A couple qualifiers first: 1. This post is NOT directed at anyone specifically on this board. It comes from general flustration

2. I have not worked on any Y2K articles, but have been in on story meetings about some.

As I have read this board here are some of the general thoughts I have come across about Y2K and the way the press handles it:

A. Since they are saying nothing they are either unaware, negligent or controlled by the goverment

B. Well they did a story, but it was too happy

C. Well they did a story, but it was too gloomy

D. Well they did a story, but they tried to minimize it by showing both sides OR well that is what propaganda does

E. Well they did a story, but they made the survivalists look kooky!

Ok...what would you have us do? As with just about any hot subject we are accused of having biases that show through (which they should not, but we as reporters are only humna after all) We could sit around and not say a word and you yell at us, if we talk about it and it does not match your views you yell at us. There is nothing we can do that does not piss someone off. It is a fact of journalism. Very few are willing to do what I have done which is recognize my very obvious bias and just step back from it.

So I am not looking to start a raging flame war here, but you have to realize, no matter what we do we are going to piss of some of you. What would you have us do?

(I am speaking in gneral terms, this is not in reference to any known articles in the works)

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 07, 1998

Answers

Rick, If it was up to me, the press would run big, bold headlines on page 1 everyday saying, "MAJOR DISRUPTIONS COMING SOON - STOCK UP ON FOOD, WATER, AND FUEL." But then, of course, that particular paper would be out of business in a month because no one would buy it anymore. It's the nature of Y2K that's such a problem. It's invisible, it's difficult for most people to comprehend, and it's effects are still months away. In short, it's the exact opposite of a good news story. I've had reporters tell me, point blank: "We can barely get today's news in tomorrow's paper. You want me to cover next year's news?!" I'm afraid that until there are bank runs, burning buildings, starving children, or something "vivid" that the press can sink its teeth into, coverage of Y2K will be lacking. But after it all hits the fan (and when it's too late for people to prepare), Y2K disruptions will be the lead story for months. That is, if the broadcast or printing technology is still functioning. --BD

-- bill dunn (bdunn@snet.net), November 07, 1998.

Do the responsible thing. 1. Stop labeling people and their efforts in dealing with and trying to cope with this uncertain, but potentially serious situation.This only divides communities. 2. In every article printed, ASK FOR MORE EVIDENCE, be it for or against,and why.(we learn this exercise in school, remember?) 2A. Investigate the unexplained; not explain the uninvestigated 3. State YOUR position,and why, with a possible disclaimer at the end, (such as we cannot be absolutley certain, but it may be wise to err on the side of caution) because there is more evidence that we have a problem, than otherwise. 4.Challenge anyone to show us evidence of why we should not be concerned. (real, not b.s.)

-- Arthur Rambo (buriedtreasure@webtv.net), November 07, 1998.

P.S. Rick, I meant no offence,(about the school exercise thing), Sometimes the frustration shows.

-- Arthur Rambo (buriedtreasure@webtv.net), November 07, 1998.

P.S. Rick, I meant no offense(about the school exercise thing)

-- Arthur Rambo (buredtreasure@webtv.net), November 07, 1998.

What should the press do? Some investigative reporting! True, an event like Y2K has never happened before. True, no-one can say with certainty what's going to happen. True, there are no Y2K experts.

BUT, the scandal is that we know almost nothing about how far along business and government and utilities have come on this issue. And that's serious, because as interdependent as modern society is, things could get very, very bad. Remember the UPS strike awhile back? Imagine if there were 10 or 20 disruptions like that UPS strike going on--ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Exactly how much money has each business, government agency and utility spent so far on Y2K? When did these people become aware of the problem? WHEN did they starting taking inventory of their hardware, software and embedded systems? Are they remediating their code now? Are they done with the fixes and are now testing? Is the testing more than just seeing if a particular computer works--in other words, once everything is supposedly fixed--will a company's system work together as a whole? And will your fixes be compatible with those of your vendors?

Do some investigative reporting on the fact that we have no way of getting hard information on the progress of government and utilities and businesses. Find "deep throat" contacts inside an organization's Y2K project. See if the programmers themselves are optimistic about compliance, as opposed to what the PR person for the organization has to say.

We don't know how bad Y2K might turn out. It's very possible to find out, though, just how shocking the lack of reliable information is on what progress is being made. Try to get an organization to tell you just how many mainframes, PC's, programs, spreadsheets and embedded systems they are going to have to address. If they can't tell you, report that--that is NEWS!

