HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Who Said Media Was Supposed To Be Unbiased?  (was Re: Media Bias at RNC)
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:51:30 GMT
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Aug19.151811.814@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> af041@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Webster) writes:

   As further evidence of media bias, one need only look at Monday
   night's edition of the CBS evening news.  Rather's coverage
   was a tremendous job of disguising editorial comment as a straigt
   news broadcast.

   Lest this be mistaken as the maunderings of a wounded Republican,
   I should mention that a long time Democrat who was watching the
   news broadcast with me commented, "That's the best advertisement
   that the Democracts have produced yet!", and then realized that
   we were still watching the news broadcast and NOT an ad.

I'm puzzled by the idea that media is supposed to be unbiased.
We all pick our sources according to their biases (as the
readers of this group should know.)  The mistake of the
Republicans was to threaten the existance of public
broadcasting, and this has brought much of the media into
solidarity.  It was a serious mistake in strategy that no
amount of whining (and I'm referring to the Republican
panelists on PBS, not to Mark Webster) will recover.  Carter
never complained publicly about the "bias" of the intelligence
community.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3537 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4344
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:36:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med

In article <5939@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>I wouldn't be so quick to assume that opposition to abortion is
>based in religion.  I'm as irreligious as you can get, though
>tolerant of others who are religious.
>
>My opposition to abortion is based on fundamental human rights, ie
>the right to life.  

The real problem is defining a life.  Since you presumably don't
believe in a soul then an abortion within minutes of conception might
be acceptable to you.  If you are against this type of abortion then
you must be against the IUD birth control.   If you are in favor of
this type of abortion then we are only talking about when an abortion
can occur.
device.  
-- 
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: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Vileness in Amerikkka--Anarchists are Democrats
Date: 19 Aug 1992 13:57:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>(Nathan Engle) writes:
>>William Kucharski responds to anarchistic blather
>>>Boy, Macintosh NNTP programs can be dangerous, can't they? (eci.bbb.cal?)
>>
>>    Yeah, you can't trust any of those goofy Mac users (Sorry Rush)...
>>
>>--
>>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
>
>Nathan!  Now you have REALLY offended me! ;)  I know I am goofy, but it's not 
>because I use a Mac, and I _am_ trustworthy! :)
>-- 
>           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
>     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
>      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
>             Win Twins!

Sorry, anyone who works for Ohio State and roots for NOTRE DAME (ack, ptui!)
is not trustworthy.  Who pays your salary, anyway?

Well, you reedem yourself by using a Mac instead of being a sheep and using
a PC.

Go Buckeyes! (Oh, to be in Columbus, now that football season is here!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

I wanna go back to Ohio State     I wanna go back to Ohio State
To old Columbus town.             To old Columbus town.
To the state to hear the band     I waana go back
By far the finest in the land     I gotta go back, to O-HI-O!
-- "I Wanna Go Back"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:08:25 GMT

rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner) writes:

>In article <1992Aug18.202358.15204@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>there is a liberal bias in the news media, let me give an example. 
>>[Examples are not given as proof of bias in all other cases.  They are
>>submitted to stand alone and to make you aware of what conservatives
>>feel is biased reporting]
>>
>>Pat Buchannon (sp?) is speaking and gets to the part where he makes a
>>"personal attack" on Clinton's draft evasion.  As soon as he started
>>into the allegation, the camera is positioned solidly on Vice President
>>Quayle--and stays there for the entire duration of the "draft dodger" 
>>segment of his speech.  I ask you (if you saw it), was this news
>>coverage, or a producer injecting his own opinion into the coverage?

>There is certainly a bias in the 'news media' and it isn't a 'liberal'
>bias.  Millions of high school students are encouraged to refer to the
>bibles of popular media (t*me,n**wsw**k), which are so far right wing
>it's not even funny  (not to mention popular television, that propaganda
>instrument of the consumerist society).

>Here you are submitting as 'proof' some example that you are reading
>an awful lot into, then you go on to state that proof by example isn't
>valid.

First, I never claimed it was proof of bias.  There is really no way to
do that.  All you can do is collect statistics that are themselves
subject to debate and that doesn't *prove* anything.  All I have ever
attempted to do was to open some eyes (your's appear sewn shut). 

