From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:46:30 GMT

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.

>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.

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. None of them
say that the "gloom and doom" future is a DEFINITE possibility, they merely
say that it IS a possibility, which all atmospheric scientists DO agree on.
What atmospheric scientists disagree on is the amount the average global
temperature 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. 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.

>** 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.

> 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. Why? One reason may
be that Quayle's family trust has a multi-million dollar investment in
a paper mill, which would suffer from the competition from makers of
recycled newsprint.

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.

>		     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%!!

THAT is what is meant by "the rich get richer and the poor get 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.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc