Taskforce 2000: PR/Media Challenges

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

One should rarely generalise, and generalisations about the press are difficult to sustain, as it is arguably as diverse a grouping as you could possibly wish to meet.

However, for the purposes of this introduction, generalisations will have to be made. But in essence, the information that follows will broadly refer to broadcast and national print journalists.

Y2K has been an unusual and difficult story for these journalists to deal with. Why? Because most journalists, short of time and pushed hard by their editor, like stories to fit in to neat boxes and unfortunately the Y2K problem doesn't!

It doesn't because:

It is so vast in scope as computers effect everything in daily life for large parts of the world It is impossible to say what will happen - we have never been here before, so only a fool would predict the outcome It operates at more than one level. Y2K is both easy and hard to comprehend: Easy because it's not a highly technical IT story - all you need to know is that computers will get things wrong and fail if they are not fixed. Hard because solving it is only partly to do with IT - it's more about management and leadership - both in the political and a business environment. Y2K is about senior directors managing priorities and resources against an immovable deadline and ensuring continguency plans are in place

So for journalists, this subject is like holding a wet bar of soap, it takes time and real understanding to successfully interpret for readers, listeners or viewers.

This makes life unusually difficult. Imagine the challenge faced within the remorseless confines of daily news output:

Persuading a sceptical editor its not hype and that there is actually a real story here Finding a actual example of a Y2K failure - companies won't admit to them and neither will Government Finding people that will interpret Y2K that don't come across as cranks or computer nerds Interpreting it in a way the general public will understand Strike a balance between treating it as a joke or an apocolypse

When you consider this it's easy to understand the coverage we have seen over the past three years.

That coverage has vascilated from informative and responsible to trivial and absurd. There appear to be several types of story that run at various intervals:

Apocolyptic: based on very little tangible evidence, these stories look to shock rather than inform. They concentrate on nuclear power stations (usually in Russia) blowing up, planes falling out of the skies and breakdown of modern western society. Fun poking: or PMT (pre millennium tension). Many commentators decided very early on that Y2K was a big joke, the revenge of the "killer nerds", an overreaction by a few boffins. Conspiracy theorists: this is an elaborate conspiracy dreamt up by the IT industry to squeeze more money from customers Oddballs - picking on unconventional families who have decided to hoard food and supplies, or who have opted out and "gone to the hills" to 'survive the crisis'. What could happen if: some stories have simply picked an industry group or particular scenario and tried to guess the results of computer failure.

Perhaps because of these types of stories, in a recent Taskforce 2000 survey of companies, concern was raised about the media's treatment of Y2K. A large number of companies (69 per cent) believed the media was repeating false doomsday predictions and 38 per cent believed the media has not taken the issue seriously.

In addition, the print media's treatment was generally considered better than broadcast, especially The Financial Times, Sunday Business and the Economist. The BBC was seen to have had the best TV coverage. The tabloids were thought to have been irresponsible.

In discussion, most journalists have come to the view that there are likely to be problems, but they believe that the country will cope succesfully - causing the public only minor inconvenience. Their guess is as good as anybody elses - only time will tell.

For companies and the public sector, it is now absolutely essential to put the finishing touches to communications contingency plans. Testing your communications planning is as vital as testing your IT systems. Failure to do so could mean that years of marketing, building a successful brand, could be, not just undone, but torn apart within hours of the Millennium.

If you need assistance with crisis media training or testing of communications contingency plans contact Rob Wilson. Telephone: 01252 811117 Email: rob.wilson@ndirect.co.uk.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 25, 1999

Answers

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://www.taskforce2000.co.uk/resource/mediachallenges.htm

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 25, 1999.


I feel sorry for the Brits. On one side they have Action 2000 which is the governments happy-faced Y2k body and on the other side they have TaskForce 2000 which is the somewhat doomer-faced body.

Oh what to believe.

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), October 25, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