For liberals to counter charges of a general liberal bias in the news 
media with, "no, there is really a conservative bias", is beginning to
wear thin.  It is an established fact that the news media is
considerably to the left of mainstream America.  If you can't comprehend
how that might possibly affect the kind of news and analysis we get 
everyday, you are not being very truthful with yourself.  

Time and Newsweek?


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.rush-limbaugh:3779 alt.activism.d:2723
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:45:10 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:

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

>>>There is certainly a bias in the 'news media' and it isn't a 'liberal'
>>media with, "no, there is really a conservative bias", is beginning to
>>wear thin.  It is an established fact that the news media is
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>considerably to the left of mainstream America.  If you can't comprehend
>>how that might possibly affect the kind of news and analysis we get 
>>everyday, you are not being very truthful with yourself.  

>I love this kind of statement. And I can well guess just exactly who
>established it as fact.  


Is the Los Angeles Times reliable enough for you?  That is where the 
poll was from that I posted a while ago.

>Try reading Ben Bagdikian's "The Media Monopoly" and reconciling your
>"liberal media" nonsense with some hard, undisputable data about who
>OWNS the media in the US (or for that matter, throughout Western
>Europe).


You're kidding!  Businesses own the media?  And I thought they were all
run by starving college students...  Of course all business people are
conservative.  One need look no further than Ross Perot.


>>Time and Newsweek?

>It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?  D'ya ever read The Nation?
>From that angle, Time & Newsweek look pretty right wing.  Surely you're
>not going to claim that they take a serious investigative look at the
>government?  Ho ho.

I think the perspective is fairly obvious to most people.  These magazines
are hardly right-wing.  


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
From: mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush and Family Income: A Critical Analysis (Was: Doublespeak)
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:01:54 GMT
Organization: UB


	In the interest of fairness, I now venture an analysis of Rush's
argument about family income for the poor.
	First, Rush's argument (courtesy John Switzer's summary of Tue 8/11):

Rush reads from the article which states that "America remains a
land of opportunity. The poor are not necessarily poorer. As a
group, the poorest 20% of households saw their mean household
income, adjusted for inflation, increase 5% during the 80s." This
is from the 1990 census data, and Rush recalls how the 80s was
supposed to be a decade of greed and selfishness in which the
rich took away from the poor, who didn't have anything to begin
with.

	The conclusion that Rush is trying to draw here is that the real income
of poor (lowest 20%) families did not decline during the eighties.  Rush's 
unstated assumption is that there was not a significant increase in the average
number of income earners in poor families.  If this assumption is true, then
his conclusion is sound.
	Obviously, the first thing to do would be to check 1980 and 1990
census data to determine if such an increase occurred.  Anyone out there with
access to the needed census data?
	Another avenue for refutation of Rush's argument would be to document
a significant decline in real income for poor family wage earners.  Such a
decline might have to be steep.  For example, if a poor family had one wage
earner in 1980, and two in 1990, and was only treading water in terms of real
income, real income per wager earner would have to have fallen 50%, assuming
equal earnings between the two wage earners.
	Note that any such statistics for wage earner real income would have 
to answer Rush's objection (not stated in the summary) to the figure he
encountered: namely that the tabulation of the figure excluded large portions
of the population.

	I'll be gone for a week, due to the vacation between the summer session
and the fall semester here at the university.  No doubt that this thread will
have grown significantly in that time.

-- 
Matt Bernhardt
University of Buffalo             THIS SPACE FOR RENT.
mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3843 alt.activism.d:2770
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 02:10:27 EDT
From: Norman St. John Polevaulter <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican convention
 <1992Aug21.221607.5527@pony.Ingres.COM> <1992Aug22.010643.16529@afit.af.mil>

Media bias? All right, I'll agree with you. Even a bleeding-heart Democrat
like me can tell that the network news folks, at least, tended to be biased
against the GOP during its convention.

