HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:18:43 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Aug21.173909.14541@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>
> 	Speaking of forgetting, you seem to have forgotten other conservative
> special interest groups: military contractors, oil companies, chemical
> companies, pro-censorship groups, anti-abortion groups, the nuclear industry,
> anti-gay rights groups.  I'm sure I'm forgetting a multitude....>:-)>
>
> 	But, of course, according to Dan Quayle, these folks aren't "special
> interest groups".  A special interest groups is one with goals that you don't
> agree with.  Otherwise they're just plain Americans!

This is so true it is almost sad. We attach labels to those with whom we
disagree and try to dismiss them as "leftists" or "rightist", thereby
depriving them of their humanity. 
 
This bias argument is based on the false idea that there is an objective
reality.......there isn't. You call it the way you see it. Others see the same
thing differently. 
 
Accept it, folks, and move on.

Steve


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | If you don't vote for MMP on 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  September 19, 1992, then you 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  must like things the way they 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  are.....can I live with YOU?
From: hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu (Hugh Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Date: 23 Aug 92 04:26:41 GMT
Organization: Loyola University Chicago

In <1992Aug22.212130.21365@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>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?

    Hell's bells, man, what do you know?  Why, I was a deep cover for
the DIA working in Baghdad not fifty feet from Saddam's presidential
compound up to about eighteen hours before the OOH (Outbreak of
Hostilities for you swabbos).  I was disguished as a pockmarked rug
merchant from Malta working a stall in the Baghdad bazaar, while all
along I had a hot satellite uplink running in the back of my yurt,
Ku-band dish and all, giving info for Cruise missile terminal guidance.
At eighteen hours pre-OOH I was arrested and brought to the Presidential
palace, where I was tortured for 4 hours by SADDAM HIMSELF, who laughed
at me and at George Bush as he peeled long strips of flesh from my back
and thighs with a GE curling iron.  When the dung started hitting the
windmill and Saddam blew town, I was saved when a smartbomb came
through the window of my prison cell, read my dog tag, and proceeded
down the hall, killing my captors but mangling my legs below the knee.
I crawled on the bloody stumps all the way across the blazing desert
sands from Baghdad to the Kuwait border.
    I tell you, I'm voting for Clinton.  I'm not waiting for George Bush
to send me to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
-- 
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 13:57:09

Also note that the public isn't entitled to know the name of this
producer.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: exjtmm@tts.lth.se (Thommy M. Malmstr|m)
Subject: Re: Fax for Somalia...via Sunet!
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: Communication Systems, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:31:49

>>>>> "BH" == Bernhard Helander <antbh@strix.udac.uu.se> writes:

BH> Faxes can be sent FREE OF CHARGE via the Swedish university network, SUNET.
BH> All internet and bitnet users can make use of this service. 

It is true that this service is available for all but it's intended
for use by Swedish university people (student and teachers). I think
we should better use a faxserver placed in NY in this case.

On the other hand, if no such faxserver is available then we better
use the Swedish one 'cause it's urgent.

BH> FAX NOW!

Yes!

/Thommy M.

--
Thommy M. MALMSTR\M    |  o ,__Q  |  Lund Institute of Technology
K{mn{rsv{gen 3 A:202   |  \-\_<,  |  Dept. of Communication Systems
S-226 46 LUND, SWEDEN  | (*)/'(*) |  Box 118, S-221 00 LUND, SWEDEN
+46-(0)46 13 21 78     |~~~~~~~~~~|  Tfn:+46-46 10 90 08, Fax:+46-46 14 58 23
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Usual Libels against Chomsky
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:14:08

Very likely Eisenhower was wrong about the 80 percent or his experts
were contaminated by sympathy to Asian communists.  Will you not agree
that the Asian communists turned out to be as bad as the rightists
said?  Long before the communists conquered South Vietnam, it was
clear which way the refugees were going.

Let's see.  A few hundred thousand drowned boat people.  A couple
million massacred Cambodians.  20 million died in the famine
caused by the Great Leap Forward (this last according to the communists).

I admit you Chomskyans interpret matters so that the U.S. is
responsible when the communists kill somebody, and I suppose that can
even be done for the Great Leap Forward, although I haven't seen it.

Don't forget the 1968 massacre of 2,500 in Hue when the communists
captured it temporarily.

Does the American left have any responsibility at all for the murders
by the people they supported?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2699 alt.rush-limbaugh:3732
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:31:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med

In article <1992Aug18.202358.15204@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>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. 
[...]
>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.

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

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

-- 
Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|
                       | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  | System Administrator,  |
brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst      | 
BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET  | PH. (415) 476-2325      |------------------------|
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<Bt7H7F.41s@solbourne.com> <hmiller.714291590@lucpul.it.luc.edu>
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:05:30

Ah well, the Jesuits are all leftists these days.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Followup-To: /dev/null
Reply-To: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 21 Aug 92 16:18:41 GMT

>jswitzer@afit.af.mil attempts:
>
>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.

Aside from the fact that making sense out of this paragraph requires
some real creativity; vis:
->assertion: demos "caught in a web" of special interest groups.
(guess: demos are influenced by special interest groups)
->assertion: you could list groups that try to control liberal agenda
(what the hell do you mean? guess: the democratic party is concerned about
the following issues ...)

You might want to start by recognizing that you've enumerated several of [
the groups working on ] those issues that are the most important issues to
'Americans' today.  I'm sure you'd rather these issues were all ignored
and we concentrated on reeeaalllly important things such as getting prayer
back into grade schools?  Seat belt law reform?

What is the point?  That folks are concerned about these issues?  That it
is going to influence who they vote for?  It is a good thing somebody is;
ignoring them isn't going to make them go away.

On the other hand, we could just get George Bush back in there, he's got
some really great issues he's concerned with (substantial!):  family
values (!), God in our hearts, capital gains tax cuts, war on drugs,
school prayer, an apple in every pigs gaping mouth (think we can fit
another one in there Danny)?

Quite a platform he's working up.  Bound to be real effective in solving
the multitudes of real problems that we and others in the world are
facing.

>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.

Man, you must have posted this while your brain was on vacation.  Either
that or you have been completely brainwashed.  This is about the most
ignorant thing I've seen from you yet.  What a waste of my time.

ps. apparently you don't know what 'NEA' stands for (unions??).
'lawyers' - 'liberal agenda'?  jeezuz mfc.  George Bush is a lawyer.
Tell the truth, I'm not real concerned anyway.  George Bush will not
win the next presidential election.  I can say this confidently after
hearing more of the same rhetoric in his acceptance speach.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: ag138@yfn.ysu.edu (Richard Gott)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:59:17 GMT


Regarding the debate as to whether the news media is biased at the Republican
Convention, I would have to say yes. (i.e. Camara spotlight on Dan Quayle
during Buchanon's draft dodging rhetoric.)

But, I think EVERYONE is getting a little tired of the "Holier than Thou"
rhetoric coming out of the "people's" (sneer) party.  Family values are
something that NEVER existed in our culture.  Not in the way the Republicans
have related it.  In regards to personal decisions, no one is anywhere near
the purity the candidates would like us to think.  They make decisions based
on their emotions just like everyone else.

Clinton AND Quayle dodged the draft, either out of fear, out of a basic belief
the war was wrong.

Some may remember a recent event where Bush acted on his emotions and told
MIA families to "sit down and shut up."  He didn't have the compassion needed
to understand their anger.  Would Clinton? Who knows?

My point is, whether you agree with media bias or not, there are reasons for it.

Richard Gott ag138

-- 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 00:11:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.040734.7265@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil
(Chip Switzer) 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.

What about Republicans in big business who don't care about the environment
at all, who want to eliminate (more) unions, who oppose abortion rights,
who dislike gays, who dislike feminists and/or women in general, not
to mention the religious right?

>	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How in the world do you manage that????

    don



Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: ah881@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joyce Brabner)
Subject: How Can 2 Israelis Meet U.S. Activists?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 23:08:35 GMT


I will begin hosting two Israeli teenagers for 3-4 months,
starting this October.  My guests are interested in seeing
the U.S.A. by way of a special AMTRAK or Greyhound pass,
and they want to stay with families-- ESPECIALLY people
who are environmental activists, or working on peace, social/
economic justice issues, towards racial harmony, etc.
They would also like to visit some American university
campuses.
 
Can anyone suggest ways for my friends to find hosts who
will take them in for 1-2 days per stop?  They want me to
make it very clear that they are both willing to earn their
keep, and they both speak good English.
 
Do you know of any networks of people interested in having
guests?  I can provide letters of reference from Americans.
One student was my guest last year, and is a lovely person.
Please e-mail any ideas.  Thanks!
--
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Global Warming References
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:34:00 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

The list of ozone depletion refs I posted yesterday was already on the
computer but the global warming refs were from memory.  I have compiled
a more complete list and repost them together today.


"Greenhouse Science Survives the Skeptics"  _Science_ vol. 256 22 May 1992
A good starting point for a survey of current scientific opinion.
Describes the consensus in the scientific community that "greehouse warming
does pose a serious threat for the planet's future."  Also describes
minority opinions that disagree.

"Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assesment" Cambridge Univ Press 1990
The definitive statement on climate change science.  Its not cheap or easy
to get but the large bookstore said the paperback version could be ordered
for $35.  IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"Climate Change 1992.  The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific
Assesment Cambridge Univ Press 1992.
Update to the previous report.  Includes new corrections which lower the
expected temperature increase a little bit.  

"Implications for climate and sea level of revised IPCC emissions scenarios"
_Nature_ Vol 357 28-May-1992.  Elaborates on the previous reference.
Describes improvements to the Climate models made for the 1992 supplement.

"Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century" by Stephen Schneider.
Published by Vintage Books 1989.  This book describes the state of knowledge
at the time.  Also provides dissenting viewpoints.

"The Changing Climate"  by Stephen Schneider _Scientific American_ 9-90.
Summary of the contents of the book listed above.


On the issue of the "trillions" of dollars we are supposed to need to
spend to respond to the threat of climate change, the following reports
document how efficiency retrofitting could save money and greatly 
decrease electricity usage (and CO2 emissions) at the same time.

"End-Use Energy Efficiency"  by the Electric Power Research Institute,
a consortium of utilities.  Describes the costs of efficiency retrofitting
and how much savings are possible.  Call 415-934-4212 to order the
free report.

"Efficienct Use of Electricity" _Scientific American_ Sept. 1990.
Similar to the EPRI report.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:02:39 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

ag138@yfn.ysu.edu (Richard Gott) writes:


>Regarding the debate as to whether the news media is biased at the Republican
>Convention, I would have to say yes. (i.e. Camara spotlight on Dan Quayle
>during Buchanon's draft dodging rhetoric.)

>Some may remember a recent event where Bush acted on his emotions and told
>MIA families to "sit down and shut up."  He didn't have the compassion needed
>to understand their anger.  Would Clinton? Who knows?

Actually my opinion of Bush went up after I saw that.  He has in the
past lacked the backbone or political resolve to stand up for his own
(and his party's) interests.  


>My point is, whether you agree with media bias or not, there are reasons for it.

Ahh, but do they belong in a newscast?  Opinions and news are two
different things.  Reporters and producers frequently get confused about
that.


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:2731 alt.rush-limbaugh:3796
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:44:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med

In article <1992Aug20.224002.5589@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug19.204748.14773@unlv.edu> edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford) writes:


>>>The media controls their own camara! How else can you explain why
>>>every station has different shots? How else can you explain why
>>>NBC conviently shows a view of the NBC booth every other minute?

Brian
>>I saw the same shot you saw but I saw the exact same shot on PBS,
>>C-SPAN and CNN.  The exact same shot!  I saw a lead up to he Demo's
>>convention the camera whole production was democratic controlled,
>>of course the Republicans do the same.
>
>>This is all Republican controlled.

Chip:
>This is the height of gulability.  What possible reason could the
>networks have for letting the Republicans control the camera shots?

They control the feed shot...

>Are you implying that the NBC news producer moved aside and let some
>Republican campaign advisor run the show, pick whatever camera shots
>he wanted?  

No... The networks have their own cameras and they choose what part of
the feed they want to show...

>They wouldn't even play the Clinton video at the DNC, and 
>they most certainly won't play the Bush video tonite.

Yeah, we'll see.

>Some of the cameras are probably in some kind of media pool (NBC and PBS are 
>sharing the exact same feed) but each network is most certainly
>controlling exactly what is aired on their own network. 

This feed is controlled by the GOP just as it was by the Demos at the DNC.

>Criticism aside, watch the different networks tonite and look for clues
>like NBC's booth in the background every 10-20 shots (on NBC obviously),
>and see if you still think the Republicans are picking the shots.

When make a panning shot of the audience its hard not to show the sky
boots.

>Also, watch the correlation between the speech and the shot--much too 
>quick to be playing catch-up.  They have an advance copy of the speech 
>(which is very common with media events--I'm sure they insist on it).

The Republican's are glad to give out the speech ... and they give it
out to a lot of people.  I'm sure that the feed shot selection that
is... which camera and shot of what is Republican.  What if it is are
what does it say about the Republicans?

BTW send me email because I'll be on vacation...

-- 
Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|
                       | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  | System Administrator,  |
brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst      | 
BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET  | PH. (415) 476-2325      |------------------------|
From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Global Warming
Keywords: warming, climate, media
Date: 16 Aug 92 21:22:10 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <36697@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>>* It is well know that wealthy people live long for many reasons: better
>>health care, better food, etc.  If you hurt the economy there will be less
>>wealth, and people won't live as long as they might have.
>
>All the more reason for a nationalized health care/insurance,
>progressive taxes so that people too poor to pay for healthcare or
>food will be  able to survive longer and maybe even live a life. Of
>course wealthy people live longer. They can afford expensive
>healthcare, better food etc. Poor people live less long due to
>lacking healthcare and malnutrition. All this could be a perfect
>reason for a welfare state approach. Capitalism and communism are
>both imperfect approaches to a healthy society, a combination of
>both seems to work quite perfect in many west european countries.

Sure. The foundation of all of this will be all of the wealth that
magically comes into being in this world. Why didn't we think of this
*millenia* ago? ;-)


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================