Whatever happened to investigative journalism? I'm glad Woodward and Bernstein weren't as laid back as the press seems to be right now with Y2K. Reporting on survivalists is easy and fun. The real story though is that most organizations have little idea about what all needs to be made compliant, how much it will cost, and when it will get done. And remember, this is a fixed deadline--you can't keep using the old system indefinitely until the new one is ready.

I will say one thing specific here: any organization that is large enough to use more than just a PC and off-the shelf software needs to have started on their Y2K project in 1997 at the latest. Do some digging and report how many medium-sized companies and utilities didn't start their projects until this past summer--or in some cases still haven't started! That, the lack of verifiable progress, and the domino effect likely throughout an interconnected information society is the real story of Y2K.

I'll get off my soapbox now. Dig, man, dig!

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 07, 1998.

I agree, go to local companies and talk to their IT staff. Local govt. agencies see what they have to say. Ask for documents. Press the power company for answers. Talk to y2k staff people. What have they fixed? What needs to be fixed? Go out and get the story. Look at the post about Fortune 500 companies with fiscal years starting 2/1/99. I would love to see how they handle the early rollover to 2000! WalMart is listed and their just in time inventory system is the core of their business. Will it fail? Will their suppliers fail? WalMart could be a story you sell to a national paper or magazine. Dig, dig, dig.

Then be sure to post here and let us know here what you have found out.

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), November 07, 1998.

For anyone who's serious about doing Y2K news stories, Michael Hyatt has an excellent column in his editorial archive, "What ever happened to investigative journalism?" He offers seven probing questions that can cut through all the PR B.S. and misinformation we keep getting from gov't and business spokesmen (and which the press generally reports as fact). Hyatt also has a tremendous monthly newsletter for sale--and I'm not just saying that 'cause I'm the managing editor of it...well, maybe a little. --BD

-- bill dunn (bdunn@snet.net), November 07, 1998.

# # # 19981107 -- Good thread to begin, Rick! Ditto to all said by those before me.

I was so incensed by this ( see below ) GartnerGroup so-called "report" I felt morally compelled to respond ( forcefully ) to it.

Rather than begin another thread at this time, it may be appropriate to post it here to get some feedback.

Regards, Bob Mangus

# # # 19981107 -- "Psychological ( Y2K ) Warfare" ( declared ) by GartnerGroup ...

IMHO,

"Psychological ( Y2K ) Warfare" has been declared on populations of the globe with the Gartner Report, "Y2K Too Shall Pass" < http://gartner12.gartnerweb.com/public/static/home/00073955.html > ( see snip below ).

Until this fateful report, I had considered GartnerGroup one of the more esteemed Year 2000 ( IT business ) research organizations. The big guns ( GartnerGroup, ITAA, et al ) are being called out to quash ( well articulated and researched ) Y2K-related information they've ( justifiably ) disseminated in recent years through excellent research and testimony.

In spite of the pretty graphs < http://gartner6.gartnerweb.com/public/static/home/00073955.html > and highbrow ( ever increasingly politicized ) verbiage, the realm of intellectual ( and psychological ) denial has finally been breached by the Y2K behemoths.

The realities and vulnerability of the "fragile infrastructure" to a total ( network ) collapse from a success level of only 90% ( Y2K remediation ) by societies at-large, has enormous consequence to TWAWKI ( The World As We Know It ). These are ( clumsy ) treading into dangerous waters!

Describing bank runs and long-term preparations as the worst things that could happen in the face of "devastated" economies, is less than disingenuous. I consider it morally bankrupt and evil!

GartnerGroup's "Hurricane" analogy is way out of the base lines. There is no evidence ( status reporting is not the doing! ) that the Year 2000 Techno-Ambush won't be universal and catastrophic ( for computer-based societies ) in scope and effect for a large portion of the population on the planet. Neutron bomb is a realistic analogy. Yes! People are going to perish! Buildings and edifices will remain standing, however, as ( uninhabitable ) monuments to the Year 2000 Techno-Ambush.

For crying out loud! It is reality that military and policing forces around the world ( Canada and Britain! ) are quaking in their boots ( literally ), preparing ( pro-actively ) for prospects of massive civil unrest and chaos leading up to the Year 2000, and thereafter.

GartnerGroup is incorrect with the proclamation that Year 2000 disruptions are "not the end of the world." The disruption of the global infrastructure will, indeed, be the end of the world _as we know it today_. It will be a relatively instantaneous, population hurling-event into a retro-lifestyles of the mid-19th century, adversely affecting more than half the population on our planet.

Who are these plebian, grossly in-denial, wannabe "psychologists" trying to kid ( or appease )? GartnerGroup ( and their ilk ) have, forthwith, lost any useful purpose and credibility! They have become Y2K-ill-fated corporate lackeys and purveyors of corporate snake oil, groping to protect their own ( ill-fated )assets.

It's time for individuals of the world to take Year 2000-matters and rational preparations into their own, capable, soon-to-be low-tech hands. The consequences of not doing so, are much too grave to be left to the whims and mercy of denial-blinded corporations and governments.

. Do not bother to ask for, or trust in, Y2K "status reports ( fiction )."

. Do prepare for global infrastructure disruptions, of indeterminable duration.

. Do seize public officials with demands to mobilize and utilize every possible ( especially local ) public human and material resources toward Year 2000 calamity preparations, on a worst case scenario basis -- YESTERDAY!!.

Time is the premium and primary commodity. It is time to re-educate affected populations to the "rigors" of doing without ( substituting ... {with} ):

. Water ( with collection/rudimentary purification ) . Food (mass) production/distribution ( with sharecropping/canning ) . Heat [ natural gas ( NG )/electric distribution ] ( with safe coal/wood methods ) . Sanitation ( with rudimentary/disease-mitigating methods ) . Clothing ( with handmade sackcloth and hair shirts ) . National Defense ( with "Minute Man" militia ) . Medication/Medical/Dental technologies ( with herbs/first aid/ugh! ) . Currency ( with metals/bartering ) . National Defense ( with "Minute Man" militia ) . Communications ( with Pony Express/"The Postman" ) . Mass transportation ( with equestrian/steam ) . Police ( with Neighborhood Watches/Self-defense ) . Courts ( with local Justices of the Peace ) . Schools ( with local teachers, teaching the basic R's in existing facilities ) . Work ( with handcrafts/harvesting ... where possible, continued Y2K remediation! ) . Entertainment ( with local live theater and community social functions ) . Pets ( with guard dogs/livestock )

Heeding Year 2000 psycho-babble from sophomoric, ill-fated institutions in societies, will lead down folly lane. It's the networks! They're broken and can't be fixed in time. Do what you and your loved ones must, and are able, before it's too late to be too late.

There won't be any help from the general media on the Year 2000 issues, either.. They are bought and paid lackeys of corporate masters with vested interests in jeopardy -- regardless of what the Year 2000 meltdown outcome. Only courageous individuals and small ( some Internet-based ) news sources will be allowed to provide real information -- trust, but verify.

Oh yes! Keep your eyes on the money and leaders ( public and private ) for the only you will need to heed during and after the Year 2000 meltdown.

Regards,

Robert Mangus

"I'm a computer 'Y2K-bomb' technician. If you see me running, try to keep up." RMangus

"Sometimes a majority simply means that all of the fools are of one mind." [Author Unknown]

Year 2000 Citizen Action Group [Y2KCAG] (Oakland County, Michigan - USA) E-mail: Pager: 810.912.8729 * A Volunteer Year 2000 Public Awareness Org. * *==================================================================* Open to preparedness items and ideas for general distribution! To subscribe: Subject: Y2KCAG subscribe PUBLIC or PRIVATE To unsubscribe: Subject: Y2KCAG unsubscribe Keep informed about and prepare for the "Year 2000 Techno-Ambush": Visit: Cassandra Project: Gary North: Sharefin's Gold Homepage: *==================================================================*

> Gartner Report: Y2K Too Shall Pass

The GartnerGroup is gunning for Mad Max. Or at least the world-gone- mad mentality this movie brings to mind. Clearly distressed by Y2K "gloom and doom" sayers and the extreme measures some advocate in response, the company is now trying to pour oil on troubled millennial waters. Or as one of its leading consultants says, "pour oil on the hysteria."

And perhaps rid the world of a little snakeoil in the process?

The GartnerGroup is known more for its consulting work with private clients than missionary work with average citizens. But the company recently released a public report intended to help just plain folks cope with the stress of a digitally dysfunctional world.

The report is certainly designed to help cooler heads prevail. While survivalists may urge mountain retreats or mounds of freeze dried edibles, the Gartner Group seemingly predicts that the Year 2000 rollover will be a few days spent with relatively minor techno troubles. Troubles more of "gol dang it" than Gotterdammerung variety. And certainly not modern society's one-way ticket ride to Cyberia.