What you folks conveniently forget is the massive media bias in the past
IN FAVOR of (for example) Operation Desert Storm; all the propaganda we
were subjected to about how, with a 99% approval ration was it, Bush was
a juggernaut headed for re-election and the Dems might as well not even
bother; then the sleaze-fest with everyone piling on top of Bill Clinton
and the GOP licking their chops at the thought of all the cheap hot-buttons
they could go after him with. There was even the spate of pro-Buchanan
bias during the early primaries, which is hard indeed for the Liberal Media
Conspiracy theorists to account for...

Conclusion? The media is biased. But their bias tends to change a lot.
Sometimes they're Republican cheerleaders. Sometimes they're bashing 'em
in chorus with the Democrats. Know what the media's Bias-of-the-Day is,
and learn to live with it, all right?

[Your blood pressure just went up.]       Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
       DISCLAIMER: If it ain't money, Penn State doesn't care about it.
   "Ladies and gentlemen, I've suffered for my music! Now it's your turn!"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: If Quayle only knew: another Dan screws up!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:56:54 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>Recently it has been pointed out that Dan Quayle had said in an
>interview that he, Kemp, Buchanan et al. was getting ready for the 1994
>Presidential Election. Of course, the next election after this one is in
>1996. But it seems, Dan wasn't the only man to trip up on his history.
>[...]

I heard this or something like it when each reporter individually asked
Quayle if he would run for president next election.  Quayle's response
every time was, ~"Let's just get George Bush elected and worry about '94
later..."  At first I thought he had made a mistake, but it seems he 
meant that the presidential race would begin then, and he would wait
till '94 to commit.

Of course we could always make fun of his addition now...


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.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: California Senate races  (was Re: the Keating 5)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 06:31:50 GMT

In article <16lu2eINNcf1@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
}>consider Herschensohn the second-best candidate of all the Republicans
}>running (for either seat) in the primary.  Media-unknown Bill Allen
}>(eek!  another black conservative) was tops.
}
}If Allen had his way, Herschensohn wouldn't even be eligible for office.
}According to his opponents, Allen ran on a platform to make America
}Christian, including a prohibition of non-Christian office holders.
}Alas, with Allen running in single-digits, I didnn't bother to get the
}source.
}
}andy

While I'm no supporter of conservatives, even if they're black, without good
reason to believe they're more libertarian than anyone else running, I'm
skeptical of this claim about Allen.  He is Christian, but he didn't seem as
militant as all that in what little I've read of him.  For instance, he
argued that equal treatment for homosexuals is constitutional, and supported
this.

Contrast this with Dannemeyer, who entered legislation to establish a
"heterosexual ethic" into Congress.  It went nowhere, but he entered it!


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: davoli@natinst.com (Russell J. Davoli)
Subject: Re: Info on Dan Quayle's camera coverage during Buchanan's speech
Organization: National Instruments Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:32:46 GMT

In article <1738fsINNjpe@agate.berkeley.edu>, schubert@capri.berkeley.edu (John Schubert) writes:
>
> ...I saw an interesting story in today's NY Times that might interest you.
> 
> On page A7 of the Friday 21 August issue in "A Vice President Who Has Been
> Tested" by Kevin Sack it states:
> 
> 	Patrick J. Buchanan was about to deliver his most memorable
> 	zinger, the line about how Gov. Bill Clinton "sat up in a
> 	dormatory in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge
> 	the draft."  An impish producer at NBC News, who had an
> 	advance text of Mr. Buchanan's Monday night speech to the
> 	Republican convention ordered the cameras trained on
> 	Vice President Dan Quayle.
> 
> 	As the Astrodome crowd erupted in cheers, Mr. Quayle sat
> 	stiff and expressionless, his eyes shifting self-consciously
> 	to the left and then to the right.  The camera lingered.
> 	Mr. Qualye, whose own candidacy was bombarded by questions
> 	about the draft four years earlier, did not smile.

