HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:07:39 GMT
Organization: Apple ATG
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
X-Xxdate: Fri, 21 Aug 92 17:08:56 GMT

Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
From: Chip Switzer, jswitzer@afit.af.mil
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:07:34 GMT
In article <1992Aug21.040734.7265@afit.af.mil> Chip Switzer,
jswitzer@afit.af.mil writes:
>mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece) writes:
>
>>As for the conventions, how come when Clinton talked to Jesse Jackson or
>>somebody from NOW or from a labor union he was "pandering to special
>>interests" but Bush can go slobber over Pat Robertson and the religious
>>right and just be "protecting his core constituency"?
>
>Because the Democratic party is caught in the web of special interests.
>You could run off a laundry list of groups that form and try to control
>the liberal agenda.  Shall I start?  Environmentalists, abortion
>activists, minority groups, animal rights activists, feminists, unions,
>NEA (in a different class from unions), AIDS activists, athiests,
>lawyers, greenpeace, etc.  I'm sure I'm forgeting a multitude.
>
>Conservatives have no such special interest groups hounding them for a piece
>of the power.  Fundamentalists (a la the Moral Majority) are about it.
>There is the beginnings of our own pro-choice coalition, but it isn't
>much of a voice yet.
>
>Did I answer your question?

You tried, but I don't buy it. A laundry list is a laundry list, and
I can give you one for the Republicans as long as the one for
the Democrats: Moral Majority, Right-to-life, NRA, anti-labor 
business interests,  anti-environment business interests 
(the Council on Competitiveness lobby), and so on. I could get
rhetorical (as you did by including atheists and animal rights 
activists in your list - surely these are not major democratic 
"special interests") by pointing to the "special interests" that 
Buchanan was pandering to in his hate mongering speech, but I 
won't. By the way, I think putting "greenpeace" in your list is 
clearly a duplication of "environmentalists" -- you must have 
been running low. My point stands: the Republicans are just as 
beholden to their establishment/big business/religious right 
"special interests" as the Democrats are to theirs on the other 
end of the spectrum, and the decision to label one a set of 
"special interests" and the other "constituencies" is arbitrary 
and unfair.

Mark Preece.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<LARRY.92Aug19094051@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Aug19.182247.23335@afit.af.mil>
	<LARRY.92Aug20101635@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Aug20.182419.3620@afit.af.mil>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:52:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.182419.3620@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

   >Not at all. What we have here is another Liberal Conspiracy at work,
   >wherein the camera man (more likely the producer) was so well coached as
   >to know exactly when to smoothly insert Dan Quayle's image. (They're good,
   >aren't they?) Unless someone managed to get an advance copy of Buchanan's
   >speech somehow, their timing was impeccable.

   It is very obvious to anyone watching the convention that the producers
   *do* have an advance copy of the script (or something very close).
   There is no way they can be as fast with the camera shots as they are.
   Haven't you noticed the succession of Black people when taking about
   them, or the old people when talking about nursing homes, women when ...

   This really is a moot point though, I asked people who had seen it to 
   comment.  Everybody who has seen it agreed with me that is was
   purposefully done--there really isn't any debate about that.  You
   obviously did not see it.  It is very easy to be critical of something 
   when you don't have the facts--that's called a knee-jerk where I come
   from.

FYI, old buddy, I not only saw the speech, I taped it and re-looked at the
video after reading your post. Obviously, you cannot possibly know what I 
did or didn't watch. You're resorting to wild assumption. Again.

I taped six hours of CNN coverage on it yesterday morning, and another six
hours of it last night, including Bush's major speech. For every one of
these imagined evil liberal media manipulations of video, I can show you
examples of positive takes, showing many "average" people doing things
like cheering the president ("Yeh! Get'em George!"), nodding their heads
in approval, praying, standing to applaud, and wiping tears from their eyes.

Your yirning accounts of media bias are another crock. Just because 
you and your ilk agree to cry in your beer in unison, doesn't make
something a hard fact.

If the New Right could stop whining long enough to discuss real issues, 
the Repubs might well get some votes lined up.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.
From: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: More on Phone Zap
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:26:41 GMT
Reply-To: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <16gofkINNf74@agate.berkeley.edu> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>> Jym was advocating a "phone zap" - phoning up a company on
>> their 800 number to berate them and waster [sic] their money
>> and tie up their phones.
>
>=o= You seem to be confused.  ACT UP's "phone zaps" are meant
>to communicate a message.  This is not by any means the same
>as berating or harrassment.

This is bogus.  The only difference between these two cases of harassment
is that the target is you instead of someone else.

Please note that I don't EVEN advocate mailing garbage to Mr. Dyer, but
this is such crap it deserves to be pointed out (not that it isn't obvious,
but this is more fun).

