John is concerned that warnings re possible consequences will evolve into self-fulfilling prophecies and create unnecessary panic. I believe some level of panic is inevitable. However, the more information that can be provided in advance, the less the degree of panic.
I totally agree!
Let's just imagine that it's one year from today. From right now.
So far, this so-called "Millennium Bug" has just been some threat of a far away future -- a curio of geeks, consultants and the government. But when the weather starts to cool down, and the media really starts to zero in on this problem, people are going to get scared. I mean the "Wheel of Fortune" crowd. It's because the media will expose them to a steady stream of disastrous possibilities. Let's face it, it is certainly possible that things are going to be ugly. It's the $64,000 question -- how bad will it be?
I would say goal #1 on the panic front is to increase the sophistication of the media on Y2K. This ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES that the true preparedness of companies and industries be disclosed to everyone, so that the media (with their new sophistication) can start to interpret the state of affairs without all the end of the world hype. If the media isn't real smart about Y2K, and isn't looking at this problem with an eye for what is significant, and what is hype, they will continually produce lightweight articles on the same topics over and over. I mean, there's the bank run article, community preparedness, power industry, government progress, and international horror stories. Did I miss any?
The issue is too tough for the lay person to be able to determine, for themselves, whether or not Y2K is going to be as bad as an unsophisticated media will project. So goal #2 on the panic front would be to have some "body" that the masses trust get ready to inform the people what's happening with as much integrity as possible.
So who will the people trust to get the "real deal" on Y2K readiness? I would guess that governmental bodies could fill that role, but there are problems.
The Clinton scandals are consuming the entire nation right now, and will continue for at least 6 months (maybe much longer). This is hurting our chances of seeing the Feds take the lead on being the "trusted source" of info for the masses. I don't see the Feds understanding this need at all. They haven't looked into the crystal ball to October 1, 1999 to see what message will be being sent to the people, and to see the needs that the nation will have for trustworthy information on how things are looking.
If the media keeps harping on what are already the "old faithful" Y2K story lines, and the people have nowhere to turn to for an accurate appraisal of the situation, there will be panic. I don't think anyone wants panic, so what do we do? |