He probably was looking for the cameras without trying to be too obvious about
it. :-)   At this point in the speech I was watching NBC and they did seem to
make a point of showing Dan Quayle throughout the passage quoted above. I
flipped immediately to PBS, who wasn't showing him, then around to the other
networks who seemed to variously show then the crowds.  However, I can't say
that the other networks were trying hard to focus on him because I couldn't
watcht them all at once.  Heck, if I were DQ I might have done the same thing,
knowing I'm damned if do smile, and hounded by reporters if I don't.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Abortion on demand
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:54:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.201320.20106@webo.dg.com> lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:

>|> >At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand. When the
>|>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|>                 a lie
>|>
>What does the democratic platform call for?  What is the abortion language?  Is this actually a lie, or is it just a realistic characterization of the platform?  

	It's a lie. The Democrats are calling to maintain Roe v. wade in its
current for, without added restrictions. RvW already allows for restricted
second and third trimester abortions, which is why virtually no third
trimester abortions are performed in this country.

	Not that any of this matters: all of this information is and has been
readily available for many years, but the GOP still insists that the Dems
support abortion on demand up to that date of delivery. This clarification
will not change anything in that respect, but it will help you identify a
liar in your midst, should you care to do that.

	And now back to your regularly scheduled flamewar.

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

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: Phil_Warburton@grace.UUCP (Phil Warburton)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: There he goes again..
Distribution: world
Date: 17 Aug 92 02:12:37 EST
Organization: Graceful Boot BBS (send replies to moscom.com!grace!User_Name)

Well, it looks like Bush is going to start a war for votes.. The
Republicans are sure losers this time around.. But it won't work this
time.. Well, as they say, you can't win 'em all.. 

Of course, It has been said that the Republican Party [wants] bush to lose,
so when clinton ruins the country, they can come in and win a landslide
victory. Of course, neither will happen.. Clinton will do a better job than
Bush.. And the Republicans will lose election after election, until after 8
successful terms of Democratic presidents, the Republican party will
gradually dissolve.. 
Conservative? Me? I'm not OLD enough!

There is no such thing as a conservative.. They are all old farts.. The
only reason Conservatives even exist is because Old rich people think
that's just the way things are, old rich people are conservatives.. My
grandfather is a registered conservative, and he is Pro-choice, and he can
program the timer on his VCR (amazing, George bush is fascinated with the
cash register). He is a conservative solely because "I'm old, and Old
people are conservatives".

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

main()
{
 printf("By: phil_warburton@grace.uucp\n");
}
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh fans
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:25:32 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <20297@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
>
>no damn it - I can't quite get the hang of this - I listen to the show
>on the way to work most days and I'm trying to get a handle on the average
>Rush fan but I get confused - is it the bozo who feels he has to deny
>his racism before he/she states it or is it the yahoo that feels the need to 
>announce his under-education that is the avg. fan? 

 Dont forget us over educated people who have spent more hours in free
market based educational systems then the average masters holder. As 
having gone through both college and free market based education I can 
state that I learned more during 5 minutes of free market schooling then 
I learned during an entire 1 hour college class.
 Why are Big Government types always forgetting or misunderstanding the
Free Market ? You do much better as a liberal apologist.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3602 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4456 talk.politics.misc:39528 alt.politics.bush:1482 alt.politics.clinton:1881 alt.politics.elections:10521
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: the Keating 5
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:22:20 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Aug13.162811.12863@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> In article <mykes.0ca9@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
> >Remember the Keating 5?  Where's all the unbiased news coverage of those
> >guys?  Note - they are still in office.  S&L, my butt :)
>
> 	I was under the impression that Alan Cranston was either going
> to retire or was really fighting for his seat because of Keating stuff.
> Any Californians want to comment?
>

To my knowledge, Cranston is leaving.  There are two republican men running
against 2 democratic women for the Senate seats.  Cranston is leaving because
of health and not the Keating scandal.  Where's the special prosecutor when
you need one?  Hmm? :)  I bet John Glenn is reelected - anyone from Ohio
want to comment?

Feinstein and Boxer.  Don't like either of them.  I saw plenty of Feinstein as
mayor of SF, and saw her lose for governor (thank goodness).  Boxer is on C-SPAN
enough for me to have given her a good listen-to and find nothing to like about
her ideas.

"Vote for me because I am a woman" is not a compelling reason to vote, IMO.  Given
good ideas and programs, I could care less about gender.

> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> 					Alex Crain
> 					UMBC Academic Computing Services

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh