HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:15:19 GMT

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

>->The graphs CLEARLY show a warming trend, an increase of about 0.5 degrees
>->Centagrade. Granted, 0.5 degrees C isn't a whole hell of a lot, but it
>->only takes a few degrees of increase of average temperature to influence
>->global weather patterns, and thus global climate.
>
> Dont these graphs also show that most of that warming happened prior to
>WWII ? Reference this to that fact that most of the man made gases were
>released after WWII. This shows that the gasses have not affected the 
>global temperature unless your claim is that your waiting for the gases
>to rise up to a higher altitude. :>

CO2 releases surged with the creation of the automobile, and with large
scale industrialization. It has been on a steady rise since then, primarily
due to population growth.

There was a surge in global temperature before WWII, there was a large spike
from 1920 to 1940. There it wavered until 1970 and has been again on the
rise ever since then.

Your joking comment may acutally have some bearing in Global Warming. It is
known that CFCs are also a greenhouse gas and their concentrations have
steadily increased in the atmosphere ever since they were first created
by man in the late 1930s.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Originator: lip@s1.gov
Keywords: bias
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:30:56 GMT


In article <1013@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

	[A long tract charging elitism and left-wing bias of the news
media.]

	I don't think that this fellow has read much of what the Left
has had to say, because the Left seems to agree that the mainstream
news media have a Rightward bias. Look at feminist commentators. They
seem to agree that most of the mainstream media is a male chauvinist
pigsty.

	And as to the Hill-Thomas thing, I wonder if the poll that
supposedly reported 70% of the American public believing Thomas got
two issues mixed up. Whether or not Anita Hill was telling the truth
about Clarence Thomas's lechery and whether or not that would
disqualify him from the Supreme Court. I've never seen any effort to
untangle these two issues, because there are some who would say about
Anita Hill's charges that "boys will be boys".

	And why is it supposed to be unpatriotic to have supported
George McGovern or Jimmy Carter?

	I guess the next thing the right-wingers will be complaining
about is how _educated_ a lot of the news-media folk are, and how they
are more educated than the bulk of the American people.

#- 				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce

	What can one expect? Someone for the unlimited right of known
criminals to possess guns. For myself, I would favor a uniform system
of gun permits with the permits revoked for those with a record of
violent crime.

#- uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!

	But how will you get the military machine you undoubtedly
crave without taxation to pay for it?

/Loren

Crucifixes are sexy because there's a naked man on them -- Madonna
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2512 alt.rush-limbaugh:3097 talk.politics.misc:35995
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 26 Jul 92 00:57:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

In article <1992Jul24.021959.18212@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>
>It really bugs me when someone makes such a comment, especially from an
>uninformed position.
>

I don't know what you do for a living, but I am a meteorologist and
oceanographer.  Dual degrees at the bachelors and masters degrees.
One of the projects I lend a hand to is the effort to get *accurate*
measures of global average temperatures through ocean sound speed
measurements.  My previous research area was synchronously coupled
atmospheric and oceanic forecast models.  I read the original research,
not the summaries in Science......

So exactly who is uninformed on this subject?

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:12:01 GMT

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>>Also, listen carefully to the abortion debate.
>>Remember that the "labels" of choice for each of the sides are
>>Pro-Choice and Pro-Life.  What you will hear the media call them most of
>>the time is Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion.  Subtle, but the connotations
>>are certainly not beyond the average journalism student.

>Sorry, you must be listening to some different media that I am. I always
>hear them referred to in the media as pro-choice and pro-life.

Great knee-jerk!  All I asked you to do was listen.  I made a point of
it myself last night (NBC news).  When the topic came up, the Pro-Lifers
were called Anti-Abortionists.  This is certainly not always the case,
but it happens MUCH more  often than you will hear "Pro-Abortion" used.
Apart from my own personal observations, I have some stats from a few
years ago to back the claim up. I can post them tomorrow if you have to
see them.

