'TIME MAGAZINE'S Y2K STORY
Recently I was waiting in a doctor's office when I spied the latest issue of Time magazine with an apocalyptic-looking Y2K cover. (Imagine! the latest issue of any magazine in a doctor's office!) Now I normally don't read Time, because I prefer to think for myself, not be told by an arrogant media elite whose vision seldom extends beyond the shores of Manhattan Island what I should think. But anyway, there it was and it was about Y2K.... so I read it.
What a mishmosh. The article mixed the usual "nobody knows" what will happen with people making modest preparations with "survivalist nut-cases" (as they're known on the Internet) with "Scary Gary" North (as Time put it) with the apocalyptic visions of various religious sects. When I had finished reading it.... admittedly, it was a quick read, I was at the doctor's, after all.... I wasn't sure what Time's point was, except maybe they thought that anybody who took the problem seriously and was expecting more than a bump in the road in 2000 was a crackpot. (Yeah, $800 billion being spent worldwide to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Must be a lotta crackpots out there.)
Two days later my wife, noticing the Y2K cover and thinking I might be interested, brought home the issue for me to read and was disappointed when I said I'd already seen it. Where? At the doctor's office. Furthermore, it's junk journalism at it's worst. What a shame, when they could have done some serious research and written a really helpful article - but if you want to learn about Y2K, this story won't do it. Just the same, I said, this will give me a chance to go over it more carefully (and pick it apart, I thought to myself).
But before I had a chance to reread the article, our youngest dog got ahold of the issue and chewed it to shreds. A deserved fate - but I missed my chance to do my own analysis. Fortunately, on the Internet others have stepped into the breach - and what follows is one of the best:
Dear Time Magazine:
Your article about Y2K was so predictable it was alarming. I always thought TIME was above this type of journalism. There are consistently two themes that are discernable in this style of Y2K coverage; TIME is just one of many media sources using them.
THEME ONE: The magazine or newspaper articles always start out by talking about a family who "appears" to be normal. You know, wife, kids; regular job; middle America sort of folks. But, as the article goes on, the reader starts to see the signs that this family is just a tad bit "over the edge". For instance, in YOUR article:
You mention stockpiling food, making sure to note that they have cases of "Chop Suey". (The reader makes a note; nuts!)
You mention that the wife is taking a medical class so she can sew a small wound or fill a tooth. (Reader makes a note: nuts!)
You mention the guns; three different kinds. (Reader makes a note; militant nuts!)
You mention that the kids tell their friends on the school bus that the whole school system will fail when America's infrastructure collapses. (The reader makes a note; militant and totally nuts!)
SECOND THEME: Virtually every article quotes Gary North, right wing religious zealot. Why is that? Certainly not because he is the most expert and available source for Y2K information. No! Because he serves YOUR PURPOSE. You even mention how the government is concerned that the religious zealots will cause a panic. It's sad but interesting to note that Gary North, the least qualified expert [in programming, not in history, in which he is degreed - /Nick] is quoted (by far) by the mainstream media more than any other Y2K spokesman.
What is the purpose of your article? Certainly not to disseminate factual information to your readers. There was no effort to do that. Personally, I have printed 10,000 pages of information on Y2K from the Internet; government reports, audits, transcripts, UN meetings, utility 10Q's, corporate disclosures. Why is it that TIME does not access this type of documentation for their articles?
Why? Because TIME is not interested in investigative journalism. TIME is selling the sensationalism of this story and, at the same time, helping the US government keep the truth about the seriousness of Y2K from the public.
You do the reader, your customer, grave disservice here. You and I both know that Y2K is a serious matter; a matter that warrants personal and community preparation. If you do not know this, you have not investigated; and if you haven't properly investigated it; don't write articles about it. There is a saying on the Internet; a Y2K pessimist is just an informed optimist.
The citizens of this country need to start contingency planning NOW. Two, three, six months down the line, they will not have the resources saved they can divert toward preparation. It is not the religious zealots that will cause a panic in this country. It is a government that refuses to tell the people the truth and media that perpetuate the lies.
-- Meg Davis
fiendbear.com |
