I am puzzled at the silence of the American media regarding y2k. I don't like to think they are cooperating with Govt. to keep the situation from the American public. The alternative is just as bad. "No one cares"

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), April 13, 1998

Answers

Granted, it's not getting front-page placement on a daily basis, as some of us think it should. But the quantity and quality of Y2K coverage has been steadily increasing over the past two years. There were three articles in today's (Apr 13, 1998) issue of "USA Today", which is certainly one of the most widely-read mainstream newspapers. It got cover-story coverage in the March 9th issue of "Business Week," and there are frequent reports in virtually all of the major newspapers and magazines. The problem is that it's on page 9, or page 13, or somewhere at the back of the business section -- so the people who skim only the front page and the sports scores don't see it.

If you want to get a regular look at 'round-the-world press clippings, check out the Yahoo Y2K page at http://headlines.yahoo.com/Full_Coverage/Tech/Year_2000_Problem/ or the press clipping page at Peter de Jager's Y2K website (http://www.year2000.com/y2karticles.html)

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (yourdon@worldnet.att.net), April 13, 1998.

I'm pretty constantly having a dialogue with reporters from a major Chicago newspaper. I've yet to be used as a resource specifically -- indeed, I'm frightened of it, simply because experience tells me they'll take me out of context to support the story's "angle" rather than the facts. I've had this happen to me before, most recently only two weeks ago. In that instance, I didn't mind that a reporter I talked to specifically made up a quote out of whole cloth (the quote he made up contained the jist of what I wanted to say), but there've been numerous instances where this wasn't the case. The last thing I want is for these idiots to use my name and then deride me. However, the moment they actually DO use my name, I'll stop using a pseudonym here. I've had a lot of dealing with the press over the years. There are a few things I've found you can do to encourage them:

1. When you see an article you like, get the author's name, call the paper, and congratulate him/her. Try to keep the congratulations positive, in terms the reporter can understand personally.
   
   Just yesterday, suburban Chicago's The Daily Herald ran a front-page article that was generally accurate. I called the reporter and said, "I saw your article this morning -- congratulations on making the middle of the front page! They gave you a lot of space, I see -- good for you!"
2. Don't tell the reporter they were wrong about anything -- ever!
   
   The reporter probably sold the story to the editor on the basis of a pre-determined "angle" that may have nothing to do with reality. If you thought it was a crappy article, call the reporter and tell him/her what the best parts were. Never criticise, even constructively.
3. Tell the reporter how the article made an immediate impact on your life.
   
   People in the media -- and this goes for reporters as well as actors -- tend to see themselves on a mission from God to make the world a better place. Any accolades from readers that indicate that they had such an impact will be remembered -- forever.
   
   Really. It's so incredibly infrequent that a reporter can lookat a reader response and say, "See, this is why I got into this business!" that when they do hear it, they'll never forget it. It makes them especially receptive when you call up later and say, "Hey, I have this thing going, and I remembered you from that incredible Y2K article you wrote."
   
   An example from yesterday's article: I told the reporter, "I thought your last four paragrpahs were great. It actually had my wife listening to me about Y2K for the first time, something I've not been able to achieve in more than a year. I want to thank you for making it possible for me to talk to her."
   
   Now, I was lying through my teeth: my wife is sick of hearing me carp on about something she thinks is fantasy and will continue to do so until Fidelity loses our investments. But reporters love to hear such crap. Work on their egos -- they all have huge ones.
4. Finally, offer yourself as a resouce if the reporter needs it.
   
   Reporters typically have a hard time finding credible people to talk to. If you have any expertise at all, make sure you leave the reporter with the impression that you're a good, friendly, resource and that you'd love to help them in any way you can.

And that's Dr. Smith's Short Guide to Dealing With The Press. Some day, I'll work up the "long" version. "John Smith"

-- "John Smith" (pobox42@hotmail.com), April 14, 1998.

Well, whoever said I was totally ethical? :)
In addition to phoning the reporter regarding her article, I also left a voicemail early this morning and then followed it up be e-mail.
Here's a copy of the e-mail ...

[Reporter's Name]:

I want to thank you again for another great article publicizing
Y2K.  As I mentioned on your voicemail, the last four paragraphs --
essentially touching on the "Ripple Effect" of the problem -- was
the first time I've been able to so much as get my wife's attention
regarding this.  She's very much a "not take it seriously until
everyone else does" kind of person, and the fact that a major
publication would say this on a front-page article actually
succeeded in getting her attention.  This is more than I've been
able to do in more than a year of talking and leaving Y2K papers all
over the house.
 
In fact, it may be as a direct result of your article that I can
start preparing my family and making contingency planning. 
Heretofore, my wife has absolutely forbidden any money being set
aside for this purpose.  As a result of the dialogue your article
triggered, I can now at least present her with a plan.
 
I'd like to bring an interesting URL to your attention.  It's an
on-line book by Dr. Edward Yardeni, Chief Economist and a Managing
Director of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell.  Dr. Yardeni has recently
increased his prediction of a Y2K-related worldwide recession to 60%
-- up 30% from only a few months ago.
 
I don't agree with Yardeni's politics at all -- I'm a Libertarian
and he's quite obviously in favor of unconstitutional government
intervention in the private sector, particularly as it relates to
Y2K.  However, the fact that people of widely disparate political
views are coming to the same inescapable conclusions is probably
evidence that we're not dealing with a political issue but a
scientific one.

The book is "Year 2000 Recession," located at
http://www.webcom.com/~yardeni/y2kbook.html.
 
I've also got an interesting project of my own underway.  I have a
programmer friend who was interested in learning Java, so primarily
as a programming exercise, he wrote a "How Many Programmers Do You
Need?" calculator.
 
What the calculator does is very simple: it takes the current date,
the number of non-compliant lines in your code inventory, and then
based on NIST statistics on the average number of lines a programmer
can write/debug in a year calculates how many you need.
 
By default, it uses the number of lines in the Federal inventory,
but anyone with Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer can reset
the number of lines to whatever they like.
 
As I write this, the number of programmers the Federal govenment
needs (NOW, not after the budget approval, contracts, political
fallout, etc.) is at 162,123 and climbing.
 
Keep in mind that there are only about 500,000 programmers in the
U.S., and that less than half that number write in the languages
most at-risk.  It also doesn't take into account replacement of
noncompliant hardware or embedded systems.

My friend's calculator is located at http://www.netwave.net/members/cyberrgg/y2k/.  Keep in mind that 
the interface is very rouch and that we intend to change it to
something more attractive in the near future.
 
Hardware is one of my areas of expertise, in fact.  And, as I'm a
firm believer in the "make it personal" theory of demonstration, I
have a proposal:
 
I would be interested in coming to your Daily Herald office, at you
and your editors' convenience and at no charge, and simply walk
around the office and tell you -- by visual inspection alone -- a
minimum of what hardware will fail in your offices with Y2K.  This
type of inspection will completely miss software and embedded
systems, but for a large percentage of computers and software, it
only needs to be glanced at to determine fallibility.
 
I would, of course, suggest that you contract with an outside firm
to confirm this and come up with a detailed plan of renovation, but
it would surprise me mightily to find out that you're currently
compliant.  Even my wife's company -- a large office supplies vendor
based in Itasca -- isn't compliant, yet they're celebrating
compliancy as my wife finds more non-compliant code.

In any case, I'd be happy to do a walkaround of your office and
point out what will obviously fail, if that's something you and/or
your editors are interested in.

In any case, thanks again for a great article.  I wish I could say I
looked forward to more, but I think you can understand why I don't. 
It would be kind of like "looking forward" to pictures of an
impending train wreck.

Feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance.

Bill Stone

And here's the reply it generated:

Mr. Stone,

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt until you read the 
rest of the article. As you can guess, writing a story about this 
topic that alerts people to the potential problems without setting 
off unnecessary panic is quite a challenge. We wanted our readers 
to understand what could happen if nothing is done so they can 
decide whether to become more engaged in this issue by talking to 
their employers and companies they do business with.

Thanks also for the additional information. I'll check out the
site.

I may take you up on your offer to use you as a resource on
future stories on the problem. Also, feel free to suggest any 
story angles and watch for the rest of our occasional series 
on the Y2K problem.

[Reporter's Name]

P.S. You guessed right, the Daily Herald is not yet compliant,
but the work is is underway.

Now, look at what the reporter said:

1. One of her key concerns was writing story without creating panic. This demonstrates precisely why my approach worked with her: she believes she's so influential that a really negative Y2K article would actually cause a panic.
   This is a very common attitude. Exploit it.
   
2. She may use me as a resource in the future.
   
3. I now have her ear to suggest Y2K story angles.
   
4. She's aware that her company is not compliant, and that her income is therefore uncertain. Her uncertainty is the best part about this, since it makes her willing to fight harder for Y2K stories. Nothing works better than personal fear as a motivator.
   The fact is: who cares if some stranger is in the middle of bad economic times? But it's a whole other ball game if it's you.
   

