HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:16:32 GMT

Steve:

OK, I'm done.  I just want to say that I appreciate you bringing a
reporter's viewpoint to the debate--even it was only humorous to you.  
Your input was valuable, and I actually learned a few things from you.

If I sounded judgemental, I apologize again.  I will *always* appreciate
a good discussion of ideas, and try my hardest (and sometimes fail) to
remain calm and reasonable. 

Just one more thing:  I *very rarely* see any more than one expert named
or quoted in a story...
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1091 alt.activism:15667 alt.activism.d:2975
From: jfcowan@cats.ucsc.edu (John F Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Chip Switzer
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:24:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


We should all be thankful to Chip Switzer.  This newsgroup was
dead as a door nail until he came along. Surely he must be a leftist
provacateur. Keep up the good work Chip.
JC
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1066 alt.rush-limbaugh:4053
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Creationists
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:41:43 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:

> MANY people didn't grasp Darwins' Theorys at first.
> Even the school system, which (is supposed to) teach(es) fact, didn't accept
> Darwin's Theory until they lost a court case which 'forced' evolution into
> the school system.

Which case was that?

John
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: green@fylz.wa.com (Washington Green)
Subject: Is Washington Green Biased?
Organization: Washington Green -- State Newsletter of the Greens
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:14:10 GMT

With all this discussion of bias in the media in this group I would
like to offer you a chance to "talk" to the authors.  Washington Green
is an alternative publication with loose ties to the Greens but is
attempting to address issues in an unbiased manner.  In other words,
we try to present facts and let you decide on the issues.  If there is
a bias it is in our selection of subjects to address rather than (we
hope) the content of those articles.

A sample issue is available for free to anyone in Washington state.
We request that people outside the state include $1.00 to cover our
costs as our advertisers are interested in in-state sales.

If you want to respond to an article, you can do so either via e-mail
(to this account) or via US mail.  We will forward you comment to the
author.  Responses will be direct and/or published in the letters
column of a subsequent issue.

Here are article titles from the current issue:
   Health Care in Canada
   Weed and Seed: A Kinder, Gentler Police State?
   Greens Gathering '92
   Greens State Conference Works Toward Party
   Feminist Potential of Green Politics
   Renewable Energy Fair
   [Howard] Zinn Speaks at U.W.
   Cohousing Alternative: Living in a Community of Neighbors
   The Pros and Cons of Fusion Power
   Green Reading List
   Review: Green Political Thought
   The "Down to Earth" Summit
Here are the article titles from the issue that just went to press:
   Choices for Governor
   Ron Daniels: A Real Alternative for President
   Greens Gather in Minnesota
   More on Minnesota Greens Conference
   Pacific Northwest Energy Conservation
   Initiative 141: Health for All?
   Put Your Money Where Your Heart Is
   The Green Movement in Tasmania
   Proportional Representation Offers a Third Choice
   NAFTA Approved; Protested by Environmentalists, Labor
   Community Activism at Work


-- 
Washington GREEN -- the newsletter of the Washington State Greens
8315 Lake City Way #207, Seattle, WA 98115  -- (206)526-2919 x28
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Sources of Bias
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:28:37 GMT
	<2A9E66D6.15261@orion.oac.uci.edu>
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <2A9E66D6.15261@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:

   David Fox writes
   > People go into media because they believe that there is
   > important information out there that everyone should
   > hear about.  Whatever a person thinks is important is what
   > they will notice and report. This is the inherant bias of
   > the media.
   > 
   > People are especially likely to notice threats to their
   > own well being.  If a group seeking political office
   > repeatedly attacks the media they are likely to receive
   > negative coverage.

   Do I understand you correctly to say that the cause of bias is that
   the news media are taking revenge for republican criticism of them?
   I'm not that cynical but this might be a theory worth remembering.

The people I know in media oppose the Republicans, and choose their
topics to reflect that.  The idea of eliminating public TV and radio
was horrifying to them (and me).  It is not a theory you could prove
or disprove, because the media is not a single entity but a collection
of people.
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1116 alt.activism.d:3020
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Creationist presence in this newsgroup
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:37:28 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Followup-To: talk.origins
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

fishead@cwis.unomaha.edu (David L. Britton) wrote:
[ in two totally inappropriate newsgroups ]
> While I think we're beating a dead horse here, it would be interesting to see
> what Darwin (the god of evolution in terms of a dreaded "creationist") would 
> have to say on this subject.

No it would not.  Fuck off to talk.origins, which is a newsgroup specifically
devoted to maunderings about this topic.


> As for the men at AFIT, how are things at WPAFB?

Plxqwwytjsg!! to you, too.

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1061 alt.rush-limbaugh:4042 alt.activism.d:2949
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Creationists
Date: 28 Aug 92 09:46:34 GMT
Followup-To: alt.news-media
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <1992Aug27.153956.19704@usho93.hou281.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.202953.2120@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>to put a time scale on it using nuclear "clocks".  The fact that we
>don't see all the intervening steps in every branch of evolution of
>every creature doesn't mean that it didn't happen, any more than
>figuring that the world fades out of existence every time you go to
>sleep since you can't observe and experience it.

But it does fade away, or at least have an amplitude to fade away,
precisely because there is no observer  :-)

Smiley captioned for the humor-impaired,

Agitator
  #->

"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider
--------------- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------\\ //------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?           \X/  Only AMIGA!
========================================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ==
Roderick Lee, HMC '91      "The Professional Agitator"      agitator@ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1048 alt.rush-limbaugh:4023 alt.activism.d:2939
From: jac54@cas.org
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re:  re: Gardner on Evolution
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:08:00 GMT
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio

In article <1992Aug26.190115.15019@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug26.120101@cozy.Prime.COM> dwolff@cozy (David Wolff) writes:
>>> Even when evolution violates fundamental
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> naturalistic, verifiable laws such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> (i.e. closed systems tend to move toward disorder, or randomness, or
>>> unusable forms of energy, depending on application), it still must be
>>> accepted because the only alternative is a supernaturalistic
>>> explanantion, no matter its scope.  The profound transition from
>>> evolution to creation is not scientific, but _philosophical_.
>>
>>The Earth is not a closed system.  It has a thermonuclear fusion only
>>a few light-minutes away constantly spewing energy onto one side, and it
>>radiates toward a blackbody absorber (the universe) on the other side.
>>
>
>Give me a little credit....  The conditions that supposedly produce evolutionary
>change are supposedly based in universal principles, and Dr. Who and others aside,
>I think the universe is a closed system.  To allow the part of evolution which
>hypothesizes a move from less complex structures to more complex, you also must
>allow a massive local cessation of entropy.
>
>>Followups to talk.origin... unless it's too hot for you there? :-)

	Another pair of nitwits arguing about the wrong thing.
	Thermodynamics deals with initial and final states and
				  ^^^^^^^     ^^^^^
	says bugger all about the pathway between them.  You can
	have a temporary local decrease in entropy. Let's face
	it, all of us are temporary.

	Alec Chambers
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: FYL
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 14:53:48 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

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

: 'Pro-choice' is hardly a justified label for that movement. Most pro-choice  
: activists are _not_ for school choice or even for a womens right to own her own  
: body (or where were they when the FDA outlawed breast implants ?).

My guess is that many of the pro-choice activists feel that the right
to an abortion is more important than the right to a breast implant.
I doubt you will find many of them that are against the right to
breast implants.  I do expect, however, that much like the right to an
abortion vs. the requirement for an abortion I expect that they are
all against mandatory breast implants. 

-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@fylz.com or nwnexus!fylz!fyl or cpac.washington.edu!fylz!fyl
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: jeffgus@netcom.com (Jeffrey Gustafson)
Subject: Re: Creationists
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 06:36:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:

>Just a thought to those Physics Fundamentalists who keep quoting the 2nd
>Law:  How do you explain photosynthesis?  I can prove that it exists.
>Inside a plant, simple carbon dioxide and water are combined into
>complex a complex molecule (sugar).  How?  By adding energy.  Just like
>exposing simple chemicals to ultraviolet light.  Innumerable experiments
>have shown this.  Factoid at the very least.

	This is at the local level, energy from the sun, etc.  The
second law is definately true on an universal level... that's why it's
a law.  So, as a whole, the Second Law says that the universe is
breaking down.
	BTW, sooner or later that plant will die.

---
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1072 alt.activism:15622 alt.activism.d:2957
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Creationists
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:39:56 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Aug24.202953.2120@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>Evolution is NOT a proven fact, along with creation, because it is
>not a reproduceable experiment, which is a major part of accepted
>methods of callng something a fact.  You must use a forensic
>approach to evidence and see how well it supports the theory.  In that
>area, evolution has shown itself to be woefully lacking.  In spite of
>this, the philosophical transition is one that rebellious mankind
>can't deal with, so they continue to cling to this discredited theory.
>
>"They always told me I would be a rocket scientist"
>tcanham@jpl.nasa.gov

Creationism is for people who haven't spent seven years of their life
involved in the evolution problem.  Any non-lunatic in the geological
field (I *will* stand by that slam) will tell you that it is guaranteed
that evolution has occurred.  There are problems in defining the rates
of evolution, over the past 600 million years, but not that it has
occurred.  The evidence for evolution is the geologic record.  If you
haven't looked at it, you are ignorant of how it was deciphered, as my
wife was (and she has a MS in Physics).  The whole science of geology,
determining which rocks are older, and how they were made, was defined
on the gradual changes (evolution) seen in the fossils of the rocks.
Evolution was obvious from the start.  Only decades later were we able
to put a time scale on it using nuclear "clocks".  The fact that we
don't see all the intervening steps in every branch of evolution of
every creature doesn't mean that it didn't happen, any more than
figuring that the world fades out of existence every time you go to
sleep since you can't observe and experience it.
   Personally, I believe in evolution, but consider it possible
(tolerance of other views--makes me a liberal I guess) that God exists
and took a special interest in our species and may have short-circuited
evolution to create us.  I do believe that it is much more elegant to
think that He created a universe 15 Billion years ago knowing that it
would eventually lead to "us", certainly most fundamentalists would
believe that this is not too much to ask of an ALL-POWERFUL, ALL-KNOWING
God.  In my opinion, people are creationists because they want to be
told what to think by the church, thinking for yourself is much to
dangerous.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1001 alt.activism:15433 alt.activism.d:2895
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:06:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <2A9ABA7C.3443@orion.oac.uci.edu> cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>Phil Hughes writes
>> cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
>> : 'Pro-choice' is hardly a justified label for that movement. Most pro-choice  
>> : activists are _not_ for school choice or even for a womens right to own her
>> : own body (or where were they when the FDA outlawed breast implants ?).
>> 
>> My guess is that many of the pro-choice activists feel
>> that the right to an abortion is more important than the
>> right to a breast implant. I doubt you will find many of
>> them that are against the right to breast implants.  I do
>> expect, however, that much like the right to an abortion
>> vs. the requirement for an abortion I expect that they are
>> all against mandatory breast implants.  
>
>"Pro-choice"rs have for years agitated with political slogans like 'a womans  
>body is her own'. Yet, when the FDA (a non-elected, not publicly responsible  
>regulatory agency) simply outlaws a surgical procedure which millions of women  
>have freely chosen because 'it is not good for them' there was not a word of  
>protest. This issue is even much simpler than abortion as breast implant  
>operations are both safer and there can be no argument about the fact that no  
>other persons unwilling body is involved. But if anything feminists and other  
>"pro-choice"rs _supported_ this regulation.
	Evidence?  Evidence of a "pro-choice" organization that specifically
supported this decision?  As to the lack of protest, one might just as well
inquire why there is no outcry from "pro-life" organizations against capital
punishment, nuclear and non-nuclear weapons proliferation, toxic waste,
pollution and other things that directly threaten life.
	The answer, of course, is that they are concentrating their energies
on the abortion question.  By your standards, the pro-lifers are just as
hypocrtical.  So what?
	This is rapidly deteriorating into semantic warfare.

>
>From this I conclude that much of the dominant faction of the "pro-choice"  
>movement is hypocritical about its professed believes. What it is interested in  
>is the widest possible availability of abortions without the justification of  
>any high-sounding principle like "choice".
>
	From this I conclude that you're simply trying to advance your own
agenda.

>	Carl Edman

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
From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: The myth of a liberal media
Date: 26 Aug 1992 22:01:05 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: django.think.com

In article <67370004@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com> smyers@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (steven myers) writes:

>Literally hundreds of northwest jobs hinge on the logging industry.

I suppose I should point out that if the lumber companies would plant as
much as they cut down, they wouldn't need to cut virgin woods.  The
remaining virgin woods in the northwest will be gone in a few decades at
the current rate, and then those jobs will be gone anyway.  The jobs won't
be gone because some "tree hugger" kept the loggers from cutting down the
trees -- they'll be gone because short sighted logging companies cut down
all of the trees.  Isn't it better to force the lumber companies to plant
as much as they grow *before* all of the virgin woods are gone?
-- 
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines

Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer.  Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:38:53 GMT

In article <SLEATOR.92Aug23153500@SPADE.PC.CS.CMU.EDU> sleator@CS.CMU.EDU (Daniel Sleator) writes:
>To the extent that you described the story, this does *not* strike me
>as an example of of a liberal media bias.
>
>Suppose that the reporter called up 20 economists at major
>universities and that, say, 19 of them expressed "doubt that Bush plan
>will fly".  Then the headline would be entirely appropriate, and the
>article would be accurate.
>
Hmm, an unfortunate choice for an example.  You must admit that calling
up professors at universities is 19 times out of 20 going to result in
a conversation with a liberal.

Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:996 alt.activism:15409 alt.activism.d:2885
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism,alt.activism.d
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:55:57 GMT
Distribution: na

Phil Hughes writes
> cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman) writes:
> : 'Pro-choice' is hardly a justified label for that movement. Most pro-choice  
> : activists are _not_ for school choice or even for a womens right to own her
> : own body (or where were they when the FDA outlawed breast implants ?).
> 
> My guess is that many of the pro-choice activists feel
> that the right to an abortion is more important than the
> right to a breast implant. I doubt you will find many of
> them that are against the right to breast implants.  I do
> expect, however, that much like the right to an abortion
> vs. the requirement for an abortion I expect that they are
> all against mandatory breast implants.  

"Pro-choice"rs have for years agitated with political slogans like 'a womans  
body is her own'. Yet, when the FDA (a non-elected, not publicly responsible  
regulatory agency) simply outlaws a surgical procedure which millions of women  
have freely chosen because 'it is not good for them' there was not a word of  
protest. This issue is even much simpler than abortion as breast implant  
operations are both safer and there can be no argument about the fact that no  
other persons unwilling body is involved. But if anything feminists and other  
"pro-choice"rs _supported_ this regulation.

From this I conclude that much of the dominant faction of the "pro-choice"  
movement is hypocritical about its professed believes. What it is interested in  
is the widest possible availability of abortions without the justification of  
any high-sounding principle like "choice".

	Carl Edman
From: cedman@714-725-3165.nts.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Subject: Re: Sources of Bias
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Reply-To: cedman@golem.ps.uci.edu (Carl Edman)
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:48:06 GMT

David Fox writes
> People go into media because they believe that there is
> important information out there that everyone should
> hear about.  Whatever a person thinks is important is what
> they will notice and report. This is the inherant bias of
> the media.
> 
> People are especially likely to notice threats to their
> own well being.  If a group seeking political office
> repeatedly attacks the media they are likely to receive
> negative coverage.

Do I understand you correctly to say that the cause of bias is that the news  
media are taking revenge for republican criticism of them ? I'm not that  
cynical but this might be a theory worth remembering.

	Carl Edman

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d