HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:29:15 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Some of you seem particularly upset with recent stories knocking Bush's
newly-announced tax plan.  A few newspapers have printed stories saying
that economists consider Bush's plan unlikely to succeed, and the general
feeling seems to be that this conclusion is a product of the reporters
contacting liberal economists.  I just wanted to point out that, while
this doesn't prove anything, the Wall Street Journal also ran a story (I
think in last Friday's paper) saying that economists didn't think much of
Bush's proposal.  One of the economists cited is at the conservative Hudson
Institute.  They also ran an editorial by Herbert Stein, a conservative
economist associated with the Reagan Administration, arguing that Bush's
tax cut plan has been put forward as a proposal to create jobs but will not
do so.  Stein points out, among other things, that Reagan's tax cuts in
the early 1980s were followed initially by increased unemployment, but
that his backsliding on tax increases around 1987 was followed by
increased employment

Covering almost any story of this sort is difficult, because the conclusion
reached by a "poll of the experts" story is almost always influenced by
the choice of experts.  A reporter can try to balance people across
ideological labels, but not every conservative will like Bush's plan
and not every liberal will oppose it -- so even a "balanced" story in
this way might be imbalanced in another.  I would be interested to hear
what people attacking these stories would propose in their place.  Don't
try to cover "expert" reaction at all (which probably means leaving voters
with nothing to go by in evaluating these plans except for political
propaganda)?  Arbitrarily make sure you have an even balance of supporters
and opponents?  (Then how does the voter gauge whether the plan is good
or not?)  I know that when I used to write "poll of the experts" stories,
my selection of the experts was determined by which experts were in their
offices when I had to write the story.  But then, maybe that creates a
liberal bias -- you know, liberals hang out more in their offices or
something like that.

steve
 
 
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:33:54 GMT

In <farenebt.714783292@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:

>fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes) writes:

>>cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

>>: 'Pro-choice' is hardly a justified label for that movement. Most pro-choice  
>>: activists are _not_ for school choice or even for a womens right to own her own  
>>: body (or where were they when the FDA outlawed breast implants ?).

>Nor do they clamor for legalized prostitution. They feel it degrades women.
>But they can't have it both ways. 

>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>BRI FARENELL	is a liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU
>CLARKSON '95	     
>FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU

>When two people CHOOSE to have sex, they CHOOSE to accept the consequences
>of their actions. (yes, there is such a thing as a pro-life liberal. Please 
>send flames to the above address)	

Exactly. People who say they're pro-choice don't usually realize the
"choice" has already been made: the choice to have sex...with all the
disease possibilities and pregancy risks it entails.

Besides, most feminists are against pornography for the same reason
they're against prostitution. Gee, guess their "anti-choice" too.

As with the above, flames can be sent to my address. I won't guarantee
any replies.

Michael

No sig file. Never figured them out.
> 						


Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: "Dan Gillmor" <p00107@mail.psi.net>
Subject: Re: Sources of Bias
Organization: Detroit Free Press
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:57:36 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.11)

>But, the news media is much more like your local utility than a brand of
>ice cream.  They are usually a monopoly in a community (even broadcast
>news is pretty much so...).  And most people *have* to have news.  So,

Are you joking? There may be one major daily paper in your town, but 
you've got access to lots of information sources.

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: streeter@cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:08:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.233853.8688@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <SLEATOR.92Aug23153500@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU> sleator@CS.CMU.EDU (Daniel Sleator) writes:
>>To the extent that you described the story, this does *not* strike me
>>as an example of of a liberal media bias.
>>
>>Suppose that the reporter called up 20 economists at major
>>universities and that, say, 19 of them expressed "doubt that Bush plan
>>will fly".  Then the headline would be entirely appropriate, and the
>>article would be accurate.
>>
>Hmm, an unfortunate choice for an example.  You must admit that calling
>up professors at universities is 19 times out of 20 going to result in
>a conversation with a liberal.
>

Not in the Economics Dept.


-- 
Tom Streeter                                |   streeter@cs.unca.edu
Dept. of Mass Communication                 |   704-251-6227
University of North Carolina at Asheville   |   Opinions expressed here are
Asheville, NC 28804                         |   mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Chip Switzer
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:53:40 GMT

In <1992Sep4.114555.11535@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>jfcowan@cats.ucsc.edu (John F Cowan) writes:


>>We should all be thankful to Chip Switzer.  This newsgroup was
>>dead as a door nail until he came along. Surely he must be a leftist
>>provacateur. Keep up the good work Chip.
>>JC

>Gee, my own name, right there in the subject line!  I have to agree,
>this group was a little dead when I stumbled across it.  I was a 
>little suprised to read one post, though, that suggested this "bias"
>argument should be taken elsewhere and leave alt.news-media to discuss
>the media.  I happen to think it's a pretty important issue in the
>media. 

Well I've been following this thread without much posting (or even
reading!)...can we move one to something else?

I'm a journalist and journalism student, and would be very interested
in more "media" related discussions beyond bias (though that is
important as well.)

I promise not to defend my chosen profession at every opportunity
because I'm very critical of many things done by today's media
organizations.

Michael
Graduate student, journalism
Carleton University
Ottawa
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1110 alt.rush-limbaugh:4181 alt.activism.d:3003
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:02:20 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Chip says that, in "poll of the experts" stories, the media should have
to identify the experts, and that would keep them in their place.  But
Chip, I have never read an article on expert opinion that, after the
first paragraph, didn't start naming names.  If that's all you want,
then I think you've already got it.  Are you saying that you only
object to the headlines and ledes that summarize the stories, but
not the stories themselves?

Most of these stories will go even further, identifying the Brookings
economists as being associated with a "liberal" think tank, a Hoover
economist with a "conservative" think tank, a Cato economist with
a "libertarian" (or sometimes, ignorantly, "conservative") think tank.
I like this, although I know some conservatives who work for Brookings
(John Chubb for example has a career advocating school choice).

If critics are only confronting the summary headlines ("Bush's Plan
Gets Mixed Reviews" from the Wall St. Journal yesterday, for example)
and summary lead paragraphs, then I think I would agree with them.
Not only do these headlines impart no information whatsoever, they
do leave excessive room for "interpretation."  I have seen headlines
that said "Mixed Reviews" when the actual story had five people in favor,
one against, for example.  Plus, these headlines aren't even interesting,
so I see no reason they should be maintained for commercial purposes.
So I would support the suggestion that these types of headlines should
be replaced, maybe with something generic such as:
Experts polled on Bush's Plan
Experts Review Bush's Plan

Like I said, the other version is no more exciting than this, but
leaves room for error.
steve
 
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 00:14:12 GMT

adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:

>	The fact that safer forms of implants are out of reach of poorer
>women has nothing to do with the FDA, it has EVERYTHING to do with
>Republican opposition to National Health care programs which would MAKE them
>available!

Will this National Health care program also be paying for face lifts, fanny
tucks, liposuction, or Minoxidil?  Why should I have to buy these things
for other people?

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:919 alt.rush-limbaugh:3875 alt.activism.d:2793
From: sbrady@afit.af.mil (Stephan P. Brady)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:52:57 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

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

>alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:


>>chip switzer:	

>>	[article deleted]


>>Most economists seem to doubt that Bush will restrain the deficit.
>>The article is a bit cynical, perhaps, but not necessarily liberal, kind
>>of like the "liberal Bias" that moved Bush to talk about Voodoo economics
>>in 1980.

>    And don't forget the "conservative bias" that led senator Gore to bring
>up Willie Horton in '88.  I hope that made as much sense to you as your
>remark did to me.  What the heck do either of these have to do
>with bias in the media?

Chip-Helping out here...

For those with a lean to the left, and a short term memory comparable to
volatile RAM, Al Gore (then (unsuccesful) candidate for the presidency)
FIRST brought up the Willy Horton issue against Dukakis in the
PRIMARIES.  So, that little bit of mud-slinging so oft attributed to the
"bad-boys of the Bush campaign" has a more "leftist" origin.

I must agree with Chip here.  What is your comment about "voodoo
economics" to mean except that conservatives, like all human beings,
have disagreements over time, and work through them?

Later!

Steve
-- 
sbrady@galaxy.afit.af.mil
"Opinions held on every subject.  While they may not actually reflect the
opinions of my employer, they are a tribute to the freedoms enjoyed under
the First Amendment"
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: sleator@CS.CMU.EDU (Daniel Sleator)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Originator: sleator@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:35:00 GMT

To the extent that you described the story, this does *not* strike me
as an example of of a liberal media bias.

Suppose that the reporter called up 20 economists at major
universities and that, say, 19 of them expressed "doubt that Bush plan
will fly".  Then the headline would be entirely appropriate, and the
article would be accurate.

Consider a slightly different situation.  Suppose Bush had said "God
created the earth 5000 years ago, and evolution never happened."
Would you then expect the reporters to analyze this with a straight
face, and find an equal number of "experts" to "objectively discuss"
these claims?  If I got a paper that did that, I'd immediately end my
subscription to it.  Suppose my paper dismissed these claims as the
garbage that they are.  This would indicate a certain form of bias,
since there are many fundamentalist christians who don't agree with
it.  Perhaps this kind of "bias" should be called "logic bias", bias
caused by the exercise of thought.

[By the way, the fact of evolution has been established with as much
scientific evidence as the fact that the earth orbits the sun.]

The Republican convention was so full of bullshit, that it was
impossible to sit through it and take it seriously.  Reporters were
thus put in an ackward position.  To ignore the sillyness of of Bush
taking credit for the cold war victory, the ludicrosity of his claim
that Clinton raised taxes 128 times while he raised them once, or
Republicans claiming that the Democrats are against "family values",
would simply be stupid.  I'm glad that the reporters responded
appropriately to these glaring falacies.  It's odd indeed to desire
that reporters turn off their ability to reason when reporting
stories.

By the way, every newspaper, TV network, and reporter has "bias".
Only in the US does anybody take seriously the notion of "unbiased"
reporting.  I happen to think that most of the mainstream media is
biased toward the right.  See the next post by me.

                                D. Sleator
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:989 alt.activism:15400 alt.activism.d:2879
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Bias? What Bias?
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:40:20 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <2A96E451.24376@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes
>> Look at it this way. The Republicans are almost never the
>> majority in the House of Representatives. The Democrats
>> usually own it. That means most people who vote, vote
>> Democrat. Now.....less than 50% of Americans vote. So
>> lets say that on a nation-wide basis - with obvious
>> regional exceptions or not one Republican would ever be
>> elected - that 60% of voters vote for Democrats. Add that
>> figure to the 50-60% who don't vote at all - certainly not
>> for the Republicans, anyway. That gives you about 80% of
>> all Americans. 

This is total nonsense.  Withers is ignoring two effects...

1.  Winner-take-all contests magnify any difference in popularity.  In
other words, if you have a 60-40 split in favor of the democrats in
the popular vote then you would expect a 3 or 4 to 1 split in the
actual Congress.

2.  Democrats pretty much controlled state legislatures in the years
following 1980 when congressional districts were last reapportioned
and they gerrymandered.

In actual fact, the Democrats do get a larger share of the popular
vote than Republicans in Congressional elections, but the difference
is minute.

>> What you end up with a demographic profile that says that
>> 80% of Americans don't support the Republican/Right
>> Wing view. They either vote Democrat - or not at all.

Then why did they vote for Reagan and Bush?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1053 alt.activism.d:2944
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism.d
Subject: re: Gardner on Evolution
From: bpharmon@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:46:38 -0500
Followup-To: alt.news-media
Distribution: na
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <21360@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, bblumenf@ems.cdc.com (Robert Blumenfeld) writes:
> 
> I'm sorry, but I can't see why the Laws of Thermodynamics (i.e., 
> entropy) should apply to biology.
> 
> -- Bob

	Simple.  Living systems are all subject to the laws of physics,
including thermodynamics.  Therefore, the laws of thermodynamics are very
important in understanding biology.

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) 
Subject:  re: Gardner on Evolution
Reply-To: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:01:15 GMT

                                   
In article <1992Aug26.120101@cozy.Prime.COM> dwolff@cozy (David Wolff) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.223154.1867@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) writes:
>>                                      
>> This is the root of the issue.  A person who rules out supernaturalistic
>> origins must settle for evolution, because there is no other conceivable
>> naturalistic solution.  Even when evolution violates fundamental
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> naturalistic, verifiable laws such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics 
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> (i.e. closed systems tend to move toward disorder, or randomness, or 
>> unusable forms of energy, depending on application), it still must be
>> accepted because the only alternative is a supernaturalistic 
>> explanantion, no matter its scope.  The profound transition from
>> evolution to creation is not scientific, but _philosophical_.
>
>Thank you for making your intellectual bankruptcy clear beyond
>any possible misunderstanding.
>
>The Earth is not a closed system.  It has a thermonuclear fusion only
>a few light-minutes away constantly spewing energy onto one side, and it
>radiates toward a blackbody absorber (the universe) on the other side.
>
>Really, if you want to disguise your rampant fundie-ism, you should
>make sure you never use this argument.
>

Give me a little credit....  The conditions that supposedly produce evolutionary
change are supposedly based in universal principles, and Dr. Who and others aside,
I think the universe is a closed system.  To allow the part of evolution which 
hypothesizes a move from less complex structures to more complex, you also must
allow a massive local cessation of entropy.

