Need quick response on this for a show. You always come through.

What is the single best quote or explanation with some credibility ref: why the media is not covering Y2K. Theories are not what I seek, but rather a powerful statement by a credible source that attributes the profound media silence to something other than "lack of interest because Y2K is too far away and the public wouldn't be interested".

Any connections to corporate interests in networks and media empires or items of that nature are in the running. Thanks again, in advance.

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), August 09, 1999

Answers

Sara: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 09, 1999.

Well this may not be the most powerful, but it is interesting from the Kansas City Star:

link

Two Kia spots to promote a May sales event were intended to mock extremist reactions to the year 2000. One ad showed a run on a bank and another featured a family hunkered in a bunker. The message? Y2K actually meant "Yes 2 Kia." The campaign gave the upstart motor company its second-best sales month in its history, selling 12,795 cars in May. That compares with 11,400 sold in March and 13,593 in June, said Geno Effler, the firm's public relations manager.

But the campaign also ticked off bankers. Kia received 150 letters from bankers across the country complaining about the spots. Two letters from banks in Massachusetts said the lending institutions would not loan money to those seeking funds to purchase a Kia, Effler said. Effler characterized those letters as a "threat" and said he has since forwarded them to the consumer protection branch of the Federal Trade Commission.

Meanwhile, both sides are standing their ground. The bankers association says it is prepared to confront any media spots that it says work to undo the $8.2 billion being spent by financial institutions to combat Y2K.

Kia, for its part, is preparing to challenge a Wisconsin bank to a Y2K readiness test, Effler said. In a June 18 letter, the bank took Kia to task for its ads and claimed the bank was more prepared for the year 2000 than was Kia Motors.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), August 09, 1999.

KoS,

Be nice. More important, cough up a real response,then maybe I'll tell you.

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), August 09, 1999.

"Feds Plan Y2K Spin Control"
http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/17527.html?wnpg =all

John Koskinen to speak at "Y2K: The Press and Preventing Panic"
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000ajF

"Public Relations Experts Preparing Y2K Spin-Doctoring"
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0019Q0

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 09, 1999.

Thanks, L-Man, you da man. I had two of the three, so thanks for the third!

Guess the nature of this subject dictates that it is impossible to get anything of substance in print, just mild PR-spin "let's all stay calm now" policy statements.

Anyone making anything stronger would be fired, shot, excommunicated, or worse.

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), August 09, 1999.

Sara,

I hope this is of some help to you, although it doesn't necessarily meet the criteria you asked for.

The simple reason why the media isn't covering this story in depth is because it hasn't happened yet.

Most Americans get their news from television. (Do a bit of research, and you will find many quotes relating to that)

Television is valued for its immediacy. It is a perfect medium for covering news "as it happens."

At the beginning of the news day, in every television newsroom across America, story ideas are discussed. Many are follow ups from the previous day's events, or something the newspaper is running as front page news, etc. If a plane crashes, the lineup is tossed, in favor of "live coverage of the big spot news story."

Y2k is complex. It is being covered (mostly in print), but even so, to cover it in depth requires an interest from editors that most of them don't have.

If the editors are bored by the story, or refuse to cover it because they don't know what to believe (and who can blame them?) the story is relegated to the scrap heap.

Actual Y2K failures involving the loss of lives or property will be covered of course, if it can be verified that a man indeed bit a dog.

Just two cents from someone who's spent a lot of time on assignment desks. . .

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 09, 1999.

Linkmeister, from one of the threads you kindly provided--if AOL is grcious enough to allow this through. From the conference with the press in March, as Carol sums it up:

<< I think what I picked up on is that there is a deep feeling of dread of what this thing may actually unleash upon us and no-one really wants to take the responsibility of facing the reality of it and presenting it likewise to the public.

Also, I think the reality is very clear to all. It's quite simply not feasible to have 250+ Americans be aware of the severity of the problem and prepare for it. We already face the problem of the "just-in-time" systems that we have created.

If you make the public aware to the extent that people appeared to be at this conference you are going to have people wanting to stockpile food, etc. for far longer than a week or two. And it is obvious that it is just not feasible for the system to handle that even if they were to do it gradually from now until the end of the year. It seems obvious to me that these people are aware of that. Also, if America warns it's public it opens up that same warning to the rest of the world. Can you imagine the ramifications of that. >>

Yes, I think that's the situation. The media is afraid of to open Pandora's Box.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWAyne@aol.com), August 10, 1999.

"They" are caught between a rock and a hard place. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. As Mara said JIT procedures in today's economy negates the reality of the multitudes preparing. As I said, rock n a hard place.

What would happen if "The President's Councel on Y2K" announced, "We are not sure what may happen. The effects may be catastrophic."

The whole world would go on rock n roll. Stores would be out of stock in a heartbeat. Our production systems are designed on today's demands. It is unrealistic to think we as a society can produce enough for next yr., when we are designed to produce this yrs. need.

If they don't say anything, society may colapse.

Therefore they ask you to prepare with caution. Stuck between a rock n that hard place. They know what could happen. If I you and I can visualize worst case, they can also.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 10, 1999.

Uggg yea. The media.

I believe editors are being, in their opinion, responsible in their reporting on Y2K. Allowing the feds to take the lead, and running with their (the feds) spin. Like I said in the last post, if we can see it so can an editor.

A rock and a hard place. Spin and pray. That's what the media is also doing. I hope it works.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 10, 1999.

I guess my mind keeps going to the fact that the networks ARE corporate concerns: ABC, a new division of Disney; CBS, owned by Westinghouse; Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation owns Fox Entertainment Group; Turner Broadcasting owns CNN (et al); NBC is owned by Microsoft; and there are other mega media empires, such as Time Warner.

All of these corporations have financial and legal considerations which they obviously feel transcend actual news and the public's "right to know."

When ferreting out the truth of any situation connected with Y2K, the path always seems to lead back to the $$$ interests.

That's what will be on the headstone of our culture, no doubt: "We followed the $$$ above all else."

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), August 10, 1999.

Did you try the "Freedom Forum"? They have had some shows on journalism and y2k. Interesting to trace the progression over the past year.

http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1999/1/28y2ksurvey.asp http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1999/1/28y2k.asp http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1999/1/29y2k.asp http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1999/2/2katz.asp http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1999/2/12y2k.asp http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1999/2/24y2k.asp http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1999/3/10y2k.asp http://www.freedomforum.org/technology/1999/3/15y2k.asp http://www.freedomforum.org/newseumnews/1999/6/18y2k.asp http://www.freedomforum.org/newseumnews/1999/6/22y2k.asp http://www.freedomforum.org/professional/1999/7/2y2k.asp

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), August 10, 1999.

HOLLYWOOD thrives on money, and in it's own respect, is media. Why in the WORLD would they turn down a once in a lifetime chance to make a movie about the year 2000? I gaaaarunteee you that a movie like that would make a muther load of moola. Why no taker's???

Things that make you go Hmmmm.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), August 10, 1999.

Sara, I believe the answer lies in the Koskinen's press conference in March. My take is that he successfully played the fear-mongering card and convinced them to report just the facts, but not to speculate. Since there are no facts (nothing really happening yet, except for corporate press releases), then there is nothing left to report. Somewhere in the RealAudio version, there should be something to support that. The timing works - mid to late spring is when orders for Y2K-related stuff fell way off.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 10, 1999.

Sara check our Adbusters on the net. When a "turn off your TV" day was promoted, they couldn't get past the corporate advertisers.

Freedom Forum, IMHO, is the best forum on the Internet. It is a chronicle of how our freedom of speech is being slowy eroded into always "making nice" and never saying a "discouraging word" for fear of offending some sensitive soul. People had better wake up, for without freedom of speech, religion and guns debates, which always take center stage, will fade into insignificance.

That's why media stream media is such a pit of NOTHING but, rotting fluff.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 10, 1999.

Here are two possibles for you:

Y2K Media Watch Observations on the media's coverage of Y2K. Very good, balanced analysis.

http://ojr.usc.edu/sections/y2k/

I'm not sure what to make of this second one. It's piece called "Y2K Information to the Public" by someone named Charles J. Adams. I don't know who he is, but it's written from an inside-the-.gov viewpoint about how to manage public Y2K perceptions, including use of the media. Seems authentic.