At least that's certainly the way one of the report's authors sees it. "We don't need a run on the banks due to hysteria and panic," says GartnerGroup Vice President and Director of Research Jim Cassell. The analyst says his firm is working with the American Banking Association to head off such a possibility. He says the ABA is very concerned about people needlessly withdrawing large sums in the run up to the rollover. The collective cashing of one month's paycheck, Cassell says, would empty the national till. "There is not enough physical money," he says.

"Withdrawing funds from banks or liquidating investments is not warrantedGartnerGroup assumes most enterprises will address mission- critical systems so that 90 percent of the systems that do fail will be corrected within three days," the new report notes. Seventy percent will be back in two days, it predicts.

Cassell compares the situation to a hurricane. Pay attention, be prepared, but do not be blown away by fear and doubt. A stampede to the boonies isn't on Gartner's to-do list either. Citing the "incredible hysteria" he hears, Cassell encourages people to look at the situation in perspective and separate panic from practicality. Cassell says he lives in Florida, where the "worst day is 60 degrees. I'm not worried about buying a space heater," he says.

So what is a person to do to prepare for a few days of technologically stormy weather? Cassell suggests that like his Florida example, physical location will go a long way to determining what steps are necessary. Some moves, however, seem universal. Cassell says having the equivalent of two-weeks salary on hand is not a bad idea. And a five-day contingency supply of medications, fuel and food are good too.

"Individuals should prepare for limited duration, localized failures of services and infrastructure rather than an apocalypse," the report states, but warns, "The type and number of failures will vary geographically and cannot really be predicted."

On the GartnerGroup's Personal Year 2000 Risk Assessment checklist are insurance policy reviews, prescription refills, physical and dental checkups, first-aid supplies, cellular phone backups, topped off gasoline and home heating oil tanks, early driver's license renewals, and stocked water. "The most critical factors for most people are clearly the availability of telephone service and electric power," the report notes, citing the vulnerability of automated teller machines, emergency services, credit cards, electronic funds transfer and the like.

Gartner's optimistic view is not necessarily global. "In many cases there is no effective way for a non-U.S. person to meaningfully assess the risk posed by such things as infrastructure and financial services," the report observes. "Few countries have as rigorous reporting requirements as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and individuals have no leverage on enterprises such as insurance and utility companies. Such enterprises generally do not provide specific responses to individuals." Listen to whatever public pronouncements are available, then take a conservative position, the report suggests.

Back in the U.S., Cassell says institutions like the SEC and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will help people weather the storm. But it won't be the kind of storm that floods cities or blows down buildings. "You may not get [some] products or services for five days. It will be inconvenient, disruptive, but it's not the end of the world," he notes.

At least not for individuals. Companies, according to Cassell, could be a different story. Some of these, he says, will be "devastated" by lawsuits and other problems. Of course the economic consequences of such impacts could mean more than a blinking VCR to many American households. But even a lost job or depressed stock price isn't the end of times.

So put away the sackcloth and hair shirts for now. Instead, prepare for the purely practical. Like checking that investment companies are providing adequate status information. That insurance policies cover date related physical damage. That health concerns are tended to ahead of time. And that neighbors are covered too.

"People should not ask 'How can I survive the century boundary?' They should ask 'How can my neighborhood and I survive the century boundary?' People should volunteer to help the elderly or sick, and should also volunteer their services to their local, city or town governments," the report advises.

The free report is available at http://www.gartnerweb.com.

[RMangus] The report is actually located here: < http://gartner12.gartnerweb.com/public/static/home/00073955.html > # # #

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@mail.netquest.com), November 07, 1998.

Rick,

I'll make this short and sweet. I agree with Kevin. We need investigative in-depth reporting. I think we are big girls and boys and can handle the truth.

Best regards,

Anna

-- Anna McKay Ginn (annaginn@aol.com), November 07, 1998.

THE story of your career is about to fall into your lap, Rick. Y2K doesn't just start in November or December of 1999 with banks runs.

IT STARTS EIGHT WEEKS FROM NOW.

On January 4th, some people who try to renew their car's license plates and registration won't be able to--because the expiration date for a one year renewal means the expiration date will be in the year (19)00.

Some people who pay for another year's worth of insurance on their car, motorcycle or home in January of 1999 won't be able to--because the policies will expire (will have expired) in the year (19)00.

Others who attend an annual convention this January and try to sign up for one a year after that may not be able to. Ditto to trying to reserve a hotel room in January of 1999 so they'll have a place to stay while attending the convention a year later in 20- NO, (19)00.

The elderly and chronically ill, as I understand it, often have prescriptions approved for them on a year-to-year basis. It would be annoying to find that a one-year prescription in January of 1999 had already expired 99 years ago.

THE BIGGEST STORY THOUGH, RICK, MAY BE THE I.R.S.

The I.R.S. now says it'll be compliant by this coming January. Impossible. Rep. Stephen Horn gave the I.R.S.'s compliance efforts a 'D' grade only two or three months. The I.R.S. is lying...it's going to start having its own glitches in January and try to make it look as if the problem is merely the completed remediation that hasn't been tested yet.

Now there's a story for you to investigate, Rick!

Plus, on February 1, 1999, 28 of the Fortune 500 companies enter their new fiscal year. If these 28 haven't finished their remediation yet, it will play havoc with their accounting, their earnings records and their tax records. Watch these 28 Fortune 500 companies like a hawk.

Bottom line is, by this January or at the latest by this February, Y2K will be making some kind of headlines. The press needs to ask the government, businesses and utilities hard questions--when did you become aware? When did you begin assessment? What's the exact number of your mainframes, PC's, programs, spreadsheets and embedded systems that need remediation? What's the dollar amount you've spent so far? What percentage is that amount of the total that is going to be spent? Are you even half done with remediation yet?

We need investigative journalism. This may be our last chance to get at least 85% of mission-critical systems ready by the Fall of 1999.

Rick, go see "All The President's Men" again. We need a Woodward and Bernstein to dig into the REAL Y2K story. Quoting optimistic statements from the PR spinmeisters of utilities, businesses and the government, and doing entertaining stories on survivalists ain't gonna cut it no more. The jobs of millions of people in this country are on the line. Dig, dig, and dig some more.

(19)97 ---- (19)98 ---- (19)99 ---- (19)00

I think I've said my peace. Signing off for now.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 07, 1998.

In addition to EVERYTHING that EVERYONE said above, there is just one other thing: The news media needs to "get it"!!! What is John Q. Public supposed to think when (rare as it is, but it has happened) a resonably good Y2K story is presented -- but right next to it, there is a separate story that clearly SHOULD be intimately bound to the Y2K problem but does not even mention Y2K! (E.g., something like "The Wonderful Things That Computer Will Do In The Upcoming Millennium" or "Our Marvelous Microchips and How They Are Advancing Medicine".) I would say that, to responsibly cover the Y2K issue, these haphazard one-shot articles (or short series) need to be heavily supplemented so that ANY article that has to do with the future, or computers, or the financial systems, or airports, etc., etc., etc., should ALSO be asking related Y2K questions.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), November 07, 1998.

I apologize if this seems too simplistic, but...

Newspapers, magazines, television and radio exist for a single purpose- Profit. Reporters are not unlike the production workers at any manufacturing company. They produce the product (circulation/ratings) to create revenue (advertising). In that capacity, I think reporters should talk to their peers- the production people doing the coding. Let the media managers talk to industry managers...they can do lunch.

The software and firmware is sick. The procedures being performed to treat the patient, and the prognosis, is better understood and reported by the doctor than the hospital administrator.

People are interested in people. I think words and faces of coders would pique the interest of readers/viewers more than the "opinions" of analysts and administrators. Circulation increases. Revenue increases. A byproduct is factual information that benefits the reader/viewer. Everybody wins.

Cutting and pasting quotes from press releases and analysts is not reporting. Sure, it's easy and convenient, but fixing code and anticipating how it impacts other code is not easy or convenient.

A little respect for your fellow production worker may get you a story worth telling. BTW, I'm using the royal "you."

-- PNG (png@gol.com), November 07, 1998.

Rick:

I agree with all of the above. I have a few additional suggestions:

Forget about the local angle. While it's (perhaps) more relevant to your readers, it misses the point entirely. This is a GLOBAL phenomenon that will, of course, affect your readers locally. Focus on the big picture. The evidence is overwhelming that most of the world will be ill-prepared, and the consequences for that will be enormous for the U.S., even if the U.S. is better prepared than most.

Focus on the need to prepare, not for armageddon (for it is impossible to prepare for that anyhow), but for hard times. Failure to prepare, even in basic ways (extra food, cash, etc.), will panic far too many people if and when TSHTF.

I don't know if you've received my Powerpoint presentation. I'm going to send you a copy. Use some of the quotes. They are powerful and mainstream. Here's just one example, but note the source:

The Y2K technology problem involves several dimensions and touches upon nearly every aspect of day-to-day business in the world. The efforts of emergency management and fire service organizations cannot be viewed as a substitute for personal responsibility and personal preparedness. Every organization and every individual, in public and private life, has an obligation to learn more about this problem and their vulnerability, so that they may take appropriate action to prevent a problem before it occurs. -Lacy Suiter, Executive Associate Director for Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

It is possible to do a hard, factual story in a way that isn't (overly) biased. Someone needs to do it. Why not you?

