ABC correspondent, James Walker, found the following instructions on an electric utilities website regarding a Y2K drill.

[Drill, not test. Remember this.]

"Do not make the drill too complex. We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication."

[Debunked long since. Oh well.]

Then there is the rest of the news media, reporters doing stories every day on health, finance, religion, politics, media, the arts, entertainment, news, weather and sports. There is a potential Y2K issue in each of these areas and more. Help journalists understand that it is not just a technology story and help them explain that to the rest of America.

[Dammit, why? Can't journalists understand *anything* without the government telling them what it means? What incredible whining!]

It is important to recognize that there are individual examples of fine Y2K coverage every day and local news organizations taking it upon themselves to make preparedness suggestions.

[But it's not *our* fault. We're doing a great job as always. Right]

News reports in Miami tell residents to prepare as if for a hurricane, in San Francisco as if an earthquake, in Oklahoma as if a tornado. But it remains a patchwork of reporting that has not formed a nationwide mosaic of understanding.

[That's never going to change]

Big companies are admitting in increasing numbers that they won't be ready in time.

[Translation: At that time, Chevron had said that they'd found that some noncompliances weren't worth the trouble to fix.]

Perhaps the government could convene a summit that brings captains of industry together to explain to journalists how system breakdowns in the private sector might affect the public.

[And perhaps journalists could figure this out for themselves? Nahhh]

Through the news media you could instantly attach honesty, leadership, public understanding and perhaps calm, supplanting the current environment of ignorance, confusion and in some cases, panic.

[You want to pacify the public? Just tell us how, we'll do it. You want to start a panic? We'll do it. You want the public to understand? Tell us what the understanding is, and we'll print it. But tell us, dammit.]

Y2K is not a hurricane earthquake or tornado: this is an expected event. If Y2K failures are a fraction of what the government believes they might be, in the post- millennium blame game, journalists will haunt the people responsible for duplicity.

[And ending with a Big threat -- if you won't tell us what to say, we'll blame YOU. Figuring it out for ourselves is too hard and costs too much. So it's all your fault. Why don't you hire a PR firm and let us get it from them. At least they tell a consistent story and understand how the media work. And we won't stand for reality being messy, contradictory, and ambiguous. Bad story. So we'll accuse you of lying if you don't pick some consistent spin and stick with it]

'a', this is scary. The press is trying to kiss the government's ass, and the government can't tell its ass from its elbow. So the press is kissing at random, and resents it. It's an ugly picture, for sure.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 21, 1999.


"Many news organizations are not digging into the technical vulnerabilities of their towns, cities, and states. In part, because of a lack of leadership from the federal government. Not only a lack of leadership, but also a lack of consensus within government entities charged with gathering these facts."

Since WHEN does "...lack of leadership..." in the government constitute a reason for the PRESS to not to engage in investigative reporting? Since WHEN does a "...lack of consensus within government..." serve as an excuse for the PRESS to forgo the pursuit of facts?

Since WHEN does the PRESS take their cue from what the government tells them?

My name is an irony,

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), June 22, 1999.


"It's the Economy Stupid". It owns both sectors pointing fingers at each other, the Government and the media. Who will take the first step at telling the truth? Neither. The government plays hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil (with their pockets open). The media are a bunch of broomies who won't risk blowing their incomes from the big corporations and the corporations are left able to say, "no problem here". It's a self-serving system that is about to end the country as we've known it. So why am I even bothering to be up right now? I haven't a clue. There is no hope of learning anything. We're on our own and anybody who can't think fast on their feet about this tangled web they've woven is gonna get left in the dust. Take anybody's word for anything? hahahahahahahah Plan for the worst, hope for the best. Believe me...that's exactly what 'they're' doing tonight. I'm going to bed!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 22, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