HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:00:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu's message of 18 Nov 92 23:03:04 -0400

In article <168A31361D.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>  Second, there's a pro-government bias.  A there's-a-problem-and-
>by-god-something's-gotta-be-done-about-it!  Why the government?  It's
>easy.  It's quick.  It's available.  You don't have to go looking for
>it.  It lends itself to thirty second spots and eight inch stories.
>No complex discussions of societal problems, just a demand to know why
>Congress hasn't passed a law.

This ties in with my complaint #1 about the press: they're basically
lazy.  For all that mythology about the "investigative journalist,"
and the Woodward-Bernstein mystique, the average reporter feeds on
press releases and the "contacts" he and his news organization have
cultivated.  Guess who has a huge infrastructure to handle
journalists' needs in this area?  The government, really large
corporations, and special-interest groups or individuals powerful
enough to hire high-powered Washington public relations firms.  (For a
classic example, see the activities of the Emir of Kuwait and his
Washington PR firm during Desert Shield.)

I have nothing to add to the other stuff you said.  Thank you for
noting what often gets lost in the shuffle of this ongoing debate:
ideology may play a role in "media bias," but it's not the whole
story.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:51:04 GMT

In <EOx+r*Ek1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1992Nov04.001516.32776@watson.ibm.com>, John Iacoletti/100000 writes:

>> In article <bViVr*ke1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
>> >In fact, I haven't heard a single "pro-choice" person admit that the Pennsylvania
>> >laws were reasonable.
>> 
>> Maybe because they weren't.

>Ok, I'll take the bait.  Explain to us just what was unreasonable about the
>Pennsylvania laws.  Also explain how that any or all of those laws would
>destroy Roe vs. Wade as the pro-abortionists claimed.

Gee, where to begin.  The 24 hour waiting period is unreasonable.
Requiring parental consent for minors is unreasonable (if they're that
afraid to tell their parents, there's usually a good reason).
Prohibiting abortions for certain causes (sex selection, for example)
is not only unreasonable but stupid, since there's no way it could
ever be enforced (how would they know?).  Need I go on?

As for "how any or all of those laws would destroy Roe v. Wade", I
don't recall saying that.  However, consider that if sufficient
impediments to abortion were raised in the law, it wouldn't matter
whether it was actually legal to get one or not, since the barriers
could be made so high that it would become IMPRACTICAL to get one,
whether they are legal or not.  The PA laws are a step in that
direction. 

What other medical procedure has these kinds of constraints on it?
There's what makes it 'unreasonable'.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24255 talk.politics.misc:61320
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:31:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD

OK, I found a cite for a specific assertion I made in this thread.

Washington "Post," Sunday, November 15, 1992, p. F5 (in an article about
press bias in general and pro-Bush bias at the Washington "Times"):

     "The Post, by this same rough measure, had many more anti-Bush
     stories--several of them dealing with the Iran-contra
     affair--than those that sharply criticized Clinton.  The paper's
     ombudsman, Joann Byrd, says she believes the paper's fall
     coverage was 'very lopsided' in Clinton's favor.

     "While The Post ran several critical pieces about Clinton's
     Arkansas record last spring, its more recent feature stories
     tended to have a softer edge (although even these pieces
     included some criticism of Clinton's record). . . ."

Meanwhile, over on the Op-Ed page, we had editorials telling us that
Yes, all our reporters are liberal, and Yes, we firmly endorsed
Clinton early in the campaign, and Yes, we run an anti-Administration
editorial nearly every day and Yes, our news sections called
Clinton/Gore (in a headline, no less) "New Heartthrobs of the
Heartland," but of course our editorial position doesn't "cross over"
to our news coverage, which is squeaky-clean objective.  Believe that
who will.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:48:49 GMT

hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:
> 
>John's already provided some written evidence that social issues weren't
>a key issue.  Just about ever anchor I saw on TV said something along
>the lines of "this is a classic pocketbook election".  Unless you can
>come up with something better I'm sticking with that.
>-- 

I would too.  I hate it when complex issues get these long descriptors.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
From: vsg001@acad.drake.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Liberal Flaws (was Re:Bork a good judge (NOT!) (was Anita Hill....)
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:56:50 GMT
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA

After closely following the "Anita Hill" and judge Bork postings, I have found
the most interesting flaw in liberalism. Why is it that the Conservative
candidates running for office (Michael Dewine, Bruce Herschenson (sp?)) ran
under the campaign philosophy of basic Conservativism: "Give me Less power."
Judge Bork was no exception. He was ridiculed for his views on abortion by the
liberal press-- he said that there is no mention in the Constitution of "right
to privacy" but, that there was an amendment process in the Constitiution that
could change all that, including how he would rule. Nothing could have been a
more intelligent response. Why is it that liberals favor the candidates that
espouse "government that governs least, governs best"? Why is it that liberals
adamantly defend the "right to privacy", a vague at best principle, and yet,
attend gun control rallies? A Conservative Court is really the only logical
check on what could be the most powerful institution of goverment. America has
been consistantly fooled by the liberals and big government, but they always
complain about government afterward. Its a cycle that has lasted for quite
sometime, and it is a cycle whose days are numbered.

Disclaimer-- The spelling on this one should be pretty bad, I am too tired and
too much in a hurry to correct it. I am sorry for those that are deeply
offended by the spelling.

--Vince Goddard
  Jack Kemp in '96
From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (JUNE GENIS)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Isolationist?
Date: 15 Nov 1992 08:43:40 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1992Nov15.022850.13866@midway.uchicago.edu>,
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Seventh Circuit Bound) writes:
>In article <BxIq60.4nJ@well.sf.ca.us> rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford) writes:
>>
>>In the referenced article, the poster summarizes our (LP) positions in
>>a reasonably fair manner *EXCEPT* when he gets to foreign policy,
>>which is bizarrely characterized as "isolationist".
>>
>>Just thought I should correct that rather strange parody of our views.
>>Saying that the US should not meddle or be the world's policeman is
>>hardly 'isolationist'.
>
>Au contraire, it's the precise definition of the word.
>
>If Libertarians had won the 1932 presidential election, Europe would
>be under the Fourth Reich, and there would probably be some sort of
>dictatorship here as well under a Huey Long or Charles Coughlin type.

From Webster:

1iso-late \'?^--se-,la^-t also 'is-e-\ vt  -lat-ed; -lat-ing
[back-formation fr. isolated set apart, fr. F isole', fr. It
isolato,
     fr. isola island, fr. L insula]
(1807)
1: to set apart from others; also: QUARANTINE
2: to select from among others; esp: to separate from another
     substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state
3: INSULATE
-- iso-la-tor \-,la^-t-er\ n

If we go back to the route of the word isolationism itself, namely
"isolate" we see that there is clearly more implied than "not
meddling".  Libertarians believe that *as individuals* we are all
citizens of the world and to try to cut ourselves off from  it would
be clearly ridiculous.  A Libertarian administration would encourage
all individuals, again as individuals, to be active in any
international cause which they believed was just -- unlike the
current state of affairs where such as actions are explicitly
prohibited to private individuals since the government considers it
an interference with it's monopoly to set foreign policy.   The
government would confine itself to defending Americans in America.

/June
From: jovanovic-nick@cs.yale.edu (Nick Jovanovic)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.loathing.bob-dole
Date: 16 Nov 1992 17:45:24 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
NNTP-Posting-Host: zoo-gw.cs.yale.edu

>In article <1992Nov16.163109.27953@samba.oit.unc.edu> dil.admin@mhs.unc.edu  
>(Dave Laudicina) writes:
>> I find it strange that Bob Dole can claim support from all the 
>> people voting for Perot. If Perot did not run his vote would most


My impression is that Bob Dole started campaigning for president in 1996
shortly after the Republican convention, when Bush's numbers just wouldn't
budge.  In Kansas, he made statements about Bush pulling everyone down
together.  Dole distanced himself from Bush in Kansas, giving usually
faithful Republicans the wink they needed to vote for someone else than 
Bush this year.  The result was that Perot got 27% of the vote in Kansas,
tied for second out of all the states, behind only Maine (30%).

I have no doubt that that 27% would have gone largely to Dole if he had
been the candidate instead of Bush.  My wife and I have relatives in
Kansas, and they all (independently) feel that Dole is preparing one last
thrust for the presidency in 1996.  I think (and hope) he would surely lose 
if the Republicans nominated him.  

