Cynical Nation: In the Abence of Not Knowing Who to Believe, Who DO We Believe?

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

Grocery shopping over the weekend, I happened to see a special publication on Y2k on the magazine stand. It's title was something like "Important things you need to do before the millennium."

Despite thousands of hours researching Y2k, my first reaction was the same as if I were staring at the cover of the "National Enquirer."

I kept on walking. Before I hit the checkout, my curiosity (regarding my reaction) kicked in. I walked back to take a second look.

I noticed that the author was a former writer for "Consumer Reports," hardly what most people would consider an "alarmist" publication. Yet, my first reaction was STILL disbelief.

This experience, combined with today's Alaskan pipeline story, and the fact that I've just begun reading George Stephanopoulos' Clinton "tell-all" book, "All Too Human," got me thinking about the subject of exaggerated reporting and its evil twin, "public relations spin."

How to identify journalistic "rags?" If they print stories that later turn out to be untrue, perhaps that's a "clue."

Maybe the same identifying criteria can apply to "spin."

If a corporation or government public relations group denies something that apparently valid evidence later indicates is true, then we can assume that the corporate or government entity is using "spin doctors."

A possible example here: The pipeline story.

Here we seem to have a case of whistleblowers writing letters to Congress and BP Oil, one of the owners of the pipeline.

The BBC is reporting:

"The six employees - who have not been named - have written to BP Amoco's Chief Executive, Sir John Browne, warning that "irresponsible operations" at a major oil pipeline are posing an imminent threat to human life and the environment."

But Reuters is reporting:

"A BP Amoco spokeswoman told Reuters: ``I cannot comment on it because we have not had any letter.''

Now does "we" mean? The PR department? The "Royal" we?

I'll watch this story. If these whistleblowers were indeed smart enough to write Congressmen and if those Congressmen aren't bought and paid for by somebody with something to lose, maybe the truth will come out (and--as an aside--I wonder of Y2k will rear its ugly little head in there somewhere).

In the meantime, I'm beginning to think that while we monitor Y2k news every day, maybe the best way to judge the truth of any claim is whether it eventually becomes "mainstream" news.

Kind of like Monica Lewinsky.

I admit this is probably a far from perfect approach in trying to determine the truth of the Y2k news we read everyday.

Anybody got any better ideas?

-- wondering (what@to.believe), July 12, 1999

Answers

Wouldn't your approach only identify which "news" sources are good barometers of the final spin, rather than what really happened?

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), July 12, 1999.

Wondering - One of the major questions has been, how far along are the agencies in their remediation. I have been thinking recently that one correlation should be whether the agencies with the most potentially visible problems (at this point in time) have had visible problems, and if so, how that might extrapolate to those agencies where I might expect less to have been heard.

It strikes me that the most visible stories have been FAA's various fiascos in introducing upgraded equipment, and the Van Nuys sewage spill. These do strike me as the sort of stories that would be less likely to be swept under the rug. (For some reason, people stranded at airports and millions of gallons of oozing sh*t seems to gather the attention of reporters.)

We know that FAA has lied about its compliance status, repeatedly. I think FAA is also less likely to get away with those lies than most of the other federal agencies. (Afterall, all that really matters about Y2K is whether "airplanes will fall from the sky".)

Not that this in any way confirms how the other agencies have been doing, but it definitely makes me less inclined to believe their happy-face reports.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 12, 1999.


"they'll pay to know what they really think"---J.R."BOB" Dobbs

-- Rev.Ganja Man (Rev.GanjaMan@subgenious.com), July 12, 1999.

"I don't practice what I preach,because I'm not the kind of man I'm preaching to!"---J.R."BOB" Dobbs

-- PRAISE "BOB"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Rev.GanjaMan@subgenious.com), July 12, 1999.

How to tell if a politician, bureaurat, lawyer, or PR flack is lying:
Their lips are moving.

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 12, 1999.


You've made some interesting observations "wondering". Be sure to give us a heads-up when if/when you get an answer to the letter question.

And in keeping with your comments re: "journalistic rags"...

Here's a quick entertainment tip for those who aren't afraid to suspend a little belief now and then... IMHO If ya like www.y2knewswire.com or www.worldnetdaily.com, you'll absolutely LOVE www.nationalenquirer.com

-- CD (not@here.com), July 12, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