HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Army reveals strength of Patriots
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:21:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702685261
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard) writes:
>  WASHINGTON -AP- U.S. Army claims that the Patriot missile succeeded
>in intercepting 70 pc of Iraq's Scud missiles during the Persian Gulf
>War can't be supported by its data, congressional investigators said.

Come on, the only people who are really going to be surprised by this
are simps who think the government wouldn't lie to them at the drop of
a hat, and the only ones outraged are the dopes who think that any
government isn't going to make deception a policy.
-- 
Support bacteria - it's the only culture some people have! 
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: rick@ee.uwm.edu
Subject: Re: Knee-jerk local news
Reply-To: rick@discus.mil.wi.us
Organization: Jus' me.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 13:48:12 GMT

rperkins@NeoSoft.com (Rodney Perkins) writes:
>	I wanted to get an impression (however vauge) of what people thought
>of their local area news programs. Do you think, as I do, that local
>news media have little or no idea of what they are doing?  Do you think
>as I do that many of these people put little or no thought into how
>much influence that their reporting has on many people? These are
>obviously biased questions but they seem to be a reflection of news
>media in many cities.

Watching your TV, and reading your newspaper cost you *more* than just the
obvious watt-hours, subscription fees, and time.  You *ARE* influenced by
the advertisements, thought you probably won't admit it.  And as for the
"reporting"?  It's just as biased as the advertisements!

PLEASE remember that the news media is *NOT* trying to bring you accurate
news.  They're only trying to *make* *money*.  It just happens that they
know they have to report something verifyable once in a while or people
will stop *paying* for their services.  (Note that strangely this doesn't
apply to the National Inquirer...  How can people buy that rag?!?)

If you don't believe what I've just told you,
 go check what it costs for a 15-second slot on a local station at 5am!!

	Do you think companies would pay so much if it didn't *WORK*?!?

Rick Miller  rick@discus.mil.wi.us  discus!rick@uwm.edu  rick@ee.uwm.edu
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:265 soc.culture.iranian:3572
From: M19249@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,soc.culture.iranian
Subject: Re: Please already (was Re: PROMINENT IRANIAN BAHA'I EXECUTE)D
Date: 17 Apr 92 12:39:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: mwvm.167CC79CF.M19249
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Apr17.045922.5508@uwm.edu>
klf@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Brian Mark Bishop) writes:
>It really bugs me when I have to keep pushing my N key to SKIP all of your
>messages.
>Am I the ONLY PERSON here who feels that this topic DOES NOT BELONG HERE?
>There are other places for you to discuss your politics, religion, etc.
>I AM HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE MEDIA, NOT WHO EXPELS WHO IN IRAN!!!
 
Unfortunately Brian, we are caught in a cross-posting cross-fire.  So maybe
some of the kind people who are reading our notes in our cross-cross-posts
can "get a DAMN clue" that alt.news-media is about the *news process* and its
quirks NOT about the *news* however interesting or important it may be.
However, since they are cross-posting and are more interested in their flames
and counter flames they do not seem to be kind enough to edit the newsgroup
line and "include us out".  You would think people discussing Bahai's would be
a little smarter and kinder. ;)  For those over in soc.iran... you may notice
that I have NOT included alt.discrimination or soc.rights.human because they
probably aren't the ones cross posting.  Please, similarly do so for
alt.news-media on your newsgroup lines.
 
Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
-DW
"Standard disclaimers apply"
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:246 alt.activism:7755
From: goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard)
Subject: Army reveals strength of Patriots
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 17:39:07 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


From a newswire.  Note especially the last paragraph, in which Patriot
success was measured by the Army "tactically, psychologically and
politically", presumably meaning that warhead destruction was not
of much importance.  One wonders which audience the psychological
and political components of Patriot deployment were aimed at - the
US population, Israelis, Saudis, arms purchasers generally?

Nigel
---------------------

  WASHINGTON -AP- U.S. Army claims that the Patriot missile succeeded
in intercepting 70 pc of Iraq's Scud missiles during the Persian Gulf
War can't be supported by its data, congressional investigators said.

  ''Our review of the two principal supporting documents showed the data
had serious limitations and did not support the assessment,'' General
Accounting Office officials told a House panel.

  The Army says the Patriot surface-to-air guided missile system successfully
engaged more than 80 pc of the Scud missiles fired at Saudi Arabia and
more than 50 pc targeted at Israel.

  Asked by House Government Operations chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich.,
about the Army's claims, Steve Hildreth of the Congressional Research
Service said that based on the Army's methodology, ''The Army can claim
one warhead kill.''  The Congressional Research Service also reviewed
the Patriot data collected by the Army.

  But Army officials defended the Patriot, which is produced by Raytheon
Co.

  ''The Army is here today to tell you the Patriot story - a terrific
success story, tactically, psychologically and politically,'' said Maj.
Gen. Jay Garner, deputy chief of staff for operations and plans, force
development.
-- 
Nigel Goddard
goddard@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,ba.general,biz.misc,ca.general,alt.dcom.catv,rec.arts.tv,rec.video,rec.video.cable-tv,rec.video.satellite,rec.video.production
From: drk@cs.washington.edu (Daniel Kerns)
Subject: Re: Effect of Technology on TV NEWS  --  please read
Organization: The University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195, USA
	<1992Apr9.014206.12194@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
Date: 8 Apr 92 19:50:14

In article <1992Apr9.014206.12194@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
ttaylor@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes about a past employer who produced an
imitation TV news broadcast and transmitted it to TV stations.

   Sort of like an AP wire story, this video could be picked up and 
   rebroadcast on local news, usually in a health or medical segment. Needless to
   say it was picked up all over and we got flooded with calls on the product
   (people could call the station to get an 800 number). Without sounding too 
   alarmist, I found the whole thing a bit unsettling. The video had very high
   production values and really came off as an official bit of journalism. Just
   seeing a company be able to do this really made me think a little differently
   about these sort of segments on the news. 

This is called a Press Release.  In the olden days someone wanting to
promote a new product/service/etc would write an authentic looking news
paper article and send it to every media outlet in sight.  Some would carry
it directly and some would find it interesting and do an original story on
it.  Today the medium is video.  Same deal, new medium.  The TV/Newspaper
publishers are in the business of selling advertising.  Anything else is an
expense.  When you have an expense that cuts into profits, you look for
ways to conserve....
--
				Dan Kerns	drk@cs.washington.edu
				Univ. of Washington, Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James 'Kibo' Parry)
Subject: GIGO etc., was Re: Science reporting... ...not!
Organization: A room filled with typography (in Boston's Back Bay)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 00:09:06 GMT

[alt.news-media]
In article <1992Apr3.152608.7424@panix.com> fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller) writes:
>In <11618@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> kerchen@fuji.cs.ucdavis.edu (pall kerchen) writes:
>>	GIGO: Jargon.  Acronym for garbage in, garbage out. [I've
>>		never heard the expression 'GIGO' used.]
>
>I have heard this, but it is more of a joke, referring to something that
>doesn't quite work.  [ see FIFO, LIFO, and KIBO [ Knowledge In, Bullshit Out ]

KIBO also stands for "Kibology In, Bozosity Out."  But KIBO won't stand
for TV shows as bad as "Mann & Machine".
								-- K.


Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Subject: The Monitor (was Re: Evolution of press establishment)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:18:00 GMT

About the significance of the Christina Science Monitor
appearing "out of nowhere" (my words):

Indeed, it was =implied= to me when I was a child growing up in a
Christian Science household that it was a miracle that the
church raised the funds and built the building for the newspaper
in three months, or something like that. (Implied, because
miracle per se is not part of the doctrine.)

As an agnostic these many years, I've since had the freedom to
meditate on the essential =oddity= that a religious organization
would take as its divinely ordained mission the founding of
a newspaper that scarcely mentions its founding institution.
From: bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Bill and Mary Jane
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:11:00 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ

In article <204098@unix.cis.pitt.edu> jsast@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Jonathan S. Anderson) writes:
>I think the real question, however, is when, in fact, he was sure he knew
>that he didn't inhale it and was quite positive that he, in fact, didn't 
>enjoy it.

Will a smoking joint be found?

				--Blair
				  "Sound bite, roach clip, whatever..."
From: M19249@mwvm.mitre.org
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Monitor News shut down
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:26:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: mwvm.167CBF564.M19249
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102

In article <1992Apr16.152807.288332@cs.cmu.edu>
goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard) writes:
>Last night was the last broadcast of Monitor News.  It was the only
>US TV news program that I found worth watching regularly.  Does anyone
>have any idea why it failed?
>Nigel Goddard
>goddard@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu
 
Cash, plain and simple they can afford the luxury of running the channel.  They
shopped it around but found no buyers. Also, the CSM newspaper has lost money
since the early sixties.  Before someone flames, I realize they have considered
it a loss-leader and "marketing" tool for the church (if I may be so crass) for
a long time now.
Since we're talking about church involvement in cable tv, how about that Pat
Roberson who just made a cool 8 figure sum (no decimal place ;) ) with his
sale of the Family Channel. According to the Wash Post some of the start up
costs were borne by the contributors to Pat's non-profit ministries.
-DW
"Standard disclaimer applies"
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:178 alt.activism:7400
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism
Subject: Re: MEDIA: NBC Axes GE Critic
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:10:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: igor.1992Apr8.221017.29419
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, San Francisco

In article <elambert.702752907@qualcom> elambert@qualcom.qualcomm.com
(Eber Lambert) writes:
>If Caldicott believes in what she says (GE is evil...) then
>if she continued to work for NBC (aka GE) then shes a 
>hypocrite plain and simple. Is she mad because they fired
>her before she could resign?

Stop and read what was actually written:

1. Caldicott didn't say that GE was evil; she said that GE has caused
   pollution.
2. Nobody said that GE was NBC, they said that GE owns NBC.
3. Caldicott didn't work for NBC, she was a scheduled guest on a show
   there.

Obviously, GE as owner of NBC has a severe conflict of interest in this
case.  It compromises their integrity as a serious news source.

   don
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: increasing newpaper readership
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:41:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: amarna.15APR199206415930
Organization: Dept. of Independence
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <19569@chopin.udel.edu>, carp@chopin.udel.edu (Joanna S Carpenter) writes...
>Hi.  I'm a University of Delaware Journalism student, 
>and I'm writing an articleon newspaper readership and 
>what can be done to increase it--as well as         
>solutions for improving today's papers.


Ignoring the "news" for a moment, how about improving the classified ads
section? How about that experiment being tried by a Florida paper
where they reformat the ads so that, for example, in apartment ads,
the features of each apartment are spread out horizontally with one
ad to a line. The rent in one column, number of rooms in another, etc.
The browser can see immediately which apartment of as given size, etc.
has the lowest rent.
From: bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: lies of our times
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:18:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario

In article <1992Mar31.181202.256112@cs.cmu.edu> goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard) writes:
>In article <LEE.92Mar31104650@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar30.204001.108212@cs.cmu.edu> goddard+@cs.cmu.edu (Nigel Goddard) writes:
>>    [story about MIT professor beingg silenced by the DoD]
>>
>>I must say I'm very skeptical of Nigel's tale here.  It would seem that
>>if that professor were serious about publication we'd see such data snapped
>>up by a major paper and made into a lead story as soon as there was a
>>threat to classify it; the news medium would then take on a large part of
>>the burden of defending its public-domain source.  If it worked for Ellsberg
>>and the P.P....
>
>I don't think the media generally want to take on the DoD over
>questions of classification.  Not that they won't, but there isn't
>much incentive.  The political climate is very different from
>when the Pentagon Papers were release.  There was an existing national
>debate over the Vietnam War.  There is no national debate over
>the Patriots or the Iraq War.  It just isn't news.  We all saw the
>Patriots blowing up SCUDS on TV.  Who cares that it wasn't the warheads
>that were hit?  A few people in the military/congress who want to
>have weapons that work, and they'll have that debate anyway whether it
>is in the mass media or not.  But the general public aren't interested,
>in my judgement.


	"Who cares that it wasn't the warheads that were hit?"


	Exactly - it don't matter a damn.  What matters is
	that the events were made to look successful at the
	time they needed them to, and that they pulled this
	off completely accurately.  The media barrage seems
	to have hit all its targets.


	The entire Iraqi confrontation was extremely carefully
	managed - nobody wanted a repeat of Vietnam - so as
	to produce maximum acceptability in the eyes of the
	American public.  The fact that the general public
	aren't interested in this SCUD debate is one indication
	of just how successful they were.


	There's probably a LOT more "spin doctors" in the
	Pentagon than in the White house right now...


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!lsuc!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "James Brown, Mark Hosler, Al Jourgenson.
 _< /_	 			Coincidence or conspiracy?" - pashdown
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:175 alt.activism:7380
From: elambert@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Eber Lambert)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism
Subject: Re: MEDIA: NBC Axes GE Critic
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:08:27 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

If Caldicott believes in what she says (GE is evil...) then
if she continued to work for NBC (aka GE) then shes a 
hypocrite plain and simple. Is she mad because they fired
her before she could resign?

el
------------------------------------------------------------
"Youre either part of the solution or part of the problem"
				- Eldridge Cleaver
-------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Paul Robichaux)
Subject: Re: lies of our times
Reply-To: robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov
Organization: New Technology, Inc.
Distribution: alt.news-media
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:46:17 GMT

In <1992Apr7.233338.717@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:

>There seems to be mounting evidence that the Patriot missiles were
>designed to strike an incoming ICBM, not a SCUD, and often struck
>the jettisoned body of the SCUD rather than the smaller warhead,
>as both are present on the air when the SCUD is making its final
>approach.  The point being made is not whether the missiles are useful,
>but whether a media circus was created around the activities of
>missiles attacking missiles, since the other parts of the war were
>not being seen uncensored and live.

Actually, the Patriot was designed as a medium-to-high altitude air
defense weapon to be used against aircraft. The software and hardware
changes that were supposed to make it effective against tactical
ballistic missiles (which usually travel somewhat slower than "real"
ICBMs) were not quite fully exercised when the Patriot were pressed
into service.

The "media circus" never took the fact of the basic design into
account when claiming 100% accuracy and success.

-Paul
-- 
Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG          | NTI doesn't pay for my opinions, and NASA
robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov   | doesn't know I have any.
	     This message printed on recycled phosphors.
From: klf@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Brian Mark Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Fu-hee-mori ( Was  'What a waste of space')
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:20:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: uwm.1992Apr16.032007.5183
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee

In article <BMs0xM.I2q@world.std.com> adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) writes:
>In article <167CAB21D.M19249@mwvm.mitre.org> M19249@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>
>>In short (probably too late for that ;) ) I have been amused at the attempts
>>at pronouncing the Pres of Peru's name.  I have heard both  'Fu-hee-mori' and
>>'Fu-gee-mori'.  I imagine he or his ancestors 'colloquialized' the name to the
>>former soon after arriving in Peru.  So, it is probably an issue of who's is
>>the correct pronounciation either the family or the traditional version.  I
>
>Hmmm.  Every day, AP sends out a "pronouncers" file for TV and radio types
>who actually have to try to pronounce the names of people they report on
>(one advantage of being in print, I guess :-) ).  Alas, I must not have
>been paying attention the day after the coup, and now ol' Alberto has
>dropped from the news (or rather, AP's English-language feed), so they
>aren't telling us how to pronounce the name anymore. Sigh.  If he does
>pop up in the file, though, I'll post the proper AP pronunciation.
>
>

One of my all-time favorites is still the pronunciation and spelling of
Ghadafi...  There are so many damn ways to spell that name, it amazes me.

The funniest part is that the networks and local stations [at least the
ones here in Milwaukee] were constantly trying to outdo each other and
come up with another way to spell and say his name during the period
when tensions between Libya and the U.S. were very high.
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,ba.general,biz.misc,ca.general,alt.dcom.catv,rec.arts.tv,rec.video,rec.video.cable-tv,rec.video.satellite,rec.video.production
From: ttaylor@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Effect of Technology on TV NEWS  --  please read
Reply-To: ttaylor@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:42:06 GMT

article <rvl04INNm6j@agate.berkeley.edu>, et@ocf.berkeley.edu (Eric Thompson) writes:
>Hi.  I'm trying to gather information on the effect new technology has
>had on the collection and broadcast of television news.  If you or anyone
>you know can respond to this request, or if you can direct me to books or
>publications on the topic, I will GREATLY appreciate it.  I'm especially
>interested in hearing from people who work in the tv news business, however
>anyone with this type of knowledge should participate.

>* how has new technology affected the way news is collected?

I'm not quite sure if you'll find this interesting but I know I did. Last year
I worked for a company that made and distributed surgical products. As part of
a publicity campaign, they got an advertising company to produce a very
authentic looking "news video". The video included the voice over of an 
official sounding anchorperson (she even said something to the effect of
"reporting from...") and various interviews with doctor's (all of which had 
close ties to the company). There was an extended and shorter running version
of this. I think the thing that most disconcerted me about this whole thing 
was that the video was then transmitted via sattelite to stations all over the
country. Sort of like an AP wire story, this video could be picked up and 
rebroadcast on local news, usually in a health or medical segment. Needless to
say it was picked up all over and we got flooded with calls on the product
(people could call the station to get an 800 number). Without sounding too 
alarmist, I found the whole thing a bit unsettling. The video had very high
production values and really came off as an official bit of journalism. Just
seeing a company be able to do this really made me think a little differently
about these sort of segments on the news. 

Tina Taylor
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.activism
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: MEDIA: NBC Axes GE Critic
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:14:03 GMT

elambert@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Eber Lambert) writes:

>If Caldicott believes in what she says (GE is evil...) then
>if she continued to work for NBC (aka GE) then shes a 
>hypocrite plain and simple. Is she mad because they fired
>her before she could resign?

>el
>------------------------------------------------------------
>"Youre either part of the solution or part of the problem"
>				- Eldridge Cleaver
>-------------------------------------------------------------

Wasn't it Che Guevara who talked about working in the belly of the
beast?  Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it; if Caldicott could have
gotten GE to pay for their own criticism, so much the better.

--Jeff
>-- 
-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) 
"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
                                    --Thomas Jefferson