HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: INFO: The Other Lawsuit (was: UC settles lawsuit for $25,000)
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:16:58 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <16bcl5INNp2k@agate.berkeley.edu>, jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>> David Kamola, 33, and Christopher Mackinney, 36, allegedly
>> drew anti-UC slogans on a sidewalk adjacent to People's Park
>> last year. . . . Both men filed a suit against the university
>> on the grounds that their First Amendment rights were
>> violated.
> 
> =+= Yet another lawsuit has been filed by UC against activist
> David Nadel.  Nadel made a statement to the effect that he would
> not be surprised if somebody vandalized the volleyball courts
> that UC put up in People's Park.  When the courts were indeed
> vandalized, UC filed a lawsuit against Nadel for "inciting" it.

	Hopefully they will get far more than $25,000.

> =+= This is widely viewed as a SLAPP lawsuit.  UC hasn't a

	For those of you who don't know what a slapp suit is, it's when anyone
but an activist[1] files a lawsuit to stop an action, or in response to an
action.

[1]  Of course we mean "approved" activists.  After all, pro-life, Republican,
pro-military, pro-space, etc. aren't really activists.
:\

> snowball's chance in Hell of winning the lawsuit (thanks to the
> First Amendment), but it can run up Nadel's legal expenses.

	In other words, it's just like the other lawsuit, only the shoe is on
the other foot?

> Out of all the People's Park activists who've mentioned the
> likelihood of vandalism, they chose Nadel, presumably because
> he's the only one with assets:  Nadel owns Ashkenaz, Berkeley's
> finest dance club.

	Ahhh, merely an instance of "deep pockets", then.  My how the other
side howls when it happens to them.
   
Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: UNLV
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 20:47:48 GMT

>
>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.

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?


Although I did notice the shot of quayle during the part about
Clinton's draft dodging (although quayle actually served, clinton
lied to the military, claiming that he would serve but never did)
the media did also show shots that accented the speach, when
kemp talked about the mob going to the retirement home, the news
camaras panned to the oldest people they could find in the 
crowd... Im more upset with the reporting than the video footage.
The worst reporting was by an ABC reporter who didnt understand
what Clean House meant.... (SHehe said she first thought Clinton
Supporters snuck in and where holding those signs, she never
figured out that Clean House meant to Get rid of the democrats
in congress)



Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:40:02 GMT

brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.204748.14773@unlv.edu> edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford) writes:
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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?

>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.

>Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|

This is the height of gulability.  What possible reason could the
networks have for letting the Republicans control the camera shots?
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?  And of course the cameras on the floor are being operated by
campaign workers also...  No news organization would allow this to 
happen.  It would cease to be a news event and become a campaign
commercial.  They wouldn't even play the Clinton video at the DNC, and 
they most certainly won't play the Bush video tonite.

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. 

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.  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).


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.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:48:05 GMT

Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:

>>Chip Switzer:
>>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.
>	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!
>>
>>Did I answer your question?
>>
>	Better than you know, and probably not the way you meant to.
>>

You are of course right. The biggest and most powerfull special interest
group that the Republican party panders to is most definitely big
business.  I must have been in a state of euphoria from the convention
speeches...

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Well Mr. Dyer?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 12:41:18 GMT


I asked you if you would mind having people email and call you to express
their displeasure with your postings. I assume not since you don't mind
doing it to others but just wanted to make sure. Yet you have been
strangsly silent on this issue. How about it?

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------252 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: aak50740@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Count Zero )
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: <burp>
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:20:01 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Excuse me.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Count
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:40:51 GMT

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. 
   [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?

   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.

My, we are paranoid, aren't we?

If the Repubs lose the election, they'll certainly have a parcel of
excuses, it would appear. [ #347: the LiberalMedia camera man didn't follow
the script on Pat Buchanan's speech.. ]

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Revered, now I live on. O did I do no evil, I wonder ever.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Usual libels against Chomsky (Was Re: Media Bias ...)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:55:44

I was aware of the context of Chomsky's statement about denazification
at the time of our unsuccessful effort to prevent the communist
conquest of Vietnam.  He was an S.O.B. then, and he still is.  Why aren't
you ashamed of all the boat people the leftist aid to the conquest
of South Vietnam helped drown?  Why isn't Chomsky ashamed of all
the people he helped drown?
--
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
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:00:11 GMT

donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:

>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?

While I have admitted that the Republican party has it's share of
special interest groups, I don't think it's fair to say that they run
the party like the Democrat's do.

>>         Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
>                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>How in the world do you manage that????

Well, in the Air Force ther aren't a *lot* of liberals.  (Some, mind
you).  So what you might consider a political opinion we sit around
laughing about--just a good joke!  "Hey, did you see Clinton's speech
last night? Ha ha ha..."  Then we might sober up to think about losing
our jobs...



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.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: NBC news and Dan Quayle
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:37:39 GMT


For the last few days there has been some debate about whether the camera
focusing on Dan Quayle when Pat Buchanan talked about Clinton's draft
dodging was intentional or not.  To be honest I can't remember how the
debate went on here in the group.  But whatever conclusion you people came
to 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.



-John

John Schubert
schubert@united.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:39:09 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.
>
>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.
	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!
>
>Did I answer your question?
>
	Better than you know, and probably not the way you meant to.
>
>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 

Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2724 alt.rush-limbaugh:3781
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:11:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med

In article <1992Aug19.204748.14773@unlv.edu> edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford) writes:
>>
>>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.
>
>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?

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.

>Although I did notice the shot of quayle during the part about
>Clinton's draft dodging (although quayle actually served, clinton
>lied to the military, claiming that he would serve but never did)
>the media did also show shots that accented the speach, when
>kemp talked about the mob going to the retirement home, the news
>camaras panned to the oldest people they could find in the 
>crowd... 

This is all Republican controlled.

>Im more upset with the reporting than the video footage.

Ah... lets change the source of media bias... from camera shots and
directors to those reporters.

>The worst reporting was by an ABC reporter who didnt understand
>what Clean House meant.... (SHehe said she first thought Clinton
>Supporters snuck in and where holding those signs, she never
>figured out that Clean House meant to Get rid of the democrats
>in congress)

Incompetence is not the same as bias... I'm still waiting for evidence
of bias.

-- 
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      |------------------------|
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2729 alt.news-media:859
From: mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:10:39 GMT
Organization: Apple ATG

In article <1992Aug19.181355.23180@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> 
> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug19.010825.16749@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> 
> >|> 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.  
> 
> >It may be an established fact in your world, where the Rush Limbaugh Show
> >is a balance perspective, but out here there are quite a number of people
> >who believe that the media is pro-government and pro-business.
> 
> Every poll I have ever seen (including one I posted by the L.A. Times)
> has put the news media considerably to the left of the American public.
> Would you like me to repost it or email it to you?
> 

One reason people think that the media is to the left of them is that
the media is (are?) full of conservative voices telling them that the 
media is to the left of them. Buchanan, Fred Barnes, Novak, Will, 
Buckley, Sununu... These are all people who, if they were in public office, 
would be seen as the "right wing" of the current Republican administration. 
Now try to think of regular commentators to the left of Clinton. 
Kingsley? Germond? Sam Donaldson? None of these people is far enough
left to write for The Nation, let alone something  really "leftist".
It looks to me like, if we define the current candidates as the "mainstream", 
the "right wing" has more media representation than the "left wing".

The mainstream media almost never makes a case against the status quo 
(Bill Moyers' recent series on the "America: what went wrong" book comes 
to mind as a very rare counter-example). Whether pro-business voices 
are getting a free ride on the US media is something we could argue about 
all day. From my point of view, it looks like businesses have to do something 
extremely egregious (pollute some canal for decades while lying about it, 
or some such) to take any criticism at all. I do not consider myself especially 
anti-business: if the media spent a lot more time criticizing business, I 
might disagree with it. But I think a fair viewing of the media suggests 
that they know where their advertising dollars come from and don't 
especially want to look under any rocks they don't have to.

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"?

Mark.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2704 alt.rush-limbaugh:3738