>Followups to talk.origin... unless it's too hot for you there? :-)
>
>David Wolff

Thanks for mentioning it.  I never heard of it.  


---------------
"They always told me I would be a rocket scientist"
tcanham@jpl.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1065 alt.rush-limbaugh:4050 alt.activism.d:2952
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Creationists
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 14:40:39 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Don't you think this has gone on long enough, considering this is a
newsgroup about the media?

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:36:17 GMT

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:


>chip switzer:	

>	[article deleted]

>>   This approach betrays the underlying political bias of the reporter.  
>>"Analysts say..."  What analysts?!  The ones this reporter listens to and 
>>deems reliable.  Hmmm, could a propensity toward liberal ideas possibly skew 
>>a reporter's feelings about who he deems a reliable source?  Probably not 
>>going to look to that looney bin, the Heritage Foundation for any second 
>>opinions...  

>	Well, I heard a very similar opinion of Bushs plan from an economist
>at the CATO institute, so it's not just liberals. I haven't heard too many
>positive opinions on that plan, except those that were clearly politically
>motivated.

    Nice opinion, Alex, but hardly logical.  I guess all I have to do
is find one liberal who supports the plan and then all bets are off.
Of course if a liberal *did* support it, he would obviously be
politically motivated...

>Most economists seem to doubt that Bush will restrain the deficit.
>The article is a bit cynical, perhaps, but not necessarily liberal, kind
>of like the "liberal Bias" that moved Bush to talk about Voodoo economics
>in 1980.

    And don't forget the "conservative bias" that led senator Gore to bring
up Willie Horton in '88.  I hope that made as much sense to you as your
remark did to me.  What the heck do either of these have to do
with bias in the media?


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.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:35:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na

Thus spake cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman): 

>"Pro-choice"rs have for years agitated with political slogans like 'a womans  
>body is her own'. Yet, when the FDA (a non-elected, not publicly responsible  
>regulatory agency) simply outlaws a surgical procedure which millions of women  
>have freely chosen because 'it is not good for them' there was not a word of  
>protest. This issue is even much simpler than abortion as breast implant  
>operations are both safer and there can be no argument about the fact that no  
>other persons unwilling body is involved. But if anything feminists and other  
>"pro-choice"rs _supported_ this regulation.
>
	Pro-choice individuals support FDA bans on Thalidomide [sp?] too.
Does that mean that we don't believe women have the right to be "tranquil?"

	The FDA didn't ban implants because they were "not good for women,"
they banned them because it was discovered that they represented a
previously unrecognized health risk. Pro-choice individuals have no REASON
to oppose sane health rulings. Note, btw, that the FDA did NOT ban breast
implants, they banned the use of CURRENT breast implants - a PRODUCT, not a
procedure!

	Were the FDA to discover that a given product or drug used for the
purpose of inducing abortion posed a serious health risk to the patient (one
NOT exceeded by the health risk of NOT using that product or drug) few if
any pro-choice individuals would have any objection to its ban. 

	The FDA, despite your claims to the contrary, has NO authority to
ban ANY procedure, or products. FDA, in case you have forgotten, stands for
Food and Drug Administration. To the best of my knowledge, a surgical
procedure is neither a food product nor a drug.

	Incidently, you might consider the fact that it isn't the FDA which
is seeking a ban on abortion - its the Christian church (and its political
arm the Republican Party). Somehow I have more faith in the medical opinion
of the FDA's physicians than I do in that of Pat Robertson!

>From this I conclude that much of the dominant faction of the "pro-choice"  
>movement is hypocritical about its professed believes. What it is interested in  
>is the widest possible availability of abortions without the justification of  
>any high-sounding principle like "choice".
>
	And from your post, I gather that you perfer absolute regulation of
any actions which involve the human body in any manner not suited to your
rather narrow view of propriety! 

-- 
    rick.adams on GEnie   /|\        You are right from your side,        
     adamsr@netcom.com  /  |  \        And I am right from mine.          
    adamsr@irie.ais.org \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,   
   adamsr@norwich.bitnet  \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan) 
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d