-Nick
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: drudetb@infonode.ingr.com (Ted B. Drude)
Subject: Re: Economic Smokescreens (was Re: A Clinton Mandate?!?)
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:31:54 GMT

In article <pqs1w!f@rpi.edu> xor@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Joe Schwartz) writes:

[lots of good stuff concerning the conventional doublespeak about the
national debt and the annual budget deficit - deleted]

>And remember that
>even though the nation is going to hell in a handbasket, and even
>though we're going there faster than even before, at least we aren't
>pressing the gas pedal ALL the way to the floor. [yet]]

It's certainly a more optimistic way to view the impending bankruptcy of the
US Government: "I know we're headed straight for a cliff and we're
doing 60 miles an hour,  but it could be worse!  We would be doing 80!"
Sounds like a solid political platform plank for the '94/'96 elections, 
if you ask me.  :-)

-----------
- Ted Drude
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:47:55 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>The 'front runners' on the Republican side are probably Kemp and Dole,
>but I think you're going to see the Republicans suicide over the
>Religious Right -- they can't win with them, and the Religious Right
>will fight to make them try it anyway.

I enjoyed the snafu at the Republican Governor's conference when 
Governor Shit-for-brains of Mississippi asserted that the US is a "Christian 
nation," and was taken to task by another Governor who said it was a
"Judeo-Christian nation." Shit-for-brains countered that if he meant to
add "Judeo," he would have. I just love it when bigots think that to
say "Judeo-Christian" is the height of inclusiveness. But even this appears
to be a big debating point in the Republican Party. They apparently have a
long way to go.

By the way, Shit-for-brains was skewered by Michael Kinsley on last night's
Crossfire, when Kinsley asked him if the US was a "white" nation (85%
white) or a "women's" nation. There was really no point in continuing
the discussion after that.

---
Joe Knapp   jmk@cbvox.att.com
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23867 talk.politics.misc:60283 tx.politics:7352
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Why is George Bush such a loser?
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:50:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <BxM0ot.946@NeoSoft.com> hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.144337.26690@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Exit polls showed that some 25% of the people voting were "strongly
>> influenced" in their choice of candidate BY THE CONVENTIONS.  After
> 
>Sorry, but I think those numbers are dubious, just like I don't believe
>that 30% of the people decide in the voting booth, a number which is
>sometimes thrown around.  

All I can suggest is that you take it up with the NBC news department.
Ask them about the statistics cited on their election day coverage.

> 
>> And issues like abortion weren't pretty far down the list, either.
>> For people who voted for Clinton, I think issues like abortion came
>> something like second (with the deficit 3rd).  Perot voters showed the
> 
>What poll is that?  Exit polls I've seen put the abortion issue a very low
>fifth.  

Once again, write to NBC.

> 
>> Sounds to me like people were pretty concerned about social issues
>> there, except for people who voted for Perot.
> 
>I think there was a lot of hype in the media about how the tone of the
>Republican conventions turned voters off, but I don't think there is much
>evidence to support that.

How much evidence would you like?  After that Convention, I decided
that I would not only not vote for George Bush, but would vote against
practically all Republicans.  That's a new trend for me.  I think the
Republican Party has been captured by the Right Wing Whacko Squad,
just like the Democratic Party was the property of the Left Wing
Whacko Squad for a while.  Well, times change.  If people want a
fascist country, let them move.  I don't want to vote one in.

> 
>I'm not saying it wasn't offensive.  I just don't think social issues were
>very important to people in this election.

Perhaps you should talk to more people who voted for Clinton?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24073 alt.politics.marrou:2330 soc.history:9503
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Date: 18 Nov 92 05:26:19 GMT
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Nov17.232015.24734@Princeton.EDU>, niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
> Are you saying a Libertarian government *wouldn't* object if the British
> navy went around seizing American ships because *they* had decided that
> we shouldn't be allowed to trade 'contraband' with Germany?  If not, why 
> not?  What gave the British the right to decide that someone couldn't sell
> something to someone?

I'm answering this separately, because this is a separate issue.

It's also a straw man.   No-one, especially not me, is claiming
any special rights for Britain in time of war.    Traditionally,
Britain - and the US - uses naval blockade as a means of warfare
because it is not in violation of International Law.