The message doesn't seem to be how to effectively lie to the public, but rather how to make sure that the Prophets of Doom have an effective counterweight.

Strange, scary piece:

http://www.comlinks.com/mag/cadams1.htm

I think the point made earlier about how Y2K is not news because it hasn't "happened" yet is an important observation.

Good luck-

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 10, 1999.

I think we should waste some of MIT's server space and paste that second article right here. Lot's of URL's are suddenly going 404 these days...

Y2K Information to the Public

By Charles J. Adams

Summary:

Y2K is foremost a challenge in Public Confidence. As we, the public service providers of government, are able to give the Public this Confidence, we will be able to provide for public safety, security and calm. Many infrastructure systems are dependent on "normal use" and thus again - Public Confidence. Ultimately, Public Confidence is the basic driver to the engine of economic wealth creation. If we can be the seed (the bedrock ?) that maintains public calm and trust, any ripple of infrastructure disruption and economic impact will be minimal. If we do our jobs right, we will make the "Dawn" of the new Millennium a positive memorable and non-disruptive event in our society that we can tell our great-grandkids about.

Overview:

Historically, the transition to the year 1000 in Europe brought several years of famine from people believing it to be the end of the world and not planting crops for the next year. France was the country, which transitioned these Millennium changes best at that time, and was the defacto leading country for the next several centuries. The centennial transitions of 1700, 1800, and 1900 brought significant dips in stock and commodity (?) markets presumably from the affects on public confidence. We have our own cultural versions of these affects developing. One notable one for us is the technological impact from the Y2K logic in computer based systems - and the FEAR such technology can have on individuals.

The year 2000 millennium is a much larger event than only the technology based Y2K affects many of us are focusing on. The social potential and enthusiasm of individuals for this date is very large. Huge gatherings in celebration for the new years are being planned for and individually the anticipation of a memorable event is to be expected. While in such heightened expectation and open to outside information of wanted celebration information, hearing any disruptive events from Y2K triggers or others can be negatively impactful. I believe it is our responsibility in government to directly act to minimize any such impacts. We are doing the job in the technical and outreach to industry areas. We are struggling to know what and how to do our job in the public information areas. Below are some observations and suggestions on what can be done to positively impact public opinion and knowledge through the coming "Millennium Dawn" period we are preparing for.

Infrastructure realities and the public: ". Nothing to fear but FEAR itself!"

Phones: Pick up the phone - more than 20%? of phones at one time, and no one will get a dial tone! This often happens on Mothers Day and locally when an earthquake or other natural disaster occurs. Disaster responders know that disaster event caused overload of the system, especially in the cellular phone area, works itself out after the first 6 to 10 hours as people go back to normal usage. The normal moods during Mothers Day is calm and try again later. Moods during disasters are less calm causing trying again with more urgency etc.

Gas: Fill up the family car gas tank - more than 10%(?) of families, and the retail distribution structure will run out of gas causing gas lines! Example is 1973(?) when there was no shortage of gas in the system but people saw the lines and got in line themselves. Fear can emerge when something we take for granted changes .

Cash Money: Draw money out of the bank - if more than $2,000 for each of the 1 million US family's is withdrawn, the Federal Reserve (which supplies the banks) will run out of cash. The Fed has printed an additional $5 billion in "vault cash" (paper money) for Y2K to a total of some $20 billion. This is to support the $450 billion in circulation, 2/3 of it outside the U.S.

Electricity: Turn out the lights and conserve electricity over the Y2K New Years period - if enough families do this, it may cause "under demand". Under demand - especially with most plants up and on "spinning standby" for Y2K uncertainties - may unbalance the electric grid making it unstable and possibly forcing portions to shut down. This is what the Y2K representative of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) - the industries trade association - is talking about. We have to convince the public to use electricity normally to avoid such unbalances of the power grid and further that any outage is unusual and will be fixed quickly.

Food, paper and water products: Americans are not used to having almost anything in shortage - especially in the food and basic necessities sector. One folk tale of the 70's tells of a radio disk jockey in Honolulu who mentioned on his morning show that the local Food Giant (?) was out of toilet paper. Within hours, every grocery store on Oahu was out of toilet paper and napkins and paper towels. A lesson on the limits of a "Just In Time" supply system that is found today in every major supply system. The sight of bare shelves is so unusual to us that it will bring up fear is some people, especially if they don't know why.

