-Caveat Lector- A Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM Feature Article Cracking the Mainstream Y2K News Process The mainstream news headlines posted over the last week have proven it: the popular U.S. press is purely and simply tabloid. Eight days of headlines about the death of a single person who wasn't even a prominent public figure? Worse yet, the glory heaped upon this person -- post-morten -- brings into question the sanity of those writing the news. Only Matt Drudge dared point out the absurdity when he said: Dan Rather, who choked up on air, summed up the treacle nicely: "From Arlington's eternal flame to a stunned New York street, a nation is not yet ready to let Camelot's crown prince go." Mr. Rather was not unique in spouting such vapid formulations. If there is a newscaster or commentator who hasn't called JFK Jr. a prince, a crowned prince, the last prince of Camelot, America's son or, worse, America's Princess Di, it can only be because he or she didn't get the memo. As Brian Kelly of U.S. News & World Report told CNN, when it comes to the Kennedys, "you suspend normal news judgment." >From Saturday morning, when news of the plane's disappearance first broke, on through the weekend and every day since, the maudlin drivel has been everywhere, an orgy of vacuousness and preposterous claims. "John Kennedy Jr. was where we all had our eyes for the last 35 years," NBC's Lawrence O'Donnell asserted. TV was the worst offender, pumping out hours of bilge while its reporters waited for actual news. Thus this intro: "On 'World News Tonight' this Monday--the sadness, the fascination, the mystery. Trying to find a small plane and its famous passengers in all that water." Camelot days flashed across the screen like scenes from a Riefenstahl film. On PBS's "NewsHour," Frank Mankiewicz called the assassination of JFK "the central event" of 20th-century America, brushing aside, say, World War II. >From the interviews with his fraternity brothers to the psychobabble outside his home, the press seems to have created a new John Kennedy Jr. overnight. In one brief moment he went from being the affable son of a fallen president, an average district attorney and the editor of a failing magazine to . . . a secular savior. Indeed. Y2K Newswire has never witnessed such a mindless abandonment of journalistic responsibility. While a $9 million American supercomputer is being snapped up by a Chinese national for a mere $30,000... and the Communist Chinese government is imprisoning thousands of members of a so-called "religious sect" (which, turns out, is simply a Buddhist group that practices meditation), the attention of the entire nation is directed to the untimely death of a single man. GUESS WHAT'S NOT BEING COVERED? Meanwhile, the nation's attention is being misdirected away from the Year 2000 problem. Senior editors will give you a hundred reasons why: "Readers are tired of Y2K" or "It's a non-event." That's right: the death of one man in a plane crash is the central event of the 20th century. But Y2K? The little computer bug that has the potential to bring down nations, cause nuclear meltdowns around the planet, and threatens banking to such a degree that bank industry leaders scream "foul!" every time another TV ad even hints at people taking out cash? That's right: a non-event. A non-story. BUT JUST WAIT UNTIL PROBLEMS APPEAR Most news organizations are ignoring Y2K now. But just wait until something goes wrong: a riot, a local cash shortage, a terrorist attack, a water treatment plant failure... you name it. The press will be there. Especially if it involves guns. Here's the most-desired story of the mainstream press: a gun-toting Y2K survivalist breaks into Sam's Club to steal six more bags of beans. It has all the elements the press loves to attack: guns, survivalists and desperation for long-term storable food. Generally speaking, the press imagines it is an objective observer. However, with Y2K, this is turning out to be a false assumption. By ignoring the reality of the Y2K problem now, the U.S. press is promoting a false sense of security. Once problems begin, however, the press will magnify the fear by filming -- and airing -- the most desperate scenes you can imagine; even if those are isolated events. With this two-stage approach to Y2K -- ignore it so people don't prepare, then show the panic that occurs because people weren't prepared -- the press is going to be part of the story rather than an observer of the story. And when it's all over, the credibility of the mainstream press will be questioned by the public. After all, it was the news that told them, "Don't worry. Y2K is solved." It was the news, too, that refused to ask a single tough question of those claiming Y2K compliance. Here's an example of what we're talking about: Y2K Newswire is currently in touch with the FAA, requesting documents that either summarize or detail the "independent audits" that recently declared the FAA was 100% Y2K-compliant. We have evidence that indicates we are the only news organization to ask for such documentation. (That evidence will be detailed in an upcoming feature article.) If correct, it means no network news organization, no cable news organization, no magazine and no newspaper has bothered to ask for evidence backing up the claim. BUT THERE ARE HARD-CORE REPORTERS WHO KNOW THE GAME At the same time, we know there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of hard-core reporters and journalists who are itching to hit the Y2K story hard. Perhaps they'll get their chance later this year. Y2K Newswire isn't attempting to indict every individual in every news-gathering organization. No, in fact, it is the decisions made by the very few people at the top of the news institutions who are killing Y2K stories. How do we know? That's what front-line journalists are telling us. As one example, we received a call from a reporter who works at one of the big three network news programs: NBC, CBS or ABC. We won't say which one because we'd like to protect his identity. This reporter actually complained to us that he was pitching Y2K stories to senior editors. Each story, it turns out, was killed by the editor. Why? That's the interesting part: when the senior news editor received the story "pitch," he would contact the business leader / government leader / industry leader considered to be a "credible source" for such a story. This leader would inevitably deny the story. End of story. The senior editor kills it. Ignored: the fact that business / government / industry leaders have it in their own interest to minimize negative Y2K stories (even if true). THE MAINSTREAM Y2K NEWS PROCESS There's a gem hidden in here: something we call the Mainsteam Y2K News Process. Here's an overview of how the process works. Step 1: An industry or government insider sees the Y2K cover-up first-hand. Step 2: This person wants to tell the truth about Y2K and calls up a news program to tell them what they're seeing. It might be, "I saw them falsifying Y2K test results" or simply, "I was fired for refusing to falsify Y2K compliance documents." Step 3: The front-line reporter thinks, "I've got a solid story here!" and pitches it to the senior editor. Step 4: The senior editor contacts the appropriate "leader" and holds a quick discussion to see what's "true." The leader quickly dismisses the story, usually by quoting some internal (but non-public) report that claims 99% compliance. Step 5: The organization in question is given the thumbs up, and rather than printing the real story (which would be, for example, the falsification of Y2K test results), the news organization prints the press release of the organization. In other words, they print spin, thereby misleading the public on the real Y2K situation. MISSING FROM THE PROCESS This is the process going on right now in nearly every popular news organization, no kidding. But what's missing are all the important steps taught to every wannabe journalist in J-school. Notably, backing up your story with evidence. Today's most irresponsible news organizations have outright refused to even seek evidence backing up claims of Y2K compliance. Remember the Y2K Newswire list of "48 questions about 92 percent?" We posed 48 questions journalists should ask about claims of Y2K compliance. To date, we have only seen a handful of stories resulting from the asking of these questions (including the recent Orlando Sentinel story that revealed up to 50% of Y2K compliance claims are bogus). WHAT IS EVIDENCE? How does the press do that? It's a very simple slip, actually. Twenty years ago, "strong evidence" would have been a written, third-party audit that took a robust look at Y2K compliance and concluded everything was fine. Note what's being called "evidence" here: a hardcopy document containing meaningful information. Today, here's how it slips: now, the claim of existence of such a document is considered "strong evidence" by the press as long as that claim comes from a "credible source." In other words, whether or not such a document actually exists, if a credible source claims the existence of it, the news organization considers this to be the strong evidence is seeks. Let's see if we can clarify this further. Today, when a government agency says some third party contractor conducted a robust audit and concluded the agency was, say, 99% Y2K-compliant, the press takes this as fact. Twenty years ago, any news editor worth his salt would have asked, "Can we see that report?" That's it, really. It's that simple. Standards of proof have taken a quantum dive into the great abyss of modern-day "news." But what is "news," really? NEWS IS NEWS? All this assumes "news" is supposed to be informative. But as we learned this week, popular network news has nothing to do with information and everything to do with tabloid entertainment. Perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree, but if these organizations are going to run tabloid stories, they should stop faking like it's news. At least Y2K Newswire describes itself as a source for "news and analysis," not just news. And yes, people challenge whether we're really a news organization. To those people, we ask why we're the only organization on the planet on a quest to back up the FAA's compliance claims with hardcopy documentation. (That one stumps 'em.) Furthermore, why are we the only organization on the planet to have read the July 30th power industry press releases and noticed a pattern of "common language" that indicated the industry was using a pre-approved list of universal phrases? Why were we the only organization to track down the source of those "template letters" and unveil it to the American people? If this isn't investigative journalism, somebody changed the definitions on us. By the way, where can you get actual news these days? The Internet. You'll find all kinds of information that would never make the mainstream press. Not all of it is correct, of course, and that's the main argument of Internet news critics: "People have to sort it all out!" they shout. Amazing. People might actually have to think. Yeah, that would be terrible. We'd all better go back to watching NBCABCCBSCNN... which has apparently done all the thinking for us. All we have to absorb are the "conclusions." If there has ever been a better definition of brainwashing, we haven't seen it. Copyright � 1999. All rights reserved. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
