I wrote an email to Larry King (of the Omaha paper in which the State Patrol article was presented), and got back a response. I'll post this below. CYA folks...

My original email:

[snip]

Mr. King:

You and your organization go far to justify the contempt currently felt by the American public toward the "infotainment" industry. Obviously your "paper" qualifies as a National Enquirer-style publication. I hope the editing of the Y2K piece (to REMOVE all references to Y2K) garners national attention. I know several people who have submitted this debacle to various national news services and media outlets, including CBS' 60 Minutes.

I SINCERELY hope you lose your job over this issue. Your decision reflects extreme prejudice and ignorance, two qualities that USED TO BE the DEATH of a journalistic career.

[end snip]

HIS response:

[snip]

Mr. Olson,

I cannot figure out your hostility. Do you know any of the facts on which you are basing your criticism? Have you bothered to ask? Would you like to know? Or do you always act first and determine the facts later, if at all? I trust that you have not been disseminating any incorrect information.

If you would like to engage in some civil discussion on this article, I will attempt to do so. But I will not respond to someone who attacks based on assumptions and/or incorrect information.

[end snip]

...and my reply:

[snip]

Mr. King:

I was the person who first cross-posted your paper's story to the TB2000 BBS, as well as to several others. (For informational purposes only). The original text is below on this thread. I noted when the text of the story was arbitrarily changed later the same day. (*I* was accused of making up "false" wording which included the Y2K statements.

I have also followed the TB2000 board's attempt to garner some form of response from your paper, which FINALLY (DAYS later) oozed forth from your office. I have ALREADY read your "response", and did so prior to sending the email text below. I found your response to be a LAME EXCUSE of the HIGHEST ORDER. *IF* a news outlet is going to change the wording on a PUBLISHED article on so sensitive a subject as Y2K, they have, IMO, a PROFESSIONAL DUTY to note (IN the article) that the wording was changed, and why. Which you did NOT do.

I find your organization's journalistic standards to be HIGHLY questionable, and since YOU took full "credit" for ordering the change, yours as well. I SINCERELY HOPE that this breach of ethics is publicized NATIONWIDE. People in the media who arbitrarily change and/or remove wording on a story should be held accoutable. ("coined phrase", indeed!).

I hope (though I doubt) that you will LEARN something from these events. Rest assured that TENS OF THOUSANDS of people now know of your paper, and your breach of the public trust. Most of these people will no longer believe whatever you may publish. You, sir, have ZERO credibility, and the same goes for your "paper".

I DARE you to publish (front page) an explanation of your actions, along with BOTH versions of the story.

And as for hostility, YOU PEOPLE are responsible for keeping the public informed on the CRITICAL ISSUES of our day. When this responsibility is neglected, YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT I'm hostile. If you want a "calm" discussion of the "issues" involved, I'm willing to do that, AS LONG AS YOUR SUPERVISOR IS INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSION.

[end snip]

Thought some might find this exchange interesting....

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 15, 1999

Answers

Dennis, how long before you implode. You are getting worse and worse each day, you are starting to foam at the mouth. I think we should start taking bets at what day before Y2K that Dennis climbs a bell tower and starts taking out people.

NotAPollyButNotADoomer

-- brian meeks (Worried@thistime.com), July 15, 1999.

Nah... no bell towers in the area... The roof of McDonald's, though...?

Seriously, I'm just getting REALLY sick of all this CONSTANT GODDAM SPIN, LIES, AND STUPIDITY. My biggest pet peeve is incompetence. I can put up with just about anything but INCOMPETENCE. And with each tick of the calendar, I just see more people with their vacant, glassy-eyed stares.... "Y2Wha?"

People's LIVES are potentially at stake, yet they plod along like a cow into the "kill room". *IF* things go sour, these glassy-eyed folks are gonna freak out, and I may have to shoot someone. I'm DESPERATELY hoping against hope that this scenario will NOT occur. I just don't understand.... Guess I gotta layoff the coffee, too... ;^)

I really just want the whole thing to go away. I'd rather have a BOAT.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 15, 1999.

i,m in just a bad mood'yu,s want to know why/cause no one ever tell,s me al thank,s for postin some really helpful thing,s{{ yu,s just mock me and imposter me' )well i have news for yu's JESUS know,s who yu,s are and he isnt happy*

-- i,m mad., (dogs@zianet.com), July 15, 1999.

Dennis, you have reason to be proud for speaking out and telling it like it is. This world (this country) needs even more lke you. Brian, try not to mimic everything you hear.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 15, 1999.

Dennis: It does liitle good to get upset. The media is what the media is. The primary purpose of the media is to sell widgets for their clients. That makes it a tool for those with money to spend. Today, real journalism is all but lost in a sea of corporate-funded professional public relations work. Wherever large amounts of money are at stake, those with a vested interest will be spending money to influence the direction of our culture. Like any other tool, this 'lobbying/PR work' can be used for good or evil purposes. The people who work this industry understand that well though most refuse to see past the end of their next paycheck. Lest I paint with too broad a brush, let me say I've known highly ethical and admirable journalists, PR people, sales people and corporate executives so I know it's not impossible to make a living and still be a decent human. But all too often this is not the case. It takes courage and courage is something sorely lacking in these fields today. Try to keep your spirits up. My mother always used to tell me "Remember son, just outside every silver lining is a dark cloud." She also used to say "It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black." Seriously though, she was very big on "You shall know the tree by the fruit that it produces." (a not-quite-precise Biblical quote). Recognize the media and professional PR work for what it is -- not the illusion it attempts to portray.

Ask John Kessling at Ketchum"

Good luck.

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), July 15, 1999.

I concur with the above, but choose disagree with you in the tone and level of hostility presented.

I can understand it - if nothing else, the FAA's repsonses seem only slight short of negligent - if not criminal - seeing that the people involved the trajic ValueJet crash have been charged with felonies - but I would note a of things here:

you have (as always) three or more audiences to anything said here: You, yourself (of course) - who will be held accountable for what you say, and for its ultimate accuracy. Will you want to read this later, will you be proud of what you wrote later if (when) you show it to your grandchildren as you remember what happened "before the troubles"? Also: Are you accurate, informed, relevent, and contributing something? Or picky, bombastic and merely polluting, and unimportant, or worse - an actual deraction from other people's information? Assuming you are satisfied withyour own behavior, are your facts as accurate as possible, or modified with the appropriate CYA cautions?

The future readers are also your audience. The lurkers - who are equally important.

The Polly's, and those who "don't know" and are searching this database as a newbie - who are only tentatively getting into this minefield - and are not too sure of anybody's background and reputation.

These newbie's are the most important to reach - but the polly's cannot be ignored - though they will ignore you! Treat each polly as a contact to 10 or 15 more - if they can find your words as a"bad" example - done most often with G North/P Milne to great effect - they will be very willing to spread the words from you as far as possible.

Another audience is the person you are directly addressing - in this case - the editor of the paper invloved in changing the story. Look again at your comments, and review them to see if you feel that your response will "change" his mind, or will only alienate him?

The national pres is most definitely a willing accomplist to Clinton_gore on covering up the effects of y2k, hinding the current status of government remediation, government contingency plans - up to and including martial law - and in prepagating ALL positive information the government can dredge up.

But - they ar ealso your only conduit to other people. I'd recommend appealing to him as a journalist - it would appear to be the only thing they (the press) feel a pride in claiming - and in trying to pry your point into his mind by gently bending it between his current prejudices. You understand - most news media people already despise the general feelings and politics of most who are preparing - they admire and support the federal government's to expand its power and influence.

Instead - you have figuratively hit him on the head with a 2x4 - it defintely got his attention. But it will probably not make him like you. next time, he will either duck - and never respond, or will be armor-plated against criticism, and also end up ignoring you.

In either case, your message won't across to HIS future readers.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 15, 1999.

Robert,

Thank you for that analysis. I find much there that I agree with.

Please understand, I was NOT trying to "bring him over to my side", as I already knew (from the response posted on a thread below) that this goal could not be achieved. I was registering a complaint, pure and simple. I wanted this complaint to have the greatest possible "shock value".

Although many times it's best to be gentle, sometimes it's NOT, and, after careful consideration, I decided on the latter. Ultimately, we as a people MUST stand FIRMLY against those who would deny the truth or enslave us. We must let these people know that we KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. That was my intention with this exchange.

No more, no less. Thanks again for your studied analysis. It's definitely food for thought.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 15, 1999.

Robert-

[For what it's worth] We may be at odds over various issues, but I like to give credit when credit is due...

I was truly impressed with your advice re: "know your audience". Lots of good stuff in there! Just a suggestion but maybe you ought to give Rob a heads-up on this. Maybe it would be a good addition to his newbie help series.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 16, 1999.

Could someone post a link to the original thread and/or article referred to above? I must have missed it in its previous incarnation (this board moves awfully fast sometimes.) or maybe it's just the ginko biloba wearing off. I once worked at the Omaha World Herald and I knew Larry King. I'm surprised that he would pull the kind of stunt that Dennis seems to be talking about. Need more info, I guess.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), July 16, 1999.

Cancel the link request, please. I found it through North's forum. I've read the original and the altered version, as well as Larry's reply. granted, it's been years since he and I worked together, but I hope that what I just saw was a temporary lapse and not an example of his current thinking. His original answer was nonsensical and evasive, as well as just plain wrong. "Coined" term indeed. Lacking a follow-up story explaining that the original was wrong in fact or reporting, we must conclude that it was correct. And if it was correct, we must also conclude that Larry and his editors deliberately altered the facts of a story to hide an important fact from the readers. Which leads us to ask why. Not a comfortable question, from my standpoint, because it leads to an uncomfortable answer.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), July 16, 1999.

Cash, even if it has been quite a few years since you worked with Larry King, would you feel comfortable e-mailing him, and asking him why he did what he did, as one professional to another? I would be interested how he 'explains' this to another professional in the business.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), July 16, 1999.

Wilferd, I doubt sincerely that he would answer me  if at all  any differently than he has other people who have queried him about this, knowing that it would end up on boards like this. He isn't going to say one thing to Dennis and Robert and then contradict himself to me. And if he offered me a private explanation, I would of course be bound to honor that limitation. I'm not in the newspaper business anymore, but I know a fix when I see it. Someone at the top of the Old Weird Harold saw that first story and panicked. Don't forget that Omaha is a railroad nexus, a major food processing center, headquarters for a dozen or more major insurance companies, home of Offutt Air Force Base (which still controls all the nuclear missles and bombers in the US), and a major telecommunications hub. All of those industries depend heavily on computers, and none of them need the public even suspecting that if the Nebraska State Patrol can't get it right, maybe Union Pacific can't either.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), July 16, 1999.

So, we ask, what will "they" do when the public finds out that they (the computers) have failed?

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), July 16, 1999.