Good luck. Keep us posted.

-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), November 07, 1998.

Steve - respectfully disagree about the local vs global angle.

Rick:

Start at the local angle - because no one else in the country (or world) can do anything about the local school board salaries, the fire dept radio system, the police emergency generator, the county tax system, or the "company town" that will shut down because the main business has no gas, or no oil, or no heat, or no transporatation for the mill's output, or whatever.

People need to understand that the "global" aspects hit them first in the sewer, in the paycheck, in their power, in their water pipe, in their checkbook (or lack of checkbook.)

Start at the extreme local point - can you get your paper out? Then start talking to your editor or manager. See if you (in your paper) have power, water, are downstream of the sewage plant, have computers that will work. Does your paper get shipped in? How far does the newsprint come? How the gaoline get there? how you get the information? What if (when) the telephones go down? What if (when) the satellite goes dead? What if the paper tension feed device in the printshop goes down becuase it has an embedded chip? How will you fold papers when there is no power?

What are the city's contingency plans? What will the fire dept do if water service goes down? How long can the local city governemnt runif if has no tax revenue? Can it meet payroll? What about emmission checks? 911? The local welfare office? Are the county's debit cards for welfare going to work? have they been tested?

In all of this, we (regular readers) have been burned (often badly) by previuos computer failures - as people in th ebusiness, in testing, in fixing - we are at the front of the problem because we have learned the d**m things are very, very, very, stupid. Very fast,of course, but very stupid.

And they promulgate mistakes even faster than they make 'em.

A final point - don't believe anybody that says they know what will happen. Nobody knows. Anyone who says something else is a liar, and has an agenda he or she is pushing on you.

Find out what that agenda is. Find out why they are a liar.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 07, 1998.

While those indepth stories are focusing on identifying the truth of the Y2K problems, there needs to be a simultaneous effort going on showing people how to prepare, how to create community groups, etc. If you are going to get them scared, then at least show them how to channel that into positive preparations. Some ideas:

1) Human interest stories focusing on individuals and groups who come together during a common crisis/challenge.

2) Preparedness columns focusing on the simple things people can do and where to go for additional help in their communities and on the internet.

3) Ways in which the military and governments in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, etc. are pulling together to mobilize advance aid in the form of warehousing food, water, supplies in metropolitan and suburban areas. Accent the other groups who help in that effort. Call for volunteers.

4) Encourage major camping supply stores to mobilize teachers to offer basic camping techniques classes, and then offer to write feature articles on those activities.

5) Tell human interest stories of the WWII survivors on the home front and ways they coped during the war effort.

6) Have different reporters visit the local community group Y2K meetings and report the actions of these people.

In other words, show how people are or can come together.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 08, 1998.

Robert Mangus wrote: "It will be a relatively instantaneous, population hurling-event into a retro-lifestyles of the mid-19th century..."

I wonder if it will be even that good.

When I was a kid in the 30's the milk (raw and unhomogenized) was brought to the door every day by the milkman, driving a horse-drawn wagon. The iceman's wagon (also horse-drawn) came round every other day. Everyone had iceboxes, not refrigerators. Vendors came down the street almost every afternoon peddling beets, lettuce, carrots, potatoes, onions, etc., from the large truck gardens just outside the city limits. The Armenian junkman came down the alley once a week with his horse and wagon, paying as little as possible for any sort of salvageable throwaways. Small stores for all necessities were located at most 5, 6 blocks away from anybody. We could get downtown by streetcar in 20-30 minutes.

That working system is gone. It could be rebuilt, but not in time. Not enough harness-broke horses, for one thing.

Hamasaki, Milne and Infomagic make a lot more sense. I sure hope they're wrong.

Rick -- a friend of mine is on the City desk of the Cincinnati Enquirer. I asked him once why he (or somebody on the paper) didn't cover a certain event, dealing with a topic not quite mainstream. He said the management of the paper (it's in the Gannet chain) had one absolute rule: they didn't want to look foolish. So the event wasn't covered. So quite a few things don't get covered. I have an idea this principle determines news coverage in most big cities.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), November 08, 1998.

If our political, et. al. powers that be (and some of those using this site as an information feed) could influence the media management and owners that they need to create executive memos to the investigative reporting troops somehow stating:

1) The Y2K Millennium Challenge -- local, national, global. 2) What we do know, what we dont know, what we NEED to know. 3) What the possible repercussions are if we are NOT prepared globally, and if we ARE prepared? 4) How we are all in this together United We Stand, Divided We Fall verbiage. 5) Weve never done this one before, we dont KNOW what will happen, what does the smaller and larger community out there think could happen? 6) What ARE ways communities can/are/should prepare? How do communities come together? 7) Encourage the investigative reporter to emerge in everyone, be the best and most responsible they can be, and find creative ways to SOLVE problems, even when things cant be fixed in time. 8) Stay balanced in the reporting efforts, try not to sensationalize, for every problem identified, offer a creative solution. If the articles, etc. create FEAR, then they must also illustrate how to channel that into POSITIVE action. 9) Turn the reporters loose because our civilization depends on digging up the truth, for one and all.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 08, 1998.

There seems to be a common thread running through these responses -- that "investigative reporters" are somehow imbued with superpowers that allow them find all sorts of hidden, secret, hitherto unknown information in a world that consistently lies, covers up, and denies. Sure, get that information from your local utility -- in maybe six months, after you've filled out the appropriate Freedom of Information Act request, and that's if the lawyers don't force a court battle. And SURE your editor is willing to pay the legal fees. Sure, find that Deep Throat source, and then try to make sure he/she isn't some wacko with a history of mental illness or a junior exec with an axe to grind and an agenda to push. And then go to your editor and say, "Hey Chief, I just found out the world is ending in fourteen months. We gotta run this Page 1!" How long has Ken Starr, armed with all sorts of legal powers, been trying to nail Clinton and has he succeeded yet? Woodward and Bernstein had it easy, they weren't fighting lawyers and spin doctors. If Watergate happened today, they'd still be covering the police beat. So let's have a little reality check here, folks. Reporters are people just like you -- and me, who used to be one. It isn't as easy as meeting a secret source in an underground parking garage and then getting your editor -- who just returned from a seminar on the legal risks of printing unsubstantiated information -- to run it. And the Gannett editors aren't worried about embarrassing themselves, they're worried about credibility. When a paper loses its credibility, it may as well sell the presses and send everyone home. Just think of all those other end-of-the-world predictions we've seen. The asteroid scare last summer was a perfect example. First it's an extinction level event and then three days later it's "oh never mind." Or the CNN/Time report on nerve gas usage in Vietnam. Heads rolled on that one in a desperate attempt to retain some semblance of credibility for the program. For a good many editors -- and they're the ones who make the decisions, not the reporters -- y2k is just another guy in a robe carrying a "The End Is Near" sign, and how many of us have laughed at those cartoons? Than there's the time and expense, but I won't get into that. I've said it before, so I'll say it again. The story won't get coverage until something _happens_ until the bank runs begin or the airports shut down or the trains fail to run. JDC, who's glad he's out of the game.

-- J.D. Clark (yankeejdc@aol.com), November 08, 1998.

Rick,

>What would you have us do?

1. Immediately designate one or more full-time-Y2K reporters, if not already done. Prefer background techie enough to comprehend why it's a complex and subtle computer problem, but generalist enough to tie together potential societal impacts. Requirement: excellent health and energy for working long and hard for next 15 months at least.

2. Monitor a wide variety of Internet Y2K sites to get a balanced picture of the spectrum of Y2K opinion.

3. Read _Time Bomb 2000_ (my personal favorite) and similar works on the subject of Y2K societal effects. It looks to me like 95-98% of Y2K books have been about how to fix the computer problems -- these will not be of significant use to the general public.

[However, the relevant-to-the-general-public 2-5% will probably be filed in bookstores' computer sections along with the rest of the Y2K books although they really shouldn't be.]

4. Dig, dig, dig, into what all governmental levels are/aren't doing to prepare for potential Y2K disruptions. Ruthlessly expose Y2K ignorance and apathy among those officials and authorities who have a responsibility to know and do better.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), November 08, 1998.

Rick,

(continued)

5. Keep in mind that the clock is ticking and the deadlines are the most immovable ever. You can stop the presses, but you can't stop time.

6. Be prepared to discover that it's too late to fix as many important systems as ought to have been fixed if we'd all started a few years earlier, and that in many cases the most effective use of resources _now_ will be contingency and fallback planning rather than remediation.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), November 08, 1998.

Rick,

(continued)

7. Apply steps 5 and 6 to your publisher.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), November 08, 1998.

Rick,

I have an idea for a Y2K article you could do sometime. Do an article on the internet, Y2K worry, and people on the net who are preparing for Y2K. This Forum. Us! 8:)

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 08, 1998.

You've all made good points. Everything suggested here has merit and goes to a facet of Y2k that needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately, although they all answer Rick's question, none of them solve his problem.

Rick has clearly stated the dilemma: Damned if we do, damned if we don't. No matter what we print, we offend or anger someone.

The error is in assuming that the problem and the dilemma are the same.

The <,b>dilemma ceases to exist when we remember that the function of the press in a free society is to publish the news (read objective truth) and that the biased opinion and offensive bits belong on the editorial page.

The problem is that we don't trust the press, and with good reason. The press is no longer performing its proper function.

The 1st Amendment clearly says that the Congress can't make laws that restrict freedom of the press. This is the same level of protection that religion has in our society. This is pretty heady stuff. ". . .Shall make no law. . ." And, the press guards this privilege as fiercely and jealously as any "gun nut" defends the 2nd Amendment.

Surely the intent of the framers in providing this protection to the press is obvious: that the press should be free of control by the government and of negative consequence in the event that they publish anything which offends and/or angers some powerful entity. And, although not stated outright anywhere in the Constitution, I'm sure that everyone understands that the other side of that coin is that the press had better publish the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, no matter who it might offend.

My own realization that the press was not anything like the "crusading, fearlessly honest newspaper editor of the old western films" came at the time of Charles de Gaulle's funeral. I was working in Europe at the time, and took much critical abuse by all flavors of Europeans that I spoke with because President Nixon had used the occasion of de Gaulle's funeral to "politick" rather than eulogize. When I tried to discuss this with my brother who was back in the US, he didn't know anything about it. To the best of my knowledge, the press reported none of that. They lost my trust then and have never regained it.

I suspect that each of you can tell a tale of when you stopped believing what was reported and/or began wondering what had NOT been reported, as well. Actually, the statement, "Don't believe everything you read", has become almost an Article of Faith in our society.

Lest you cry, "But the advertisers ultimately call the shots! We have to stay in business!", or ANY other justification, I submit that the reasons why the trust has been lost do not matter, only that it has been so lost.

So, Rick, my answer is the same as some of the others' here; tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth no matter who it might offend or anger. But! I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for much of anyone to believe whatever you print. You've got to rebuild the trust first (not you, Rick, but the press and the media in general). That seems a rather tall order to me.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), November 09, 1998.

just so everyone knows, I am reading this thread..VERY intently actually. Just there have been so many good suggestions it is hard to choose when to comment. Just didn't want anyone thinking I had started this and then ignored it:)

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), November 09, 1998.

Do any or all of the above, Rick. Do anything that will get the story out there and get people thinking and talking about it.

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), November 09, 1998.

Rick, see Bill Solorzano's thread "Applying logic to Y2K" for another idea.

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), November 09, 1998.

Rick,

I happened to run across the Michael Hyatt editorial that someone in this thread mentioned. It has the tough questions a reporter investigating Y2K might want to ask. Here are the seven questions---

1. How many computer systems do you have in your inventory?

2. How many of these systems do you consider to be 'mission critical'?

3. What criteria did you use to determine which systems were 'mission critical' and which ones were not?

4. How many of your mission critical systems are currently Y2K-ready?

5. What are your critical Y2K milestones for each of your major systems?

6. Have you identified, contacted, and heard back from your critical vendors and other suppliers?

7. Do you have written contingency plans?

The name of the article is...

Where is investigative journalism when you need it?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 11, 1998.

Rick,

I am sending an E-mail of everyones responses on this What SHOULD The Press Do Thread to contacts at San Franciscos KRON Channel 4 TV and several technology staff writers at the San Jose Mercury News. I suggest others do the same for their local media.

Everyone here has great ideas!!! We just might all make a difference, together.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 12, 1998.

Also, every journalist who covers these should have read Michael Hyatts article "Where Is Investigative Journalism When You Need It? " located at:

http://www.y2kti mebomb.com/Media/hyatt9840.htm

Please pay particular attention to the "seven questions that reporters should use whenever they are told by any organization that all is well and they are on track to get their Y2K project finished on time". -Arnie

-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), November 13, 1998.

---

Ooops

fixing blockquote

sorry

Rick,

For a view from Victor Porlier over at the Westergaard Year 2000 site about what the press should *not* do:

Y2K & The Power of Positive Pigeonholing

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 10, 1998.