From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 30 Jul 92 07:22:38 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.

In article <1992Jul21.234630.20540@seq.uncwil.edu>
session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>Consider the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings: About 70% of the general
>>population (even when broken down by race, or sex) believed Thomas and
>>thought he should be confirmed.  Yet during the hearings, the "experts" and
>>commentators on the networks and PBS who favored Thomas were outnumbered by
>>those who didn't by three to one.
>
>Hmm, I heard the numbers of the general population was more like 55% believed
>Thomas.

That isn't what I remember, but no matter . . . your figures still lead to
the same conclusion: the press is biased to the left of the public.

>>Let's go on to some "facts" reported by the press.  We all have been told,
>>over and other again for years that there is scientific consensus that we
>>face disastrous global warming due to the build up of carbon dioxide in
>>the atmosphere, and we must act soon to correct the situation.  In fact
>>there is no such consensus.  Until recently no one even bothered to ask
>>scientists in the field what they thought.  Several surveys have been done
>>recently, some by environmental groups, and they all show that there is no
>>consensus, and that there is still considerable doubt and debate about the
>>matter.  This has been reported in "Reason" and "National Review" and Rush
>>Limbaugh, but has not been well covered by the mainstream media.
>
>I would hardly consider Rush Limbaugh part of the "media". His show does not
>present news, it presents Rush Limbaugh's opinions.

Obviously, they are part of the media, including Rush, by definition.  But
assuming you have decided to define words in your own way, and don't accept
that Rush is part of the media, so what?  My point wasn't dependent on Rush
being part of the media, only that he is *not* part of the mainstream news
media.

>You have the portrayal of Global Warming a bit skewed. Every news report
>I have ever heard on Global Warming admit that it is a theory.

Then you haven't many.  It can only thing of one article in the mainstream
media that reported the facts as fairly as you have below.  That was
recently in News Week.  More often Global Warming is presented as an
unavoidable fact that we can only avoid by drastically changing our ways.

>None of them say that the "gloom and doom" future is a DEFINITE
>possibility, they merely say that it IS a possibility,

That is certainly *not* a fair characterization of the majority of the
reports I've seen or heard.  Usually there is no question that increased
carbon dioxide will lead to warming, the only question is much and how
disastrous it will be.

>which all atmospheric scientists DO agree on.

That's not quite fair either.

>What atmospheric scientists disagree on is the amount the average global
>temperature will rise,

No it is more than that . . . they don't agree *that* it will rise.

>what can happen to the climate with each degree of rise, and exactly what
>is causing the rise. All scientists agree that the greenhouse effect
>exists.

True.

>All scientists agree that CO2, Methane and CFCs are "greenhouse gasses".
>Scientists disagree on the relative cause and effect relationship in the
>observed rise in average global temperature.

Well, almost right.  CFC's, long thought to be greenhouse gasses, were
recently shown to actually act to cool the atmosphere, although not
significantly.  That has been widely reported, even in the mainstream
media.  Also, there is no observed rise in average global temperature to
explain.

When you say there is not doubt that there is a greenhouse effect you are
quite right.  Without it, the earth would be too cold to support life.

Speaking of media distortions, what is the most important greenhouse gas?
We all know, carbon dioxide right?  Not even close.  Water vapor is the
most important greenhouse gas and it accounts for 98% of the greenhouse
effect.  All the rest, methane, and carbon dioxide among them, account for
only 2%.  It isn't clear that carbon dioxide is even a significant
greenhouse gas.  After all, the trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere have increased, but the temperature hasn't, at least no
significantly.

>>** Let's judge Bush by his actions for a moment.
>
>Let's.
>
>>  He signed the largest tax
>>increase since WWII, defense spending has consistantly declined under Bush
>>(at least if you discount the cost of the Gulf War, the added cost of which
>>our allies have pledged more than enough to make up for -- I don't know if
>>they have all come through or not however),
>
>Umm, defense spending has continued to INCREASE under Bush. It may not have
>increased as much as it did during the Reagan years, but it HAS increased.

So sure of yourself you don't have to check the facts do you?  That may
explain a lot of your opinions.

National Defense expenditures:

year		billions
1988		290.4
1989		303.6
1990		296.4   <--- Bush's first budget *
1991		273.3
1992		307.3
1993		291.0

* These figures come from the Presidents proposed budget, 1988-90 from the
1991 proposed budget, the others from the 1993 proposed budget.  90, and 92
are estimates.  1993 is Bush's proposal (what do want to bet that the
actual budget will be less?).  The rest are actual outlays, i.e. they
aren't corrected for inflation.  Note these are fiscal years, not actual
years.

As I said, except for a blip in 1992 for the war (and that figure may yet
go down depending on how our allies come through), a steady decline in
actual dollars (not corrected for inflation) from Reagan's last budget (we
don't know what the budget for 1993 will be yet).  Note, under the usual
rubic of governmental budgets, this would be considered a drastic decline
since defense didn't even keep up with inflation.

If Bush had increased the defense budget a little bit for inflation, say 2%
per year, it would look like this:

		year		billions
		1989	        303.6
		1990		309.7
		1991		315.9
		1992		322.2
		1993		328.6

Even at this rate, we aren't keeping up with inflation.  If this were the
budget for welfare, we'd have activists in the streets, screaming about the
murderous cuts (because, but left unsaid, the budget didn't keep up with
inflation, population increase, and GNP).

Why do you suppose you thought the opposite was true.  You don't suppose it
could be bias in the media do you?

Before some accuses me of complaining about the cuts, I'm not.  I approve
of them.

>> he signed a major pollution control bill,
>
>Ahh, the Clean Air Act, a bill which has been off and on and in the works for
>over 20 years and was passed by a Democratic controlled congress. It passed
>by a large enough margin that it was veto proof, so Bush had no choice but to
>sign it. Besides, he knew that he would be able to circumvent it anyway,
>which he has done. Campaigning in Texas last month he said he would relax
>controls on nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants. A week later, he
>told auto executives in Michigan that he would exempt them from controls
>on benzene emissions which are required by the Clean Air Act.
>
>From recommendations from the Qualye "Competativeness Council", Bush has
>allowed various industries to increase their pollution emissions with
>no need for an additional permit from the government. Quayle even nixed
>a proposal under the act to recycle newspapers.

Well, good.  I didn't say Bush was a liberal.  I said he wasn't a
conservative.

...
>Need I go on?
>
>> "Extreme conservative"? Hardly.
>
>While some of the things you mentioned were not acts of a conservative
>president, most were not acts which he was 100% responsible for. For these
>things I have mentioned, though, I think show just how conservative he
>is, and how much he bows to big money special interests.

What rubbish.  No president is ever 100% responsible for any legislation.
His only legal authority in that regard is to sign or veto.  He can't even
introduce a bill without the help a congressman.  Bush wasn't just forced
into these bills reluctantly.  He pushed for the Disabilities Act and
although the Clean Air Act and the quota . . . I mean Civil Rights Bill
were compromises, he did push for bills he could sign in both cases.  He
didn't have to sign the quota bill -- there weren't the votes to override
-- but he did.  Moreover bowing to big money special interests isn't
especially a conservative trait.  I note that the liberals in congress do it
just as much, if not much more.

>>		     Average Real Income (1989 Dollars)
>>
>>		     Poorest 20%	     Richest 20%
>>	1978	       $6,769		       $71,793
>>	1980		6,494			70,056
>>	1983		6,291			71,983
>>	1985		6,470			76,466
>>	1988		6,777			82,554
>>	1989		6,994			85,529
>
>OK, so the richest 20% incomes increased by almost 20%, the poorest 20%
>incomes only rose a paltry 3%. Why the average increase for the richest
>20% was TWICE as much as ALL of the average income of the poorest 20%!!

At least do your math right . . . I said the Reagan years: using Carter's
last full year in office, 1980, as a base, through to the year of Reagan's
last budget, the income of the poor increased 7.7% and the rich 22.1%.

>THAT is what is meant by "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".

Sorry, I still believe that words have meaning and 7.7% more money (or have
it your way, 3%) is not "poorer".  To say that it is is a lie.  It
doesn't matter if the rich got richer by 0%, 22%, 10,000% or -20%, the poor
got richer!

BTW, would you prefer the Carter years, where the gap between the rich and
poor also increased, but everyone (on average) got poorer?

>It is just like Bush saying he has reduced defense spending when he really
>hasn't. All he has done is lowered how much it WOULD have grown otherwise.

Wrong.  I submit that you are so used to the usual lies and distortions of
the press, that you assume them even when they aren't there.
-- 
				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2491 alt.rush-limbaugh:3061 talk.politics.misc:35890