Unanswered question from SMPgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Poole's Roost II : One Thread |
Drew Parkhill On Objectivity
greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
In the thread, "Prophets Batting .0001," Drew Parkhill said:IOW, my objectivity depends on my ability to agree with you - ?
I never finished college (I was too busy working[g]), but I'll never forget what my journalism instructor hammered into my head: you are responsible for the impression that you create. If I've explained my position badly here or elsewhere, I'll take full responsibility for it. That's why I sign my full name and true email address to every post (to your credit, so do you).
I don't think the objectivity of CBN News on Y2K deserves a gold star, no. Pretend to be Joe Average. Click on www.cbn.org, then click the link "Y2K Insights." Let's take a look at the headlines and links which you've selected for that page (I assume you've selected them; you ARE the editor, aren't you?):
- Germany "Mixed" In Year 2000 Readiness (from Reuters-Yahoo)
- What Do They Know That The Rest Of Us Don't? (from Susan Conniry at Westergaard Year 2000)
- Activists Recommend Community Y2K Preparations (from US Information Agency)
- Capers Jones: "My Sense Is That There Is A False Sense Of Security (from Y2KToday)
Hmmm. Where's the latest NERC report? Where's Peter de Jager? Where's Dick Mills?
Let's click the link, "CBN News Y2K Stories." No need to list these; but I think that any reasonable person would conclude that CBN definitely has an ... erm, bias, if you will ... in reporting only one side of Y2K.
I'll give CBN this: you're not as biased as some Evangelicals about Y2K. (Pax TV is headed for the deep end -- and coincidentally, sellin' a whole lot of $19.95 videos in the process[g].)
(Ah, I know; I'm too cynical sometimes.)
But the fact remains: you're not presenting both sides of the story. You are carefully filtering the news that CBN releases on Y2K to reinforce a generally "Bad" view of the thing. You can't deny that; the evidence is there for any reasonable person to see.
While I've got you on the line, maybe you can tell me precisely what "compliant" means, too. I've been unable to get a single, consistent definition of that word from anyone. It would seem to me that, if I'm going to become as concerned about the Senate Report (which is loaded with "compliancy" figures) as you say I should be, I should at least know what I'm getting concerned about; wouldn't you agree? :)
To see the disconnect between dry "compliance" statistics and the real world (in which millions of people like me will be pro-actively working to forestall and solve problems in the event of failure), look again at the Win95.CIH virus. Multiplied thousands of computers in Asia were hammered, all at the same time (sorta like Y2K is predicted to do). It was a terrible thing, and I'm not making light of the problems that it caused.
But no one starved. There were no bread lines. The lights didn't go off. So far as I can tell, imports to the United States haven't been affected noticeably.
They've already fixed most of the problems related to that incident, so I'll repeat MY prophecy: in less than 6 months, Win95.CIH/Chernobyl will be a fading (albeit bad) memory.
Wait and see.
I would also (humbly, of course[g]) mention that a look at the Bad Meat Crisis and the Michelangelo Hysteria at my Web site might make interesting reading, too. :)
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999Answers
Stephen,I take it from the way you write that you are willing to be held to the same standard. In other words: if y2k does turn out to be a major problem, or series of major problems which do cause the sorts of things we are concerned about here, you are then willing to take responsibility for the people who suffer because of their choices based on the impression they got from reading your material? is that correct?
If so, do you think you could explain this to decker?
Arlin
-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 12, 1999.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA. Even for you, Poole, this is a new low. It won't wash even with most of the long-time pollys on this site. Drew Parkhill is undoubtedly the best journalist covering Y2K, period. I'm not even sure he is a doomer, BTW, though he is intensely concerned about potential Y2K economic impacts. No matter.Attention, regulars and lurkers: Poole alert. Poole alert.
Certified Extra-Terrestrial, indeed. Good of you to post a link to your web site, in your boundless humility [g] [g] [g] :) :) :) and desire to help others [g] [g] [g] [g]
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 12, 1999.
Do you really expect equal
-- Joe O (ozarkjoe@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.
OOPS, too soon...Do you really expect equal time to be given to all views? Whenever we talk about circumnavigation must we give airtime to those who believe in a flat Earth? Every news media has some bias. Maybe CBN recognized that there is something fishy about de Jager's sudden turnaround. The major networks have been heavily biased toward bump in the road predictions.
-- Joe O (ozarkjoe@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.
you are responsible for the impression that you create. If I've explained my position badly here or elsewhere, I'll take full responsibility for it. That's why I sign my full name and true email address to every post (to your credit, so do you)OKAY over the next couple of months we're gonna eat all the food we've been saving because you say y2k will be a none event. Now where is your house in B-ham so we (my wife and three kids) can come there for you to take full responsibility for me trusting your position?
-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.
I've seen CBN's broadcasts, I seen Drew's reports, I've seen Pat Robertson's take on issues. I think we can only hold Drew responsible for what comes out of his mouth. As with a print journalist, I assume, he has an editor of some sort and to some degree he's at their mercy. I would seriously doubt that he has carte blanche as to what is posted to the web site--even if he is their Y2K reporter.I'm never surprised by the editorials coming from the left leaning newsrag in my town--I'm not surprised by what is posted to a right-leaning television web site. That's why you have to diversify your news gathering--or should.
-- Kay (jkbrooks@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.
I'm confused Stephen,http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000p8S
-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001
Zealots and their archives.Ain't it a joy?
-- Anonymous, January 25, 2001