These examples of the public's (re)actions causing disruptions in the flow of goods and services are inconvenient at best. They form the basis of "troubling" changes from the norm that can start to bring up fear in normal people. If they act on this fear, it can make the situation worse - a system feed back loop in amplification that will cause overload and trip or destruction of the system somehow. In social terms this is called Panic or Mob action and is of course very dangerous to public safety and normal order etc. Thus, even from the infrastructure systems perspective, I view our ultimate responsibility in Y2K as our ability manage and minimize this possibility. The public needs to know this to avoid fear.

This can only be done if we can achieve and maintain Public Confidence throughout the Millennium Dawn period. Americans are essentially a very stable public. We will be telling them (us) what they want to be hearing but, we must do it in a way they can believe.

How can the Federal Government do this? We have the information gathering capability and the expertise to evaluate and put most "off normal" situations into perspective at least for our areas of responsibility. How can we get such quality information to the public, and should we make an effort, create a system to do so? Are existing systems adequate?

The "Media Void" - it will be filled if not with credible (calming) experts then possibly by alarmists or the unknown spectrum of the man on the street.

Credibility, who is worth listening to on any topic? By default, anyone with any perceived authority will be listened to. But, they will be believed ONLY if they tell a person what he believes IS true, and then further information will be accepted as believable. Truth - in the form that the listener can accept - is the only thing that will be accepted and the truth in any situation is only the truth that the listener believes is true. Continued assurances that there in nothing to worry about - as we are now doing, will be viewed with suspicion and doubt. Glossing over and simplifying large complex issues leaves doubt, destroys credibility and leaves the listener with his own beliefs (and fears) still in tact. We have to overcome the tendency to appear calming for the sake of calming - we all left our (stereotypic) mother's approach to our fears long ago as not workable in the real (adult) world.

I believe that real, timely and honest information from an expert (organization) is the best information we can give to avoid fear in public listeners. Such information needs to give a "larger view" to be put into perspective and ultimately tell the listener if he should be fearful or not. Suggested information that the listener will listen to and can best use includes.

Expert Perspective, given any incident or group/series of incidents:

Technical insight - What the incident actually is, how the technology, logistic and human systems work regarding the topic being discussed. How important is any such incident? What might it do or affect? Decide what to say about "worst case" possibilities and say it only when something is being done for the possibility.

What is being done about it - Current response or monitoring efforts.

Geographic size, duration and location perspective - How large an area, who is affected, how long will it last etc.

Historic perspective - How often do such things happen "normally", what is their experienced/expected affect and on whom. Is there any lasting affect, on what?

CNN and other press - response: If we make available the "Expert Perspective" as listed above to the media, we can do the public the best service. Such an effort will give them the tools to understand and decide. It will help eliminate the unknown that is the basis of much fear. The press will be hungry for the best and most credible experts concerning any event and access to the public through them is probably assured, subject only to more interesting or important stories taking precedence.

Part of the uniqueness of Y2K is that there is the distinct possibility of many significant things happening at the same time all over the country or indeed the world. For this reason, the normal reporting by a central source such as the White House may be inadequate in it's ability to cover concurrent widely dispersed events. Given such an environment, I believe it vitally important that the NCA level maintain an "Overview Perspective" especially including a worldwide perspective. This will help Americans, who know we are leaders in technology put our own situations in personal perspective and thus further from personal concern or fear.

For the detail to the Public at local and regional levels - an idea:

Feed every Federal/State government levels report to the next level - back down the chain to the field. For the CG this would be the report that went up: Station to Group, Group to District, District to Area, Area to CGHQ, CGHQ to DOT, DOT to the White House ICC. The filtered and compiled report from each level that is sent up will then be fed back down to all levels. For instance, the CG Station would receive a copy of the Groups, District, Area, CGHQ and DOT reports each reporting period. It will also gain credibility with everyone by information being sent back into the field to the lowest level. This can be easily done today with the use of attached files to email or faxes.

Require that each level responsible contact their local media and offer to brief that media during the (to be set) Millennium Dawn period, including giving them copies of what is reported by their agency to the "White House". This will distribute the real/actual/truthful information that is available in the Federal Government. Provisions for defining (and not releasing) security or propriety information will of course need to be developed.

Once such reports are made available - their very existence and sharing with the media is a strong statement of the government being on top of the potentials of this period. If and when something happens, experts can be identified and furnished from the appropriate level in the appropriate technical or other expertise area. The level - On Scene Commander - that any response is being conducted on is the best place to start this contact with the media, working up through the higher levels for the needed perspective and expertise.

A "Y2K Field Media Plan" needs to be developed that can be the direction and guidance to Federal Government field units on how to interact with this Y2K information and media involvement. This will be very different from the norm where only designated spokesmen at fairly high levels often outside the operations chain are allowed to speak with the media.

For Y2K, information to the public IS THE OPERATIONAL MISSION, and this (I believe) demands first and second level Operations Managers be allowed to speak fully - for maximum creditability and Truth (perceived by the listener). With higher levels of experts giving the Perspective information mentioned above.

I believe that such a decentralized and distributed information system is the best way to affect and support Public Confidence through our coming "Dawn" operational period.

Posted June 18th, 1999

-- (links@re.us), August 10, 1999.

Linkmeister, excellent links. Very interesting. While the article below does not directly relate to y2k, I think it clearly shows one of the reasons why the press is not covering the y2k problem as it should/could.

I believe there are a few good reporters who GI, and want to responsibly cover y2k, but are being silenced by the forces that be. On the other hand I think that the majority of reporters are simply lazy = ignorant = clueless.

I agree 100% with you Sara. Follow the money! Corporate interests ($$$) = The #1 problem. Protect you ASSets!!!

"Giving Officials A License To Chill" When public thinks press is too free, government is only too happy to make it less so.

(snip)

To the amazement of people living elsewhere, the majority of Americans think that our press is too free. More ominously, a goodly number of police, judges and political leaders who should know better pander to that attitude by harassing journalists and restricting their efforts to keep the public apprised of what the officials are up to.

It is a phenomenon for which there is all too much evidence. Consider this, for example:

... In Santa Cruz County, Calif., Juvenile Court Judge Kathleen Akao charged reporter Robin Musitelli with contempt for telling the dramatic story of parents who had their infant taken from them by the court. For good measure, the father who talked to the newspaper reporter was charged with contempt, too.

It gets worse: Superior Court Judge Samuel Stevens, appointed to preside over the contempt charges, closed all legal proceedings in the case to the public and the press. In other words, the newspaper whose reporter was at risk of jail and fine couldn't cover the case.

Reporter... "I think it's absolutely crazy that a father can't complain about his baby being taken away," said reporter Robin Musitelli. "If parents can't question a system that has taken their child, who can?" (/snip)

After noting a few more examples the article goes on to say

(snip)

There you have it, or more correctly, there you have some of it. Officers of the law deliberately and unnecessarily interfere with the right of the press to report on events of significance to the community.

There are countless examples of the press drawing attention to public and private corruption and incompetence, of helping to right wrongs, of providing perspective and context, of providing us the information we must have to live our daily lives and to serve as good citizens. To do so, many of them routinely risk harassment from police, jail and fines from the courts, and ridicule and worse from the public they serve.

In fact, what people are saying when they say the press has too much freedom is, "Stop us before we know too much."

They are far too eager to give away freedoms that they think belong to someone else, namely journalists and their bosses. They are wrong, of course. Freedom of the press is the people's freedom, not the journalists' and certainly not the government's.

The public must do a better job of attending to that freedom. Right now, the press and the government are failing miserably, the one by too-infrequent attempts to defend its First Amendment franchise, and the other by all-too-frequent attempts to shut it out, shut it up and shut it down.

(/snip)

While the slant on this article is a little too much on the side of "blame the public for letting this happen", I see it more as the reporter(s) must stand up for his/her 1st Amendment Rights. Standing up against the government, judges, police, etc., may be a little easier for them than standing up against the guy who pays their salary???

JMHO

-- flb (fben4077@yahoo.com), August 10, 1999.

I lied...

Aston and Leska, you're signature...
is causing....
all this....
mayhem.

Hope I put enough closing tags now...

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 10, 1999.

Hhhmm, everything looks perfect on our iMac. Our "sig" is in place of the boring xxx's offered to the cybergnomes or "line-eaters." Gotta give them *something* or they devour sentences. Look over on the Eggy Forum; many of Ed's posts are chomped. He needs to sacrifice something to them too ;^) Anyway, on our screen everything is perfect. Robert Cook can tell you this Forum appears differently to various users ... BTW, Chris, your typing is red now!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 10, 1999.

A&L, look again at your sig, you didn't close each font tag. Then look in view source to see what I did, when I closed the blockquote bold tags the first time, your sig left the colors on my typing. Just close your font tags after each color scheme, that should fix it.

I remember well your problem with post gnomes eating the end of your posts :-D I'm not critisizing the use of it, just want to help you make your sig even more perfect ;-)

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 10, 1999.

Oh dear. Chris, please excuse our ineptness with this. When we look under "view source" we see that we did not use any blockquotes or bolds in that post. And we close with < font color="black" > to be sure the type is black again, and then we add 3 more black symbols (in case the gnomes want to much thru the HTML tags), and then we put in a zillion spaces and carriage returns, fluffy pickings to ward off their hunger. This clears all problems on our screen.

Please tell us exactly what we need to type to avoid future problems. From here it looks like no problemo. Are we HTML Pollys? Horrors! ;^)

(On another thread the gnomes ate thru the tags leaving the addy green, so we immediately added in next post < font color="black" > and that seemed to remediated the gnat. Maybe PCers see something different? (Of course those spaces in tags above are in order for you to see the typing).

xxxxxxxxx boring xxxxxxxxx's xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx change of diet! xxxxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 10, 1999.

Everything works great ... when you have WEB-TV.

Sara, it looks like everyone above has done a great job in responding to your request. Sooo, please do tell: Do you mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 10, 1999.

King of Spain, I "mud"-wrestle, but on the condition that I make the goo, and I use my own special recipe for chocolate pudding jello. And my sister watches and referees. Interested?

-- finally out (from@lurking.here), August 10, 1999.

http://infoseek.go.com/Content?arn=a2617reuff- 19990727&qt=doctoring&sv=IS&lk=noframes&col=NX&kt=A&ak=news1486

"PR Experts preparing Y2K spin-doctoring"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 10, 1999.

KoS,

My husband suggested I respond by saying:

"Yeah, and I'm 390 lbs."

I, however, prefer to respond by asking you a question: "Why do you want to know?" Is this like a foot fetish with you, or something?

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), August 10, 1999.

Hey Sara, looks like a lurker up above is willing to take King of Spain on. Will it be a live Webcast?

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 10, 1999.

I forgot to ask, has anyone had any personal experience with a story or show they did getting pulled by the powers that be at their newspaper, magazine, TV or radio station, etc.? If so, what were you given as the reason?

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), August 10, 1999.

Why is the media silent regarding y2k???? I think the most logical answer is that the people who make the actual decisions about what is covered in the media are wealthy people,most likely heavily invested in the stock markets around the world as well as their own company. It is my guess that these folks have been and are now getting out of the market. There's no "reporting" requirement when a person sells stock they own as a rule, but there are reporting requirements when an "insider" sells shares of their own company. I believe the fidelity website gives you this info as one of their options when looking at a stock price,etc. Probably others do also. I believe the "smart" people and wealthy people have been getting out of the markets for some time now....but joe sixpack's retirement money is still going there. In summary, I think it is typical monetary self-interest of the decision makers that is silencing the media reporting on y2k possibilities - and probably that decision has been massaged into patriotism in the minds of those decision makers.

-- Jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), August 10, 1999.

Yes, that's what I heard, Ashton and Leska.

And for the occasion, it is reported he will be wearing a cape that reads "King of Pains."

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), August 10, 1999.

Sara, what we've seen is that anyone expressing Y2K concerns is subtly labeled "kook" and quietly nudged out of the loop by process of omission. Ya gotta read TPTB spin temperature just right and blend in, kissing up to the unspoken group "take." That is, if you want to be a droid clone.

We have stopped going to Y2K meetings. Nothing left to learn, no point in getting stomach churn. What a surprise these manipulators will have if things go kablooey! They'll still try to stamp their spin on problems and deny reality. Will snafus outrun the spin machine? Stay tuned, Time Will Tell.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 10, 1999.

"A managed democracy is a wonderful thing, Manuel, for the managers ... and its greatest strength is a 'free press' when 'free' is defined as 'responsible' and the managers define what is 'irresponsible.'" --- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 10, 1999.

Some excellent posts & links. My take on it is the same as anything else - with Y2K we're all in it together. It affects everyone and everything equally. No gov't or media superiority - they're equal to "us" this time.

The media is usually a part of a check and balance system - they keep gov't, business and individuals "honest" by exposing them. See any 60 minutes, dateline, etc. Look a Watergate, Clinton/Monica, wars, etc. etc, etc., etc forever and ever. The media have nothing to lose by engaging in investigative journalism. It's the govt misusing tax dollars, business dumping toxic chemicals into the air/water, scam artists scamming $10,000 out of granny's retirement nest egg, scamming, officers abusing the law, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc --- it never involves the media. If it does it's one news organization exposing another.

But wait. Y2K. Wait. this will cut the power, cut telcom, world trade the banking system, the trains, etc, etc , etc, etc, etc,etc. But not only Joe Sixpacks, the govt, business, etc. etc, but US! Wait. WE (the media) could be NEGATIVELY impacted by this. Wait. This isn't us going after someone else's jugular, but something (Y2K) coming after everyone's jugular. Wait. Everyone includes US - THE MEDIA - It just can't be true (DENIAL mode kicks in)

And as you know, once denial sets in, everything else is history.

-- Jim (x@x.x), August 10, 1999.

I think that it really boils down to three reasons:

1) Y2K is JUST ENOUGH of a computer-technical-thingy problem that the average reporter is just not prepared to really do adequate coverage, much less think through the implications of computers gone wrong. You see this, for example, in the fact that Y2K is NEVER mentioned on any other story that SHOULD be related. For instance, an article covering a new sophisticated just-in-time inventory system that many people depend on will never ask, "And where does this system stand with Y2K?" You just don't see Y2K mentioned unless its an actual Y2K story.

2) Nobody knows for sure what will happen, but reporters cannot bring themselves to "cross the line" that the effect of Y2K could be REALLY bad. The typical reaction of anyone is to say, well we have two extreme positions -- nothing will happen at all, or a big meltdown -- so the truth MUST be in between. Nobody is going to argue with this approach of "taking the (safe) middle ground", even though it has absolutely no logical foundation. After all, we are dealing with cold computer code that is broken, not what is politically correct.

3) To actually concede that Y2K could put YOUR savings in jeopardy, YOUR job, YOUR life, etc., is a sobering act. If nobody else in the mainstream press is doing it, why rock the boat? If you are wrong, you will look like a fool. If you are right, ultimately will it make any difference.? So, there is really not much point in sticking your neck out. Especially if you don't think it will actually get printed anyway (see other posted comments aove).

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 10, 1999.

King of Spain, you big hunk, I'm ready for ya, baby!

-- Heather- I'm into leather (and@s.light as a feather), August 10, 1999.

Sara, I had one reference to a waste management company pulled, in an article I wrote for a local paper. In five years of writing articles it's the only time I've had something cut. I made a reference to how much the company polluted and how many million dollars in fines they had paid. When I asked why it was cut, they said because of fear of litigation. Not surprising. That's how they shut people up--fear of lawsuits. Therefore corporations can pollute with impunity.

Corporations operate by the Golden Rule of "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

-- gilda (jes@listbot.com), August 11, 1999.

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

KOS just said: If you are wrong, you will look like a fool. If you are right, ultimately will it make any difference?

If you did such a good job that people believed you to the point of actually doing something about it, and your article could be universally recognized as the trigger of panic, your name would go down in infamy. If things got real bad, surely somebody would want to see you "punished" for it. Even if things are going to be bad anyway because the code is broken, government and every company could say, "We had the problem licked, but people just wouldn't listen. This whole thing is his fault!" Salmon Rushdie never knew it that bad.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 11, 1999.