HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Name-calling in the abortion battle (media bias?)
Keywords: bias
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:17:56 GMT

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

'Pro-abortion' is clearly intended as a derogatory adjective, kind of a
weaker form of 'baby-killer' or 'murderer'. I don't see that 'anti-abortion'
carries the same connotation.

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.

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.


Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: Control of the media (was: Some reasons...)
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:42:00 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.104213.3606@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>I intended to copy down the newspaper headlines at the time of the
>>Democratic convention to compare them with the headlines, if any, at
>>the time of the Republican convention.  
>
>Many libraries will still have their July issues on the shelf in late
>August; at that time one could go through the headlines in some 
>standard way (eg list all relevent front page headlines during 
>each convention week) for comparison.  If somebody does this, please
>post the results; they might be quite interesting!
>
John Naisbett's group looks for media trends by counting the number
of newspaper lines dedicated (or words?).  I'm not sure that just
looking at headlines is as informative.  Just my two cents, though.

Drew
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"Our campaign is the opposite of 'competence.'"
- Clinton aide Eli Segal, quoted in the 7/22/92 _Wall Street Journal_ 
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2554 alt.rush-limbaugh:3205 talk.politics.misc:36742
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Summary: Oil monopoly?  NOT!
Keywords: bias
Date: 31 Jul 92 06:31:27 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <Jul22.003902.56035@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick) writes:
>Furthermore,
>we should find alternatives to gasoline, because it has gotten so damn
>expensive due to the monopolies of the oil giants. Let's just do it for the
>right reason, not because of a bunch of Global Warming mumbo-jumbo horseshit!

While I generally agree with the rest of this fine post, I do take
exception to this last part.  "Oil monopolies" is an oxymoron (unless they
are regional monopolies, like the Baby Bells, which isn't the case).  The
word you are looking for here is oligarchy, but that isn't really true
either.  Moreover, oil is *not* expensive.  If you take inflation into
account, it is close to as cheap as it has ever been.
-- 
				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul24.021833.18081@seq.uncwil.edu>
	<Jul24.174330.45454@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
	<1992Jul24.224817.9152@ctr.columbia.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:38:16

In article <1992Jul24.224817.9152@ctr.columbia.edu> alberta@sarsun.larc.nasa.gov (Tim Alberta) writes:

   In article <Jul24.174330.45454@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>, kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick) writes:

   |> Finally, about Science magazine. you are right, this is one of the better
   |> science magazine for laymen. However, for real insight on Global Warming,
   |> I challenge you to read these journals instead:
   |> 
   |> 1) Bulletin of the AMerican Meteorological Society
   |> 2) Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
   |> 3) Monthly Weather Review
   |> 
   |> These will show the true complexity of the theory, not little blurbs
   |> present in typical peasant magazines and newspapers.
   |> 
   |> Good hunting!
   |> 
   |> Pat Fitzpatrick

   Also check out Journal of Climate.  Any of these journals can be found at academic libraries.

   Zack, I'd like to hear your comments on the effect of the Urban Heat Island on the increase in temperatures measured at various stations throughout the world.  I don't have a reference, but a grad student was working on this when I was doing research at Cornell.  She was able to show that the increase in "urbanization" had a statistically significant effect on the temperatures measured at stations near the urban heat islands.

Presumably _Scientific American_ is being referred to rather than _Science_,
which is not for laymen.  In both cases it is necessary to watch out.

_Scientific American_ is a good magazine for laymen.  However, the
editor, Jonathan Piel, has certain hobbies, and every issue contains
an article that merits being called an editorial - something that
supports one of Piel's rather conventional liberal ideas, e.g.
Starwars can't work.

_Science_ is excellent as a general scientific journal, but the News
and Comment section is written by their stable of writers and not
by scientists.  Every other issue has a letter protesting distortion
in one of those articles.  They are about average for journalists in
their views but used to be quite blatant in slanting their stories.
The new editor, Daniel Koshland, seems to have them under somewhat
better control than his predecessor.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2514 alt.rush-limbaugh:3098 talk.politics.misc:35998
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Date: 26 Jul 92 01:33:19 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

The spin on urban heat islands is *not* that they are what is contributing
to global warming.  The percentage of urban land as a total of either
land area or total surface area is very small.  

What is a problem is that a large percentage of temperature records,
particularly those with a long history or length of record, come from
urban areas that have increased in size and urban heat island effect over
the last 150 years.  These temperature records are not indicating global
effects, but local effects.  These temperature records CONTAMINATE
any calculations of global temperatures that do not correct for the
urban heat island effect.  And it wasn't until about 1 year ago that
anyone tried to analyze the effect.

-- 
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: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: . . . (REMINDER) Give Levi-Strauss A Call!
Date: 26 Jul 1992 03:13:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
	<1992Jul25.231434.4640@PA.dec.com>
	<JMC.92Jul25164744@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> What did Levis do that I might want to boycott them for doing?

=o= The Boy Scouts of America has recently (and quite publicly)
reiterated its policy of discrimination against gay people
Since many donor organizations have policies against giving
charitable contributions to organizations with such discrimin-
atory policies, those donor organizations have ceased giving
chartiable contributions to the BSA.  Levi's is one of these
donor organizations.

=o= Levi's has come under attack by the American Family Associ-
ation for doing so.  Thus we have this counter-campaign to show
our support.

=o= The AFA doesn't usually actually conduct boycotts.  Its
targets are usually television shows that offend Rev. Donald
Wildmon (basically, everything shown on Prime Time); and while
he instructs his flock to call and complain to the shows'
sponsors, those sponsors aren't the actual targets.
    <_Jym_>
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2396 alt.rush-limbaugh:2903 talk.politics.misc:34860
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Control of the media (was: Some reasons...)
Summary: voting patterns indicate the press is not conservative.
Keywords: media, bias, Democrats
Date: 20 Jul 92 02:35:50 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <1992Jul5.192049.24186@m.cs.uiuc.edu> drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu
(Dave Kohr) writes:
|In article <1992Jul5.170727.11551@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu
|(William December Starr) writes:
|>That "80% of the people working at the big 3 network news desks are
|>registered Democrats" isn't relevant if the tiny group of people who
|>control the networks are conservatives.
|
|I think it's also a big mistake to assume that registered Democrats
|necessarily are not conservatives.

True, but their voting patterns and other evidence show that they aren't
conservative.  See my previous posting.
-- 
				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:49:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.143241.13229@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>Why do you think Rush Limbaugh is so popular? 

	Just a guess, but maybe for the same reason that Larry King is
so popular? Must be the far right politics that they both preech, huh?

>  Unfortunaltely, journalism is still a magnet for liberals.

	Yup. It's not the liberals fault that they're just more talented
then conservatives, though. If conservatives could spell better, then
maybe there would be more conservative writers.

	Seriously: Why are reporters/editors so "liberal". Were they 
brainwashed? Are conservatives really just morons? Maybe Elvis comes
down in a spaceship and touches journalists on the forehead, pushing
them leftward.

	This is better then the JFK assasination - maybe you can get
some right wing director to make it into a hit movie?



-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2547 alt.rush-limbaugh:3178 talk.politics.misc:36532
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Summary: oil monopoly?  NOT!
Keywords: bias
Date: 29 Jul 92 07:20:01 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.

In article <1992Jul21.113056.6761@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|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.

Guess again.  I have read a lot about what the left has to say, and I
talked about it in my original posting . . . perhaps you missed it.  I can
email it to you if you like.

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

It isn't.  Who said it was?  Certainly not I.  The point was only that
while a majority in the press supported them, a majority in the country as
a whole didn't, i.e. their views didn't reflect the nation's.  You can
argue they were right (I certainly wouldn't, but you can't said they were
representative of the nation as a whole.

|	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.

No, I won't.  For one thing, they aren't more educated than *I* am, on
average.

|#- 				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.

This has been well answered by others so I'll leave it, except to say, you
don't know what you are talking about!

|#- 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?

You sure assume a lot.  First, I said only that taxes aren't fair, not that
there should be no taxes.  Second, I think there should be defense cuts, so
I'm not sure it is fair to say I crave a military machine.


-- 
				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: geff@iastate.edu (Geff Underwood)
Subject: Real NRA positions (was Re: Media bias)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Keywords: bias
Organization: none for me, thanks, I'm trying to cut down
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:24:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.131129.7738@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>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 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.

In other words, you don't know anything about the NRA's real positions.
Do you remember the Staggers bill, debated in Congress last year?  Had this
bill become law, no legal gun sale would happen without a check of the
buyer's criminal record.  The NRA supported this bill.  This is being "for
the unlimited right of criminals to possess guns"?  This is "no gun
restrictions whatsoever"?

The reason that the NRA opposes most gun control measures is that most gun
control measures are pointless harassment of legal gun buyers, preludes to
gun bans, or outright gun bans.  Before condemning them, you really should
learn what they actually say.

--
Geff Underwood
geff@iastate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Guns Permits and NRA Perceptions (Re: Media bias)
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Keywords: bias
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:47:29 GMT

>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. 

We have experience with permit systems.  Some, like those for voting
and guns, are abused by the officials given discretion.  If said
experience was different, then there wouldn't be vehement objections.

There are plenty of opportunities to reearn the necessary good faith
that was burned in these experiences, so ....

A purist would also point out that permits are for competency
problems, not intentional misuse problems.  We don't expect drivers
licenses to affect bank robbers, so why should gun permits be any
different?  Not all tools are useful for all problems, and that
applies to gun control measures as well.  Permits are appropriate for
a non-existent problem, so even if we didn't have experience with them,
proposing them for problems they can't affect would be a hard sell.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:39:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul21.234630.20540@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
:
::Consider the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings: About 70% of the general
::population (even when broken down by race, or sex) believed Thomas and
::thought he should be confirmed.  Yet during the hearings, the "experts" and
::commentators on the networks and PBS who favored Thomas were outnumbered by
::those who didn't by three to one.
:
:Hmm, I heard the numbers of the general population was more like 55% believed
:Thomas.

	And there is a third possibility that was not adequately
addressed: the opinion that Anita Hill was right but that this did not
mean that Clarence Thomas was unfit for the Supreme Court, for the
simple reason that "boys will be boys" and he was only demonstrating
that he had a healthy libido.

: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.

	My own opinion: even if Global Warming is real (which it
probably will be unless fossil-fuel consumption and deforestation go
down significantly), is it necessarily a great catastrophe?

	As to predictions of a coming Ice Age, that is based on
extrapolation from the last 2 million years, when Ice Ages lasted
about 100,000 years, on the average, and interglacials lasted about
10,000 years. Since we are currently living in an interglacial that
has lasted 10,000 years so far, we are due for another Ice Age in the
next couple thousand years.

	So it is just a question of trying to find out which happens first.

/Loren
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: Whole Foods and Coors -- The Thrilling Second Episode
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:06:41 GMT
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Sunnyvale, Ca.
In-reply-to: jym@mica.berkeley.edu's message of 22 Jul 92 10:44:01

In article <JYM.92Jul22104401@remarque.berkeley.edu>, jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

> =o= Killian's doesn't go out of its way to look like Coors.
> If customers read the fine print, they'll find that it's brewed
> by Coors, but they'll have to look hard.  Whole Foods, of
> course, knew who they bought it from.

They probably bought it from their beer distributor, the same
company that sells them all their other beer brands.

> =o= Not without some grousing, of course.  Whole Foods made
> a number of incorrect statements on their "community bulletin
> board," and I address those here:

> o "We carried Killian's because our customers liked them
> before they were acquired by Coors." -- These customers
> must be at some other store, because Killian's has been
> owned by Coors long before Whole Foods opened its doors
> in Berkeley.

This does not make their statement "incorrect".  Their
customers may still have acquired a taste for Killian's,
although I certainly don't approve of their taste, before
it was bought by Coors.  It is not relevant that the
grocery wasn't there then, all that's required is that
the people were there and that they now shop at the
grocery.

If you're in business, it's not always easy to know when
you are stepping on someone else's political toes, 
especially in Berkeley where everyone is so "sensitive".
How about a little sensitivity for the people who run
the store.  They're people too.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2550 alt.rush-limbaugh:3186 talk.politics.misc:36586
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Keywords: bias
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Jul24.021833.18081@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) 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. :>

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