I don't believe that there is a coverup by the media, here's why.

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

If there were huge Y2K problems, and they were reported by the media, the world would be hooked on the news to find out more. This would generate ratings. Is the government paying the media to keep quiet? I don't buy it. Maybe I am just an ignorant realist(polly), but I think the media is more credible than some internet rumors. "It's the media, it must be false! It's a doom and gloom message, it must be true!"

But even if there is a massive government and media conspiracy, the fact is, uncompliant systems are much less likely to crash than was previously thought. This puts The End Of The World As We Know It scenario in serious doubt.

I think the Doomsayers resent the realists. For so long, they believed the realists to be an inferior, idiotic herd. If the Doomsayers are wrong, a bunch of dumb idiots were right. Hence the number of posts clamoring for censorship of all realists.

-- Realist(i.e. Polly) (don't@want.spam), January 01, 2000

Answers

Do you think the designers of the Titanic were being "realists" when they decide not to put enough lifeboats on board, because they were convinced that it was unsinkable?

You're confused, the "doomsayers" as you call them (though that is a very innacurate label), are the realists. Always have been, and always will be. The Pollys just decided to gamble, and might have gotten lucky this time. Or not. We'll see.

I still for the life of me cannot figure out what your motive is for being here though, on this forum. Are you trying to convince other people that it is better to take dangerous risks on their journey through life? Risky can be fun sometimes, but I manage to enjoy life enough without the need for that kind of behavior.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 01, 2000.


First R, let me say that I do respect the right for you to voice your viewpoint. Second, based on research that I have done on various topics (not related to Y2K), I cannot share your opinion that the media is not capable of blacking out information. It is my opinion that the mainstream media does it all of the time. Third, I am truly disturbed by the generalizations done on this forum of pollys and doomers. It reminds me of the liberal vs. conservative debate -- mean spirited and totally disrespectful of opinions (on both sides).

Unfortunately, we have dissolved healthy debate into character assassination and guilt associations. I don't necessarily share the 'polly' view, but I do not see myself as a 'doomer' or 'troll', or whatever.

I did prepare, and I did so based on my realistic view of the situation. I tended to look at the situation as an unknown, but not the end of the world sceanaro. I hope that you will consider this.

-- Mello1 (Mello1@ix.netcom.com), January 01, 2000.


How do you know how prepared I am for a disaster, hawk? Did I tell anyone they are fools for preparing? No, I just doubt that there is a massive conspiracy, and don't think there will be serious problems. I am simply stating my opinion.

-- Realist (don't@want.spam), January 01, 2000.

Media coverage tends to be superficial, no doubt about it. And reporters tend to have regular beats and news channels they don't often go outside of. And deadlines and time and space constraints. And there are media biases, in terms of what is considered newsworthy and also in terms of social viewpoints. In the newsroom (we're told) it's understood that guns are bad and abortions are good, for example. This doesn't cause a coverup, it only leads to certain emphases, a generally liberal philosophy.

On the whole, I found the y2k coverage to be adequate. Not great, but adequate. The media are reactive -- they report what happens, not what *might* happen. The future isn't photogenic [grin]. And nothing was happening. Across rollover, y2k was a "story" because of public curiosity about what might happen. That curiosity is now satisfied, for better or worse. But if bad things DO happen, they will be covered. Business as usual is no longer a story.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 01, 2000.


Sorry Realist, I did go sort of off topic from your original question, I was responding to this statement...

"I think the Doomsayers resent the realists."

My whole point was that the doomsayers ARE the realists, not the Pollys. Also, when I use the word Polly, I am referring to those who didn't prepare (but I don't understand why you call yourself a Polly if you prepared), but I wasn't referring specifically to you.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 01, 2000.



When I made a reference to Doomsayers, I was referring to those like Hawk, not those that simply have a differing opinion (like Mello). I apologize if anyone not included in my definition of a "Doomsayer" was offended.

As for the media, they may be slightly biased. But I don't think there is a massive conspiracy to cover up what they don't want the public to know, and even if there was, I doubt this would encompass the Y2K Bug. If there is a coverup, we will know soon enough, which would really embarrass the media.

-- Realist (don't@want.spam), January 01, 2000.


Now this is the way oposing opinions should be aired. Good intellectual discussion on both sides. Certain others should read and learn.

Now, I was a newspaper reporter/photographer for several years in Florida. Not a big city paper by any means, but we still operated in the same manner. News is often given and slanted towards the population that reads it. So- the Doomers are the underdogs and the news will not publish stories geared to them but instead will slant it towards the Liberal 'Don't worry, Be Happy' audiance....the facts, only the facts.

-- Satanta (EventHoriz@n.com), January 01, 2000.


"When I made a reference to Doomsayers, I was referring to those like Hawk, not those that simply have a differing opinion (like Mello). I apologize if anyone not included in my definition of a "Doomsayer" was offended."

Excuse me pal, I don't think you understood what I wrote farther up the page there. I said that I don't think that is a very accurate label, and that includes me! Why don't you explain to me that how you can categorize someone like Mello as having a "different opinion" but when I have a different opinion, I am categorized as a "doomsayer."

And if you cannot give me a reasonably honest and fair response then I will have to assume you are just another troll.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 02, 2000.


The media is heavily reliant on official government (and to a lesser extent industry) sources for their Y2K information.

If there were significant problems these are not the best places to go to learn about them.

Call it bias, call it laziness, call it bad habits.

The public is short-changed.

-- cgbg jr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), January 02, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