This represents a significant breakthrough with this newspaper. I have now made a positive impression on this reporter, something that will carry through when it comes time to sell more articles to her editor. Short of having the editor's ear, this is the best I could possibly hope for.

"John Smith"


-- "John Smith" (pobox42@hotmail.com), April 14, 1998.

Wow, talk about a short course in media manipulation! Not that I disagree with the purpose or even the methods -- and here I speak as someone with twenty-five years of reporting and editing experience in small weeklies, BIG dailies, and magazines -- but don't ever let your pet reporter know she was/is being manipulated. That will have a backlash that could take your head off at the knees, credibility-wise. (So you better hope she doesn't find this forum.) You may have been lucky enough to have found a reporter who had an interest in Y2K to start with and your calls and letters only reinforced her own beliefs. The pop psychology aside -- most of us don't have God complexes -- you laid out a pretty good public relations strategy for maintaining good media relations, or good relations with anyone, for that matter.

-- J.D. Clark (yankeejdc@aol.com), April 17, 1998.

Re the Media. Today 5/20 I posted the last of three columns on the Westergaard Year 2000 site entitled "Manhatttan Media Myopia and Y2K". I would welcome any criticism that might help me to get clearer on the y2k media coverage off the Net so far. www.y2ktimebomb.com/DSA/VP/index.htm

-- victor Porlier (vporlier@aol.com), May 20, 1998.

Mr. Porlier:

I have read all three of your articles with great interest.Taking into account your experience and investigation into the media's non responsiveness re y2k, Your conclusion is my worst fear. The ignorant,self absorbed bast---ds just don't care. I suppose that giving creadence to something that even appears apocolyptic is way beneath their sophisticated radar screen. I would have wished you had mentioned that their indifference translates into lives that might be saved by making the public aware in time to prepare while an infrastructure still exists instead of when it is falling apart. I suppose I gave the media way too much credit when I suggested that they may be keeping silent so as to avoid panic. Such behavior would have taken some independent thought and decision making which they are incapable of. In my opinion you wrote an excellent series which was right on point regarding my question. Thank you sir.

-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), May 21, 1998.

As of May 98, the Y2K issue is still a yawn in the boardroom. It is not on the radar screens of most of the municipalities I address. The average family can't spell Y2K. And those same families think YEAR 2000 is an opportunity to travel somewhere and party! If you truly desire the publics and medias attention in this matter.MAKE A GOOD Y2K DISASTER MOVIE! Ever see Dante's Peak? The movie about the volcano? The simple reference to Mammoth Lakes' and its volcano in the movie had all the network news programs flocking to town to hype the "eminent eruption". Nevermind that the USGS stated that Mammoths volcano COULD POSSIBLY erupt in the next 500,000 years, thats "eminent" to the media, and by the time the media got done with the story, I had people calling me to ask if I could see the lava flow from my window!

With respect to media coverage, be careful what you pray for. Right now the media is perking along with this issue. Given the Y2K events that will occur in July and October of 1998 and early 1999, I would expect the news to ratchet up its attention as things progress. Even more attention if and when, Californias state systems begin having their difficulty.

The bottom line is that insurance companies, not the media, will do more to motivate industry and government executives to act on Y2K. All they have to do is explain that they are not covered for Y2K damage. Count on the media to motivate and mobilize the public to defend and protect itself. I just hope, when the movie or the message comes out about the Y2K impact and what John Q. Public can personally expect from Y2K, that the message is not hyped, over dramatized to the point it "sends folks scrambling for the exits of the crowded movie theater", metaphorically speaking. I hope the message is delivered matter-of-factly, with basic advice about how to maintain civil order and stable infrastructures during the inconveniences caused by Y2K.

THE BIG QUESTION: For those of you who are reading this, I ask this question. "Given our understanding of the Y2K situation, shouldn't we be spending more of our efforts on guiding and influencing the media and public's reaction to Y2k, than on how to fix it. The software and systems are D.O.A.. The public, its confidence in the system, and willingness to maintain order is still virtually unscathed and salvagable. Am I missing something here?

-- J.M. Modic (aiecorp@qnet.com), May 22, 1998.

Conspiracy of Ignorance and Fear. Most individuals that are familiar with the problem and follow those beleifs to their logical end gets scared. How DO you report on this w/out inspiring panic? It's a panic filled situation. Daledoe@bnoc.net

-- Richard Dale Fitzgerald 2 (Daledoe@bnoc.net), June 02, 1998.

A fairly new site that gleans the printed media, is http://www.y2knews.com It has daily updates on world world news and extensive information about all aspect of the year 200 problem. Give it a visit, you may find it quite informative.

-- Micky Trenkle (diemanjim@aol.com), June 20, 1998.

Hello everyone!

I am from Montreal,Quebec,Canada. I have just published a book titled +Le bogue de l'an 2000; in french (first french book for the grand public). There is not much information available in french on Internet or in the newspaper. The book is now in the librairies in Canada and will soon available in France. We have received a good feedback from journalists. We already been on the national radio station 3 times, and we will be on a tv show the first week of November, it could be better but it is a start. We have a website +www.bogue2000.com; and we are animating a forum for the french community (link available on our site). We have lots to do in french as you well know France is taking care of the Euro and in Quebec it is still only a computer problem. If you know french speaking community pass the word...

Pauline Poirier Montreal, Quebec, Canada

-- pauline poirier (bogue2000@bogue2000.com), October 18, 1998.

Re: Mr. Modec (hope i spelled your name correctly) with all do respect sir, the insurance industry will NOT be a motivating factor concerning the big push becuz they have already issued no coverage for disruption. They have their own problems to worry about, however, pretty much all y2k related claims will most likely be denied. It wont help get any motivated as most NEVER read policies. As I have handled claims in hte past I can tell you that we adjusters may not read the policy the way all others do, and at our discretion we can issue denial letters. Policies are very hard to understand. At last count over 40 states have issued y2k exclusions, approved by dept. of insurances for those particular states.

-- insurance agent (ins@aol.com), October 18, 1998.

I made a comment to an acquaintance whose son is a stockbroker that "stockbrokers don't like to talk about Year 2000" and he said "Nobody likes to talk about it". I think that answers your question as to why it isn't covered more in the mainstream press.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), October 18, 1998.

Why don't we hear more about Y2K in the mainstream media? For the same reason that we hear more about Bill and Monica and Bill and Whoever than we do about the actual business of running this government and representing the people that - theoretically - are supposed to be governing themselves! Because people like us (well, not US, of course :-)) buy more newspapers and watch more TV shows if someone is taking their clothes off. Bad news does NOT sell advertising space.

-- Melissa (financed@forbin.com), October 18, 1998.

Insurance agent, Mr. Modic may not still be around. Check the date that he wrote that post. I guess he had high hopes at the time that SOMETHING would jolt the mainstream media. We're still hoping!

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), October 18, 1998.

Melissa

No offense intended, but I would like to expand on this statement you made in the above post.

"Bad news does NOT sell advertising space."

I would change that to read "Bad news sells, but bad news that might affect you personally in a direct way, only makes people very uncomfortable, and does not sell as well."

Most of our culture actually likes reading about tragic events that affects only OTHER people, it makes us feel good for some deeply seated human reason. Hence the very common occurrence of "rubbernecking" at the scene of a terrible auto accident; that irresistable urge to look.

Of course you are 100% right, news about naked humans sells exceptionally well, better than anything else, especially so in a sexually repressed country such as the USA. One need look no further than this current "Zippergate" silliness as proof.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), October 19, 1998.

Yep...just my thought too, Unc, as I was reading the posts above yours. Bad news only sells if it is isolated bad news that doesn't impact "all individuals",...the nasty car wreck on a freeway you weren't on,...the flood in another part of the country,...the famine in the Sudan. The body count at the top of every news show on television sells only because folks can sit back and sigh "thank my deity, that wasn't me or mine". I think this is equivalent or close to the Lake Woebegone effect: "I'm more than okay but everyone else is screwed". I believe my man, The Bard, Shakespeare, had Hamlet saying that he wasn't too sure about the rest of the world, "but for me and thee, Horatio".

Bad news only leads (read bleeds) and sells,if it can be distanced, dissociated from the "me". And of course Y2K cannot be dissociated any when essential things like water, food and power, the big three...all hinging on electricity....we are all part of that "body electric", to borrow from Ray Bradbury. My never to be humble opinion is that the survival mechanism dissociation is the saving and the great undoing of human beings because they do not understand how it works in the mind, the individual mind and the global overmind...we have all been well-schooled in thinking that we are all separate entities floating here on/in/with our big blue marble,...the 4000 year teaching against seeing univeral connections feeds the continuing mad juggernaut dance entitled: how we will all sink or swim based on how much/well we connect/empathize and work together.

I always get very global when discussing this, and I would apologize but, I think it demonstrates why a systemic problem like Y2K or collapse of biosphere is tough for most everyone...it's huge and cannot really be separated from its parts. Not a clockwork, but a living organic thing that we will only fix when we deal systemically/organically.

Okay...sheesh...how I go on. Mea culpa.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), October 19, 1998.