'mail bombing' is also meant to communicate a message, annoy, waste money etc.
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                (like: f*** off, wipe)

                                       (ok,ok)


## This is a personal opinion, and should probably have been email ##
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:23:58 GMT

In my continuing attempt to enlighten those of you who refuse to believe
there is a liberal bias in the news media, let me give an example. 
[Examples are not given as proof of bias in all other cases.  They are
submitted to stand alone and to make you aware of what conservatives
feel is biased reporting]

Pat Buchannon (sp?) is speaking and gets to the part where he makes a
"personal attack" on Clinton's draft evasion.  As soon as he started
into the allegation, the camera is positioned solidly on Vice President
Quayle--and stays there for the entire duration of the "draft dodger" 
segment of his speech.  I ask you (if you saw it), was this news
coverage, or a producer injecting his own opinion into the coverage?

And please don't say something like, "it was just a coincidence that he
happened to on camera at that time..."  It was an obvious attempt to 
draw attention to Quayle's own military record.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:21:30 GMT

adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

>	Isn't it interesting that the Bush supporters are quite willing to
>have their speakers attack Bill Clinton on an issue, but when a suggestion
>is made that Dan Quayle might be a bit vunerable on the same issue, they cry
>"bias?"

Again, it would be nice if we could stick to the same subject.  It makes
an argument go so much smoother...

Has anybody in this thread said we thought it was unfair that Quayle's
military record be criticized?  I think not. 

>	BTW, even if media bias DOES exist - do you really feel it is
>unwarranted when applied to a president whose treatment of the media during
>the Gulf War was pure censorship? If Bush didn't want the media to turn
>against him, maybe he should have thought about that before deciding that
>freedom of information was a liberal term with no value to his fascist
>campaign!

Sorry, but I'm going to have to get nasty on this one.  You see, I was at a
base 40 km from the Iraqi border and spent a good deal of my time
getting into a very hot and uncomfortable chem-suit and jumping into 
holes in the ground every time they decided to throw some SCUDs at us.
The media pool there was not allowed to give the name or location of our
base, because it was the gathering point for the "hail mary" you've 
probably heard of.  Every time we were attacked the media reported it
as somewhere in northern Saudi Arabia so as not to give the Iraqis any
hint of whether their SCUDs were even getting to the target.  You, and
people like you, who have no common sense and blindly follow some creed
that nothing should ever be censored make my stomach turn.  You are the
same type of person who was mad at the Pentagon for not telling the media
before-hand that we were invading Grenada.  Do you have *any* sense?


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: More on Phone Zap
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:43:45 GMT

In article <16gofkINNf74@agate.berkeley.edu> jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

>=o= You seem to be confused.  ACT UP's "phone zaps" are meant
>to communicate a message.  This is not by any means the same
>as berating or harrassment.

so if we call you collect to communicate a message to you in protest
to your postings would you accept the charges? If not, then how do
you explain the double standard?

    Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu (Hugh Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:19:50 GMT
Organization: Loyola University Chicago

In <Bt7H7F.41s@solbourne.com> kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:

>Time?  Conservative?  The same Time magazine that said the
>environment was so important that it was no longer going to be objective on
>the issue?

>Newsweek? Perhaps a millimeter or two to the right of Time, but conservative?

>By these standards, I guess Michael Kinsley is a Republican, too.

    Short memories, haven't we?  Think of all those vomitous years of
the Gipper, those panegyrics of praise for his "management style"
appearing in T*me and N*wsw**k, ai yi yi... read Mark Hertsgaard's
analysis in "On Bended Knee."
    
    And the Persian Gulf War!  Strike up the John Philip Sousa!  The
Stars and Stripes Forever!  Yellow Ribbons!  We Kick Butt!  I once FAXed
the good folks at T*me for running a cover story entitled, "The War in
the Gulf: A Military and Moral Victory."  This was not a quote: it was
the editor's own phrase.  (H. L. Mencken: "In human history a moral
victory is always a disaster, for it debauches and degrades both the
victor and the vanquished.")  T*me sent me a smarmy letter asserting
their objectivity.  Objectivity, my ass.  I heeled the Yale Daily news
as a freshman like a lot of them did.  I know their type: establishment
to the core.  When the chips are down, the going gets tough, and the
cards are on the table, they write what the owner of the magazine says
to write and then go home for martinis on Long Island.  And the owners
of Time/Warner et al. are not raving monster loonie pinko Democrats.
-- 
Hugh Miller         | Dept. of Philosophy | Loyola University of Chicago
Voice: 312-508-2727 |  FAX: 312-508-2292  |    hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu
"Read broadly, think scientifically, speak briefly, and sell the goods!"
            -- Sinclair Lewis, _The Man Who Knew Coolidge_
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:53:51

You see; Switzer is paranoid.  The producer isn't biased; he is
impish.

This reminds me of the media descriptions of I. F. Stone
as "fiercely independent".  We now have it from ex-Soviet sources
that Stone was taking KGB money from 1951 to 1968.  Of course,
this needn't have compromised his independence.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: dasher@well.sf.ca.us (D Anton Sherwood)
Subject: Re: citizen's initiatives in OH threatened
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 05:22:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug8.054627.7322@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ANDERSONC@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Chris Anderson) writes:
>UPDATE:
>
>Today the Ohio Ballot Board met to vote on the language of the
>state-wide issues that will appear on the Ohio ballot on 3 Nov.
>
> ...
>
>Citizens initiatives are as close to true democracy as it gets --
>if industry and lobbyists control these, democracy is dead.....

That's strange.  In California, the language of the initiative is fixed by
the proposer, by filing a declaration of intent to collect signatures.  
A state official then prepares an official _summary_, but (I think) the
petition form _also_ has to contain the full text.  How do signers in Ohio
know what they're proposing?
-- 
D Anton Sherwood *\\* dasher@well.sf.ca.us *\\* +1 415 664 2229
Libertarian candidate for California Assembly, 12th district
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Subject: Re: Usual libels against Chomsky (Was Re: Media Bias ...)
Organization: CS Dept., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:40:39 GMT

In article <JMC.92Aug20205544@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>He [Chomsky] was an S.O.B. then, and he still is.

This is a truly lame argument; you're getting pretty hysterical over this.

>Why aren't you ashamed of all the boat people the leftist aid to the
>conquest of South Vietnam helped drown?

What "aid" was this?  Mere opposition to the US intervention?

>Why isn't Chomsky ashamed of all the people he helped drown?

What did he do, poke holes in their boats?  What on earth are you talking
about?
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Global Warming
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug16.212210.3284@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:17:01

Does anyone think the three year difference in life expectancy between
black women and white men is significant?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: Re: Abortion labelling Re: Media Bias
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:45:59 GMT

All this "pro-choice", "pro-abortion", "anti-abortion" stuff makes me sick.

After carefull thought and watching my wonderful son for the past eight 
years.  I have decided that I must be for the right of women to kill their
unborn children.

fred

##############################################################################


The above opinions are my own. To my knowledge they are not shared by my 
employer or my friends. However, they should be.

If you receive more than one copy of this notice please pass it on to a 
friend.

Fred Seals
409-845-2298

##############################################################################
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:24:19 GMT

larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.182247.23335@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>   Is the subject too dificult for you to follow?  I simply brought it up
>   as a very obvious example of bias in the media.  It seems that when the
>   example is too obvious to refute, you just resort to personal attacks?

>Not at all. What we have here is another Liberal Conspiracy at work,
>wherein the camera man (more likely the producer) was so well coached as
>to know exactly when to smoothly insert Dan Quayle's image. (They're good,
>aren't they?) Unless someone managed to get an advance copy of Buchanan's
>speech somehow, their timing was impeccable.

It is very obvious to anyone watching the convention that the producers
*do* have an advance copy of the script (or something very close).
There is no way they can be as fast with the camera shots as they are.
Haven't you noticed the succession of Black people when taking about
them, or the old people when talking about nursing homes, women when ...

This really is a moot point though, I asked people who had seen it to 
comment.  Everybody who has seen it agreed with me that is was
purposefully done--there really isn't any debate about that.  You
obviously did not see it.  It is very easy to be critical of something 
when you don't have the facts--that's called a knee-jerk where I come
from.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: More on Phone Zap
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:39:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.215356.24987@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:

>Seems to me you have trouble distinguishing between harrassment disguised
>as boycott, and actual boycott.

Hmmm... Jym asks us all to call up a company using their 800 number to
cost them money and harrass them since he doesn't like them. That's OK
but doing the exact same thing to Jym is wrong?

Perhaps you could tell us all why?

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 04:07:34 GMT

mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece) writes:

>As for the conventions, how come when Clinton talked to Jesse Jackson or
>somebody from NOW or from a labor union he was "pandering to special
>interests" but Bush can go slobber over Pat Robertson and the religious
>right and just be "protecting his core constituency"?

Because the Democratic party is caught in the web of special interests.
You could run off a laundry list of groups that form and try to control
the liberal agenda.  Shall I start?  Environmentalists, abortion
activists, minority groups, animal rights activists, feminists, unions,
NEA (in a different class from unions), AIDS activists, athiests,
lawyers, greenpeace, etc.  I'm sure I'm forgeting a multitude.

Conservatives have no such special interest groups hounding them for a piece
of the power.  Fundamentalists (a la the Moral Majority) are about it.
There is the beginnings of our own pro-choice coalition, but it isn't
much of a voice yet.

Did I answer your question?


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2703 alt.rush-limbaugh:3737
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:26:33 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer) writes:

>I think each party controls the camera shots for their convention... 

Oh, that makes sense.  That's probably why every tenth shot on NBC
conspicuously frames the NBC booth behind the "real person" they are
highlighting.

>So, maybe its the Republicans want to make the Quayle look bad or maybe
>they are just incompetent.

Again, impeccable logic. 


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502