As to whether you think the tag is a good choice or not, who cares?  I
personally believe both sides' choice of labels are a bit of indirection
from the issue.  That isn't the debate though, is it?  The point is that
labels are everything in politics and sound bites.  They form a
subconcious impression when used over and over.  That's why both sides
of most all issues prefer a positive spin to their names.  And more
often than not, the media accepts without modification the choice of a
liberal organization's name, but seems to believe that the public should
be protected from a conservative generated label.  The fact that most
people never notice is all the more alarming.  (Again, specific instances
to follow tomorrow.)  


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
                        
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2459 alt.rush-limbaugh:2995 talk.politics.misc:35547
From: kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:08:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University -- Atmos Sci

To Zack and other similar ignorant colleagues:

The Greenhouse Effect is a reality. We could not live on this planet without
it, as it would be too cold...

The question is about whether global warming is occuring. I used to think
so, but after much reading in REAL meteorological journals (i.e., not Time
magazine) and from attending conferences, I believe it is not. I could 
explain the details, but it's obvious, Zack, you have no meteorological
background nor a Calculus background, which is necessary for a true]
understanding of the matter. Hence I won't waste my time.

And Zack, you are obviously concerned about the environment. So am I.
Therefore I ask -- why must we dwell on this issue? Why must environmentalists
concern themselves with half-blown theories and fiction? There are many
legitimate concerns that need attention that are often overlooked such as

1) Acid rain
2) Air pollution
3) The disappearing wetlands on the Gulf Coast (personally my main concern,
       since I grew up here and fished here all the time)
4) Run-off pollution.
5) Finding alternative enery sources to combat our dependence on foreign
       oil and to combat the oil companies who raise gasoline prices at
       the slightest excuse (remember the Persian Gulf war?).

If half the resources were spent on these LEGITIMATE concerns instead of an
unproven and probably wrong theory, the world would be a much better place.

I might also add that the research funds in meteorology could also be better
utilized on improving our observation instruments, forecasts, etc. From a
personal standpoint, this could mean more research on hurricanes, whose
funding has declined because of the past "quiet" decade (in terms of
hurricane activity); because hurricanes are no longer of public interest,
and the mythical global warming is, funding has declined.

I guarantee a botched hurricane forecast will cause much more harm currently
than global warming. Seen the populations on the coast lately?

Pat Fitzpatrick (and, yes, I am a real scientist. And until you start
thinking Zack, you are a midget in my eyes)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:11:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: s1.1992Jul21.131129.7738
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul21.113056.6761@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>#- 				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
>
>	What can one expect? Someone for the unlimited right of known
>criminals to possess guns. For myself, I would favor a uniform system
>of gun permits with the permits revoked for those with a record of
>violent crime.

	I'm sorry I went overboard here. I apologize for seemingly
suggesting that SRF is pro-crime. I wished to imply that he was taking
a stance that would make it difficult to do anything about certain
kinds of crime.

	I guess I was simply annoyed at the NRA's stance of no gun
restrictions whatsoever. If one is willing to live with having to get
a driver's license in order to drive a car, then I don't see why we
can't have some system of gun permits. I'm sure that with suitable
gun-permit system, it may actually be more straightforward for those
with a clear record to purchase guns than under some systems.

/Loren
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2438 talk.environment:2904
From: jet@win30.nas.nasa.gov (J. Eric Townsend)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Whole Foods and Coors -- The Thrilling Second Episode
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:47:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Distribution: usa
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation, NASA Ames

"Jym" == Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
Jym> [While the events mentioned here refer to a store in Berkeley,
Jym> that store is part of a nationwide chain -- thus the nationwide
Jym> distribution.  My correspondents have indicated that Whole Foods
Jym> pulls similar stunts throughout the land.]

They are also anti-union across the land...  (I just came from
Houston, where Whole Foods is about the only "healthy food" store
around that carries more than vitamins...)

--
J. Eric Townsend --  jet@nas.nasa.gov -- 415.604.4311
'91 CB750, DoD# 0378
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2500 alt.rush-limbaugh:3088 talk.politics.misc:35950
From: sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: re: Name-calling in the abortion battle (media bias?)
Date: 25 Jul 1992 16:23:01 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: altair.crhc.uiuc.edu
Keywords: bias

In article <1992Jul24.191756.11280@kadsma.kodak.com>, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

|> Also, people in the news media are *very* pressed for time, and must keep
|> their word counts as low as possible. The phrase 'anti-abortion' manages
|> to convey a lot more, and requires less interpretation, than 'pro-life'.
|> After all, hearing 'anti-abortion', you know that a) the subject is
|> abortion, and 2) the person described is against it. 'Pro-life' is not
|> nearly as succinct.

How does the term "pro-choice" meet the same specifications? "Pro-abortion
rights" is a lot closer to the mark.

|> Don Pajerek

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these opinions, he deserves them.
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Mississippi State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 01:10:49 GMT

>>You have the portrayal of Global Warming a bit skewed. Every news report
>>I have ever heard on Global Warming admit that it is a theory. None of them
>>say that the "gloom and doom" future is a DEFINITE possibility, they merely
>>say that it IS a possibility, which all atmospheric scientists DO agree on.
>>What atmospheric scientists disagree on is the amount the average global
>>temperature will rise, what can happen to the climate with each degree of
>>rise, and exactly what is causing the rise. All scientists agree that the
>>greenhouse effect exists. All scientists agree that CO2, Methane and CFCs
>>are "greenhouse gasses". Scientists disagree on the relative cause and
>>effect relationship in the observed rise in average global temperature.
>>

>As an atmospheric scientist, I feel compelled to comment on this. 
>Personally, I feel the Greenhouse Effect is a hoax. However, many
>other colleagues will do everything and anything to prove it is
>happening. Why? Lots of research money and grants, which is how
>scientists survive. 

I agree, last semester I took 'Climatology', a graduate-only level class
at MSU which is taught by THE State Climatologist of Mississippi...and
during the portion of the class in which we looked at pattern, etc. from
historical data we used over 1 hundred years of data from Mississippi 
and we found that the last 6 years straight the AVERAGE temperature
has been less than the AVERAGE for the last 100 years...hmmmm...

BTW..the 70's (the time that the new ice-age was the rumor) was some of
the hottest years for this state in recorded history...hmmmmm...

and the above statement that 'all scientists agree that the greenhouse
effect exists' is false, I don't believe it (not by what you are calling
the 'greenhouse effect').

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pro-government media bias (was Re: Media bias)
Date: 19 Jul 92 06:11:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d

In article <3894@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> 	I have a bone against the statement by Clinton's campaign
> manager who is HIV+. He said that he was angry that the Bush
> administration won't even say the word "condom." This is my "proof" that
> the aforerepeated message is a "broken-record" truth. (The problem I
> have is that NO ONE -- barring Bill Bennett and Rush Limbaugh -- has the
> courage to say "abstinence." Abstinence from sex, drugs, and (at least a
> reduction of) those risks that make one susceptible to HIV exposure is
> currently the best way of preventing one from getting AIDS.

	And not driving a car will reduce auto accidents, not swimming
	will reduce drowning deaths and not going to work will reduce
	the spread of nasty flu viruses. 

	Why does a SEXUAL act rate abstinence while lots of other
	acts which also promote death and disease do not ? Do I
	smell a BIAS here ? 

	Face it, sex is too fun to not do. Better the risk of death
	then to give-up the best parts of living. I am going to
	have sex, teenagers are going to have sex - so do your
	danmdest to make it as survivable as possible. This means
	condoms in the short term and vaccines in the long term. 

-- Jim Mason
-- Standard Disclaimers 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 21:47:43 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul25.041634.15420@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
]kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick) writes:
]||Yes, I can unequivocably say the Earth is warming.
]|
]|Atmospheric scientists do not share your optimism (er, pessimism)
]
]Umm, pardon me. Do you care to cite some evidence of this claim?
]I am not exhibitting either optimism or pessimisim. I am merely quoting the
]evidence printed in respected scientific journals. Generate your own
]optimism (or pessimism) yourself, based on the REAL data.

Sure. Read "The Heated Debate" by Robert Balling (a climatologist).
Not only does it present a very detailed summary of the evidence,
but it references lots and lots of papers in "respected scientific
journals."
]
]Below the level predicted is welcome news. However it IS on an upward
]trend. Daytime vs. nightime temps is a non-issue.

Actually, it is not. Balling shows that if the same models that predict
global warming have any validity, then most warming will occur at night,
at higher latitudes, with increased precipitation - all of which is
mostly BENEFICIAL.

]Sorry, you are not reading the graph very well. It shows that global temps
]flucuated with a slight upward trend from 1856 to 1920, but since 1920
]they have virtually skyrocketed, to use your term.

Not ture.
]
]You do not appear to understand the difference between meteorlogy (weather
]forcasting) and climatology (long range foregcasting).

And you don't appear to understand the complexity of climatological
forecasting.

]We are not predicting weather, we are predicing long range climate changes.
]There IS a difference.

Yeah, weather predictions can be verified.


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Comment too controversial for management - Deleted :-) -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2407 alt.rush-limbaugh:2922 talk.politics.misc:34996
From: mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Date: 21 Jul 1992 18:49:22 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gelato.mips.com
Keywords: bias

In article <1992Jul21.175614.2434@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
|> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> 
|> >	I guess I was simply annoyed at the NRA's stance of no gun
|> >restrictions whatsoever. If one is willing to live with having to get
|> >a driver's license in order to drive a car, then I don't see why we
|> >can't have some system of gun permits. I'm sure that with suitable
|> >gun-permit system, it may actually be more straightforward for those
|> >with a clear record to purchase guns than under some systems.
|> 
|> Where did you read the NRA's stance, from the NRA?   No?  Then it is
|> not hard to understand your ignorance of the topic.   The NRA supports
|> sanctions against criminals who purchace, steal or possess firarms, as
|> well as against those who use them in crime.   They have supported 
|> laws calling for instant backround checks, such as the one used in VA.
                    ^^^^^^^
|> Convicted felons may not legaly purchace or own firarms in any state.  
|> 
On the other hand, if the background check takes 5 days, the NRA is
against it.  Any waiting period is considered a violation of the
constitutional right to bear arms.  ???
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2463 alt.rush-limbaugh:3007 talk.politics.misc:35658
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:52:57 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Jul23.180710.2368@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>
->	Fair 'nuff. Conservatives are indeed part of the public, but, I 
-> contend, not significant from a marketing point of view. Conservatives,
-> for example, would detest every Oliver Stone movie ever made, but Mr.
-> Stone continues to draw a huge audiance, in spite of the overt political
-> overtones in his films. (Please don't mistake me for a fan, I detest every
-> film he's ever made, with the exception of _Talk Radio_).

  Oliver Stone made this movie cause a lot of his friends (Hollywoodians),
 gave him the money to make it and to fund a huge advertisement campaign.
 What Conservatives need to do is to start investing money in the 'popular'
 cultures. We could make a movie on JFK showing his conservative side and
 with a huge advertising campaign it would probably bring a lot of righties
 back into the 'popular' culture markets. I would love to see a depiction
 of what happened during the cuban missile crisis. Thats where the world
 was brought the closest it ever was to nuclear extinction, just because
 JFK did not want soviet missiles in cuba. Dosent sound like a pacifist to
 me.

-> I'm very interested in media, and I believe
->that the media is almost entirely reactive: the views that they hold
->represent the popular views of their target audiance. This is a nasty
->concept for a lot of people, because it implies that to differ with the
->media is to differ with society.

 Please dont say that conservatives are being tarketed with the brain
dead, valueless biased stuff we see on the networks now. Liberals and
moderates are be tarketed and being hit. Who watches prime time network
shows anyway ? Definitely not me. And I am proud to say it.

>	Conservatives represent a significant chunk of america, but they
>are not the majority, recent presidentail elections to the contrary. The
>majority are not liberal, either, because there is no majority, really.
>On individual issues, the media pick the popular side, and based on their
>total picks, they appear liberal or conservative, depending on what your
>picks are. I'll wager that the media are out of step with any purely
>ideological platform, left or right, because the public is not consistant
>ideologically.

 What makes you think they are picking the popular side ? When the only
rightist show is Rush Limbaugh and he ends up breaking records in radio
shares. The conservative market is being ignored and is a huge one that
could make some people a lot of money. 

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc