HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:23:05 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>>My opinion, and I have had little to do with the military since 1946,
>>is that the military are so compliant to the wishes of the media that
>>they risk incurring more casualties than they otherwsie would.

>My opinion is that aside from *very* short term tactical constraints,
>this is an unfortunate but necessary risk.

    Yup. Anyone who thinks that millitary secrecy or disinformation 
campaigns (like the one in which the press reported how marines were 
preparing to land on the beaches of Kuwait) are new phenomena should 
read the _Soldier's_Pocket_Book_ which was written by Sir Garnet Wolseley 
back in the late 1800's. Wolseley opened his 1870's campaign against the 
Arabi rebellion in Egypt by publicly assigning a brilliant young strategian 
to draw up plans for a landing at Aboukir Bay. Meanwhile Wolseley quietly 
sailed his army around to Port Said and seized the Suez canal. The 
Egyptians had prepared to defend Aboukir Bay and were taken by complete 
surprise.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2935 alt.news-media:1044 alt.rush-limbaugh:4016
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:55:45 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

Just ask correspondent Bob Simon......

He struck out on his own (w/o military escort) and got caught by the
Iraqis.  Spent 40 days or so in captivity, much of it in solitary
confinement.

No one tried to stop him..... so there must have been *some* press
freedom.

-- 
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.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
	<q1+nscd.adamsr@netcom.com>
Date: 22 Aug 92 14:15:59

Are you a lawyer?  The message is a lawyer's argument.  A but if not A then B.
But if not B then C.

When Chip Switzer claimed to have observed that NBC deliberately focussed
on Quayle when Clinton's name came up in ?'s speech, he was accused of
making it up.  Now the NYT tells us that this was at the order of an
"impish" producer who had an advanced copy of the speech.

The press had to be strictly controlled during the Gulf war, because
Schwartzkopf's strategy was based on deceiving the enemy as to the
location of our attack.  Just one impish reporter could have spoiled
the surprise and caused a lot more Americans, British, French, Saudis,
Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Syrians to be killed.

In any case, the bias of the reporters against the Republicans goes back
to the 1930s.  In the 30s this was counterbalanced by the opposite bias
of the publishers and reasonable enforcement of rules against mixing
commentary into news stories.  Now these rules are ignored.

Looking at the U.P. stories on Clarinet, it seems clear that the bias
is the result of non-enforcement of rules against mixing comment with
news rather than an editorial policy of putting it in.  The reporters
are anonymous, but clearly different reporters behave differently in
this dimension.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2994 talk.politics.misc:43233 ca.politics:7351 ba.politics:4980
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics,ucb.peoples-park
Subject: East Bay Revolving Door for Bad Cops
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:15:01
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
	<64780@cup.portal.com> <6037@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: rpwhite@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil's message of 28 Aug 92 18:04:03 GMT

> "The Oakland police officer who shot Ms. Denovo, Craig Chew,
> was investigated for using excessive force and making improper
> arrests while he was on the Berkeley Police Department, said
> Berkeley police commission investigator Robert Bailey. . . .
> The commission upheld three of four allegations - two for
> making improper arrests and one for using excessive force,
> Bailey said."

=o= Great.  Just great.  Of course, one of Berkeley's "finest"
joined up after leaving the Oakland force in disgrace.  Seems
he used excessive force in apprehending a black suspect:  by
running him down with a car.  (Stuff like this usually goes
unnoticed, but as it happens the suspect was a fellow police
officer working undercover.)

=o= Something tells me we've got a Bad Cop Exchange Program
here in the East Bay.  Small wonder we're not having much luck
stopping police brutality.
    <_Jym_>
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Sandinista Death Squads Continue?
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:16:58 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

drm@esl.com (Don McGregor) writes:

>According to a report from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
>217 former Contra rebels who laid down their arms after the elections
>and peace agreement were later slain.  Among those killed were five
>former commanders of the Contra's general command.  There have
>been no prosecutions in connection with the killings; the Nicaraguan
>army and police are still under Sandinista control.  The report
>says that "There are strong indications of a systematic campaign to
>assassinate former members of the Nicaraguan resistance."

This is clearly something that should be condemned.  Are there any
mitigating circumstances?  [For example, I understand that some
of the contras continued to terrorize; whether this has anything to
do with the above I don't know.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
From: usenet@acsu.buffalo.edu (news knower)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Global Warming
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:05:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2872 alt.news-media:981 alt.rush-limbaugh:3946
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:02:54 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1992Aug25.015306.10987@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil
(Chip Switzer) writes:
>>However, taking that further and implying that there is something
>>wrong with wanting to know in advance that Grenada was about to be
>>invaded.  Personally, I think it's REALLY dangerous when the military
>>gets too carried away thinking "They don't need to know we're invading
>>(name the country)"...because that isn't a military decision to make!
>>If the government is thinking about invading Grenada/Panama/Cambodia,
>>etc, I think that the people should have something to say about it.
>
>Grenada and Panama were *sneak attacks*.  How do you reconcile telling
>the media we were planning it? Do you see how that just might get
>some Americans killed that wouldn't have been if they had had the element
>of suprise on their side?
>
>I think you are really arguing that the President shouldn't have the
>authority to use force like that without Congressional approval.  That
>is another debate altogether...

Not just the media.  I feel that the people of the US had a right to know
that we were about to attack a foreign country, instead of waking up one
day and finding out over coffee, after the fact.  And that we should have
had some say in the matter...

   don
From: Student.Assembly@dartmouth.edu (Student Assembly)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Dartmouth condemns Oregon anti-gay and -lesbian referendum
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:36:57 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


One (small) way to fight the Oregon referendum from afar:

The Student Assembly of Dartmouth College has passed by 22-8-1 a
statement reprinted below condemning the upcoming referedum in Oregon
to incorporate anti-gay and -lesbian provisions into the state
constitution.  Right now, it is legal in all 50 states to evict gay and
lesbian tenants, fire gay and lesbian employees, and execute other acts
of discrimination.  A few cities around the country have enacted civil
rights ordinances for gay and lesbian citizens.  The Oregon measure
would prohibit any city in Oregon from protecting them, would require
public schools to teach that homosexuality is Rabnormal, wrong,
unnatural, and perverseS and Rto be discouraged and avoidedS (quoted
from proposed amendment), and may force the state to fire all lesbian
and gay state employees, including teachers.

The Dartmouth Student Assembly will be sending a press release and the
statement to national and Oregonian media.  We would like to see
colleges and other entities around the country likewise generate
publicity and draw attention to the situation in Oregon.  We would like
to see the issue covered as broadly as the Louisiana gubernatorial
election in which David Duke ran.

Students, please urge your student governments to take up this issue so
that we can keep media attention on this egregious situation. 
Hopefully, other student governments will be able to pass stronger
language.

-Jeff Strabone

Jeff.Strabone@dartmouth.edu
===========

Dartmouth Statement on Human Rights

Sponsor: Auguste Goldman
Committee of Origin: None
Date of Passage: August 25, 1992

Whereas, the educational institutions in the United States can have a
profound effect on the maintenance of Human and Civil Rights in this
country, and

Whereas, educational institutions have a moral and intellectual duty to
fight bigotry, and

Whereas the Oregon Citizens AllianceUs referendum constitutes a Human
Rights violation,

We, the Student Assembly of Dartmouth College, hereby condemn the
Oregon Citizens AllianceUs anti-gay and -lesbian referendum on OregonUs
November ballot.  Furthermore, we encourage other student government
organizations around the country to join us in expressing outrage at
this flagrant assault on the civil and human rights of gays, lesbians,
and bisexuals by a state government.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: mike@huevos.ma.utexas.edu (Mike Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Network of student governments and student unions
Date: 29 Aug 92 16:41:00 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin Mathematics

You might want to work with/through the United States Student Assoc.
I don't know if they have e-mail, but you can get their phone number
from information in D.C. They are a network of student governments.

Mike Sullivan
mike@math.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.activism
From: fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:20:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Right Bleedin' Church of Libertine Obfuscatology

In <2A9AC9C5.7995@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

>> If PRO-LIFE is such a fundamental position, then why are there so many
>> pro-lifers who support capital punishment?

>"I think that was a particularly knee-jerk response.  I don't think anyone who  
>uses or hears "pro-life" really thinks it means anything beyond the abortion  
>issue -- it is implied and understood to mean pro-fetal-life.  This isn't the  
>same as pro-choice, which is intended to imply that the other side is made up  
>of a bunch of authoritarian fascists." Or so the argument in your post a few  
>minutes ago goes.

Hey.  You can't play games like this.  Why does pro-choice imply that the
other side is a bunch of authoritarian fascists, yet pro-life does not
imply that the other side are a bunch of murderers?

I can just as easily say that pro-choice is implied and understood to mean
pro-choice-to-have-an-abortion.

-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:3005 alt.news-media:1112 alt.rush-limbaugh:4182
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:14:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug30.192335.20297@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>I think mankind has generally agreed that there are some things worth
>fighting and dying for.  Freedom is certainly one of them and there
>have been plenty of political theories throughout history that have 
>denied people freedom.  The British colonial system of two centuries 
>ago comes immediately to mind...

Or the US's restoration of a restrictive government lately in
Kuwait. Where it fought the war for economic reasons. The US is only
too happy to reinstall the previous rulers since they are happy to
have the US serve under them. Money talks I guess. Words like
freedom are happily forgotten and only used when needed.

Pim van Meurs


 
>
>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 


-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis)
Subject: Re: Usual Libels against Chomsky
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date:  2 Sep 92 04:16:34 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:


>If you don't want to be taken for extremists, then you have to
>say something to distinguish yourself from the extremists.  The
>"anti-war" movement neglected this to the point of being taken
>over by its anti-American wing.

   Which is the more extremist position:

   a)  "You, personally, are going to agree to get your ass shot off 
        in order to keep the Viet Cong from wading the Pacific Ocean
        with their rifles over their heads and attacking San Francisco,
        or else you'll be locked up in a cage for five years with  
        robbers, rapists, and murderers."

   or

   b)   "Gee, I'd better accept help from anyone at all, whatever their
         politics, if I don't want a) to happen to me."

> My further experience included
>the Venceremos takeover of the mid-Peninsula Free University.
>When I unsuccessfully tried to get the MPFU to reaffirm its
>previous commitment to nonviolence, I was threatened with death
>in a meeting of the MPFU.

   Myself and my agemates were threatened with death by the President of
the United States -- a threat that was a hell of a lot more real than
what happened to you, as evidenced by the fact that it was made good
some fifty thousand times. 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
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
	<q1+nscd.adamsr@netcom.com> <1992Aug22.212130.21365@afit.af.mil>
	<hmiller.714544001@lucpul.it.luc.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:54:30

A real jerk, this Miller.  Oh well, it's probably what the Jesuits
teach 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,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Military censorship of news
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:23:35 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

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

>[among other things...]
>>                                        ...   If Vietnam taught us
>>anything, it was that showing pictures of the carnage of war on the
>>television at dinner time did nothing to really get meaningful
>>information out--it just showed the American people how terrible war is.
>>Since we know that already, what's the point?

>I think the point was that many Americans *didn't* know how
>terrible war was before that; and when they saw the carnage,
>they decided that it wasn't worth destroying human lives for
>a political theory.  Something that each generation has to
>learn afresh, it seems.

I think mankind has generally agreed that there are some things worth
fighting and dying for.  Freedom is certainly one of them and there
have been plenty of political theories throughout history that have 
denied people freedom.  The British colonial system of two centuries 
ago comes immediately to mind...

There was also the political theory that marched across Europe and bombed
the crap out of your cities all night.  Worth fighting and dying for
in order to stop such a "theory"?

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: mstrange@alfred.carleton.ca (N E N Strangelove)
Subject: moderated?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:01:39 GMT

Greetings,

I am compiling a directory of networked resources for social work
studies [2nd edition]. I would like to include alt.activism.d. I would
appreciate a brief description [2-3 lines max.] and I need to know
whether this newsgroup is moderated.

Thanks in advance,

Natalie Strangelove

Ps\ Please eamil me directly, as I am not subscribed to this group.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2911 alt.news-media:1020 alt.rush-limbaugh:3983
From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:00:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thus spake shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall): 

>You are precisely correct: the military exists to SERVE THE PEOPLE.
>It serves the people by defending their interests, as defined by their
>elected representatives, at home and abroad.  

>If they used resources to
>matters unrelated to that mission or injurous to the interests of the
>United States, as determined by their elected representatives, they
>would be subject to criminal prosecution under either the fraud/waste 
>(for using resources for purposes unrelated to Desert Shield/Desert
>Storm) or treason (for acting injurous to the interests of the US)
>statuates.

>Whether to provide information to those who oppose war wasn't a
>military decision.

> Collecting
>information for civilian personnel was not funded by Congress nor 
>provided for in the mission statement under which the President and
>Congress sent the troops to the Gulf.  
>that spent effort collecting non-opera
>only nonfraudulent and nontreasonous course for the military to take, under
>the rules given to them by the President and Congress.

	"I was only following orders."

	Hitler was the duly elected leader of HIS nation, too. And the
soldiers at the death camps were only carrying out their duties and acting
in the interests of THEIR nation, as determined by THEIR elected
representatives.

	Lt. Calley [sp?] was only carrying out his duties and acting in the
interests of the United States as determined by our elected representatives
at Mai Lai.

	Isn't it interesting how the military mind always manages to excuse
ANY action with the same claims - yet is quite willing to condem OTHERS for
following the same code?

-- 
    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.activism.d,alt.news-media,alt.activism
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: Clarkson University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:36:16 GMT

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

>Steve Voss writes
>> If PRO-LIFE is such a fundamental position, then why are there so many
>> pro-lifers who support capital punishment?

>"I think that was a particularly knee-jerk response.  I don't think anyone who  
>uses or hears "pro-life" really thinks it means anything beyond the abortion  
>issue -- it is implied and understood to mean pro-fetal-life.  This isn't the  
>same as pro-choice, which is intended to imply that the other side is made up  
>of a bunch of authoritarian fascists." Or so the argument in your post a few  
>minutes ago goes.

>I - on the other hand - consider both pro-life and pro-choice propaganda terms.  
>If you want to be fair use pro-abortion-rights and anti-abortion-rights. If you  
>as a reporter use the descripitive term for one side, while using the  
>propaganda term for the other side (as you admit you did), you open yourself up  
>for perfectly legitimate criticism of bias.

I agree with the writer 100%.

On one hand, if you are "pro-choice" then the other side must be
"anti-choice". Never mind the argument that when two people choose
to have sex, they choose to accept the potential consequences. Govt
is forcing sex on anyone.

On the other hand, if you are "pro-life" then the other side must
be "anti-life" or "pro-death". Many "pro-lifers" don't seem to 
mind what happens to the fetus AFTER it is born (which more 
abortion rights people seem to). Most abortion rights people are more "pro-life"
than the Operation Rescuers who bomb clinics and send death threats to
judges.		

The issue is not as black and white as many people on both sides would
have you believe.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRI FARENELL	is a PC-hating, 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)

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d