Link

Cracking the Mainstream Y2K News Process

Here are a couple of good snips.

...The popular U.S. press is purely and simply tabloid.

...Most news organizations are ignoring Y2K now. But just wait until something goes wrong: a riot, a local cash shortage, a terrorist attack, a water treatment plant failure... you name it. The press will be there. Especially if it involves guns.

(my favorite)

Here's the most-desired story of the mainstream press: a gun-toting Y2K survivalist breaks into Sam's Club to steal six more bags of beans. It has all the elements the press loves to attack: guns, survivalists and desperation for long-term storable food.

...Generally speaking, the press imagines it is an objective observer. However, with Y2K, this is turning out to be a false assumption. By ignoring the reality of the Y2K problem now, the U.S. press is promoting a false sense of security. Once problems begin, however, the press will magnify the fear by filming -- and airing -- the most desperate scenes you can imagine; even if those are isolated events.

With this two-stage approach to Y2K -- ignore it so people don't prepare, then show the panic that occurs because people weren't prepared -- the press is going to be part of the story rather than an observer of the story. And when it's all over, the credibility of the mainstream press will be questioned by the public. After all, it was the news that told them, "Don't worry. Y2K is solved." It was the news, too, that refused to ask a single tough question of those claiming Y2K compliance.

...As one example, we received a call from a reporter who works at one of the big three network news programs: NBC, CBS or ABC. We won't say which one because we'd like to protect his identity. This reporter actually complained to us that he was pitching Y2K stories to senior editors. Each story, it turns out, was killed by the editor. Why?

That's the interesting part: when the senior news editor received the story "pitch," he would contact the business leader / government leader / industry leader considered to be a "credible source" for such a story. This leader would inevitably deny the story. End of story. The senior editor kills it. Ignored: the fact that business / government / industry leaders have it in their own interest to minimize negative Y2K stories (even if true).

-- flb (fben4077@yahoo.com), July 25, 1999

Answers

Look, its always been this way -- the mainstream press is the lapdog of the Govt. Look even back in 1963, with the Kennedy assassination, NO mainstream publication challenged the Govt's position that a single gunman, acting entirely alone, was responsible. It was interesting that, last year as I recall, it turns out that Lyndon Johnson himself did not believe that one gunman could have pulled it off.

The "coverage" of Y2K is just more of the same. Even when a half way decent article appears in a mainstream newspaper, it is soon forgotten, because the reporters still don't really get it. I mean, to present a Y2K article one day that calls into question how our infrastructure will survive the coming rollover, and then the very next day run an article on how our trucking industry is so marvelous because of all the just-in-time computer controlled everything -- AND NEVER EVEN ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF Y2K -- is typical. You never see an article talking about Y2K unless it is specifically a "Y2K article".

-- King of Spain (madrid@al.com), July 25, 1999.

Re: the press is going to be part of the story rather than an observer of the story . . .

Sounds like one of the plot lines from "Max Headroom" . . . the one where the TV reporter arranges a terrorist bombing, films the catastrophe, and news at 11:00. Everything is ratings. Life imitates art.

flb, what Y2KNewswire outlined would probably be starting in November or early December. There may be isolated problems caused by aggressive DGIs who panic at the last minute, but that will be played over and over on the TV news and "Cops" and the blame placed on those "nutcases" who "hoarded" all year. I can see someone like Dan Rather, talking head, sadly and sternly exhorting us all to "remain calm" while the same 10-second flame clip is replayed over and over in the background.

Hm, I just thought of a chance to make a few bucks; if news producers are looking for canned rampaging mobs at yearend, will they pay union scale for "extras"? I draw the line at mayhem, but I can make a lot of noise. Of course, I would only be interested if they had good liability insurance and paid us in cash. :-)

This is getting more and more surreal. Think I'll go out and get some more canned stew.

-- Margaret (janssm@aol.com), July 25, 1999.

Margaret: Better to get your pay in canned stew.

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 26, 1999.

As another disgusting example, the Washington Post was putting anti-gun articles on its front page frequently before the illegal and unconstitutional bombing of Yugoslavia. One article in particular was about the (Moon?) brothers (sons of Rev. Sun Young Moon) owning gun manufacturing plants, and "isn't hypcritical to your religion; remember Turn The Other Cheek?" However, when the bombing began, the rhetoric dried up. And now that the bombing has stopped the rhetoric has started again.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 26, 1999.