International Law does not say "Britain has rights X, Y, Z".  It
says that if you are going to conduct a nval blockade, there are
certain rules you have to obey, primarily to protect the lives of
non-combattant sailors.   It also defines material you may not
seize, and contraband that you may seize, from the ships of 
neutrals.

Does this mean that no-one can complain if Britain or the US
boards their ships at sea as part of a blockade?   No.   If a 
neutral country gets sufficiently upset about it, they can 
object, send diplomatic protests, or even declare war, and 
then they can carry out naval blockades of their own.

Of course, in 1914-18 and again in 1939-45, neutrals were faced
with a choice between Britain - and later the US - boarding their
whips and seizing them if they carried contraband, or Germany
sinking their ships without warning.   Most neutral countries
didn't have much trouble deciding which they preferred.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,talk.rumors,alt.activism
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:07:12 -0500 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
	<1e972eINN1da@SUNED.ZOO.CS.YALE.EDU>
Distribution: usa

Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 16-Nov-92 Re: Anita Hill to
Head EEOC Nick Jovanovic@cs.yale.e (774)

> In article <1992Nov12.171025.2502@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov12.072718.22982@Princeton.EDU>
> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> >
> >>No, only the Republifascists think we *need* a government telling us
> >>what values our families should have.
> >
> >No, we Republifascists have normal families, we like our definition just 
> >fine, thank you.  You liberoanarchists have your own thing, you want to 
> >call it a family and thereby denegrade the meaning of our families.
>                               ^^^^^^^^^

> It is ironic that you can't use the word you meant, namely denigrate,
> which means *to blacken*.  You show your ignorance and racism at the
> same time this way!

> -Nick


Word         DENIGRATE (DEN'i-grayt')  tr.v.
Definition   --tr.v. -grated, -grating, -grates.  1. To deny the validity 
             or importance of; belittle.  2. To calumniate the character or 
             reputation of; defame.
             denigration --n.
             denigrator --n.

His use (but not spelling) of the word was not racist, and you sir are
out of line to make such an accusation.  Denigrate is a commonly used
English word, and is used to denote the above, not "to blacken" anyone.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.perot
From: msanf@hw23.ma30.bull.com (Marc Sanfacon)
Subject: Re: Vietnam Memorial (was Vietnam Moratorium)
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:21:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.022255.13693@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Seventh Circuit Bound) writes:
|> In article <1drm67INNftp@armory.centerline.com> thomaso@centerline.com (Thomas Andrews) writes:
|> >If there is anybody out there who has not been to the Vietnam Memorial,
|> >I recommend it.  I am too young to have known anybody who died in
|> >Vietnam, but the wall brought tears to my eyes anyway.
|> 
|> I agree whole-heartedly.
|> 
|> It's a good thing Ross Perot didn't have his way.  He fought kicking
|> and screaming against having an Asian woman design the memorial, even
|> to the point of having the members of the memorial selection committee 
|> followed.

   who's paranoid now?

|> -- 
|> ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
|> standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
|> the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye)
Subject: Re: "Media Bias," again (was Re: Vietnam Memorial)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:01:00 GMT

baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:

[just about everything deleted...mostly about the bias of various magazines.]

>The point of all this is that I don't think conservative complaints
>about media bias are imagined.  However, Michael Pye's attack on TNR
>on this score are misplaced.

You've missed the point entirely.  Whether a particular magazine or 
newspaper or whatever is biased or not is irrelevant.  

The New Republic certainly has a right to print whatever they want.  I
don't care what filler they use between the covers.  But if someone is
going to start arguing a point based on "facts" they got from TNR, that's
a different matter entirely.  In this case, it is essential that the 
obvious and stated bias of the source be brought out front.  If the 
source publically admits that what it prints might be a lie, and that it's 
up to the reader to decide whether it's a lie or the truth, that 
absolutely must be pointed out.  If you choose to believe what they print
without thinking it through and checking it against other sources, fine.

But I find it irresponsible to just sling these "facts" around as if 
they were the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  They are not.
Until and unless proven, they are nothing more than rumours.  Treating
them as anything more is ignorance.

BTW, it's interesting to note that the author did not deny that his
rumours came from TNR.  Nor did he give any other source for them.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics