HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:16:53 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

|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.
|
|	And there is a third possibility that was not adequately
|addressed: the opinion that Anita Hill was right but that this did not
|mean that Clarence Thomas was unfit for the Supreme Court, for the
|simple reason that "boys will be boys" and he was only demonstrating
|that he had a healthy libido.

If it were the case of this third scenario, I would hope that the numbers
would be even lower than 55%. "Boys will be boys" is a male chauvanist pig
excuse for sexual harassment.

-- 
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
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:04:28 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul23.164938.8463@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
}In article <1992Jul23.023750.2194@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
}>Keywords: 
}
}>Wrong! The networks news and the mainstream newspapers are losing
}>customers. Meanwhile talk shows like the Rush Limbaugh show are
}>picking up listeners. Rush Limbaugh's audience of 12,000,000 is very
}>impressive when you consider how few people listen to talk radio.
}
}	This is not accurate. The networks were losing steadily to cable
}until this year, when they actually picked up a few points. Newspapers are
}not necessarily losing an audiance as a whole, although they are consolidating
}considerably. The New York Times, for example, is expanding rapidly in the
}national and international markets.

I have read that in the US, newspapers are losing readership. Although
the networks may have picked up a bit relative to cable, they are still
losing viewship overall.

}	As for Rush and his 12M listeners, I think that you're being sucked
}into the vacuum created bu Rushs rapidly expanding ego. It is true that his
}show is expanding in the talk show market, but that has little to do with
}the main stream media. Rushs significance is on par with the Billboard music
}charts: he deserves respect in his field (talk radio), but it doesn't tranlate
}into anything tangable anywhere else.

It certainly has something to do with the main stream media - it provides
an alternative that is accessible to the ordinary person. Someone actively
involved in conservative thought or politics may read National Review or
The American Spectator, but Rush brings that thought to Joe Sixpack
and Charlie Commuter. That so many people listen to him and other talk
shows indicates that they want a voice, and the don't feel the mainstream
media represents it.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2441 alt.rush-limbaugh:2967 talk.politics.misc:35388
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 22 Jul 92 23:00:13 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Jul22.164951.22822@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.143241.13229@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
->
->>  Unfortunaltely, journalism is still a magnet for liberals.
->
->	Yup. It's not the liberals fault that they're just more talented
->then conservatives, though. If conservatives could spell better, then
->maybe there would be more conservative writers.

 Before I got a job in the hollywood area, I used to think that the reason
hollywood and the media was putting out mindless, biased garbage was that
it was all part of some great marketing scheme. Now that I have worked here
I see that these people actually think its not mindless and not biased.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Private Discrimination
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:24:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.170035.17166@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
}
}In article <2532@nlsun1.oracle.nl>, 
}jdurbin@nl.oracle.com (Jason Durbin) said:
}> How do T. Archer and the librtarians propose that society discourage
}> behavior that it sees as wrong and/or hurtful to the minority
}> members?

(stuff about libertarian rights theory deleted)

William, I don't think you addressed the gentleman's question sufficiently.
While he formulated his question in terms of society, the essence of the
question is: what is to be done about vicious interpersonal conduct?

The only practical and moral answer is: respond with virtuous conduct.  Defend
the virtue of judging individuals based upon the content of their character
as an integral part of the good life.  Condemn those who fail to practice
it, in moderation.  Boycott or shunning may be called for.  Lead by example.

Vicious conduct stems from vicious thought.  Don't become thought police,
but argue the viciousness of prejudice; those you persuade - and bear in mind
that your goal is to persuade - will minimize their vicious conduct.

This will work to the detriment of the bigot.  Bigots will see the object of
their prejudice benefiting from the conduct of both themselves and others.
This is what happened in South Africa prior to the rise of Apartheid, and
what happened in the U.S. South prior to most of Jim Crow and after the
"Civil War".


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 12:03:45 GMT



In article <1992Jul23.031313.26992@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack
 C. Sessions) writes:
>kjun@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Pat Fitzpatrick) writes:
>
>>As an atmospheric scientist, I feel compelled to comment on this.
>>Personally, I feel the Greenhouse Effect is a hoax. However, many
>>other colleagues will do everything and anything to prove it is
>>happening. Why? Lots of research money and grants, which is how
>>scientists survive.
>
>You may be an atmospheric scientist, I don't know, but you sure don't
>sound like you are. The Greenhouse Effect is science which is pretty
>hard to refute. It has been proven in numerous laboratory experiments.
>All you say is you "feel" that it is a "hoax" and offer no evidence to
>back up such a claim other than the typical anti-research claim that
>all research opinions are driven by desires to continue funding. Try
>refuting the claim with some REAL science and not some OPINIONS.
>

Zack, you are incredibly amusing.  It is obvious that he was speaking of an 
enhanced greenhouse effect, a.k.a. global warming.  I ask you, has global 
warming been proven in "laboratory experiments"? *chuckle*  Boy, if everything 
worked in the world as it did in the lab we wouldn't need any engineers.  Then 
maybe less lawyers, etc....It's incredible that you can claim that we 
"dittoheads" (that is a compliment, by the way!) take everything Rush says as 
fact and don't think for ourselves.  Maybe you should stop and listen to 
yourself.

>Sorry, but you seem to be misinformed. While a large part of the Global
>Warming theory does rely on various models, the models are but one part
>of the equation. Other parts are 1) the Greenhouse Effect IS an obserseved
>phenomena, 2) man's production of known Greenhouse Gases has been increasing
>for the past 100 years, 3) observed levels of CO2 have been increasing
>ever since they have been measured, and 4) the average global temperature
>has been rising since it has been observed, over 100 years.

I believe that these aspects are included in the models.  If they aren't, maybe
you could persuade some scientists to do it! ;)


Zack, I have a question for you:  Is global warming occuring?
-- 
Susan E. Schudt
Dept. of Chemical Engineering - Ohio State
"When you're Right, you're right!"
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!"
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:54:53 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <1992Jul21.152624.29520@umbc3.umbc.edu>
alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <1013@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>>	Evidence: "It is well documented"
>>
>>What is well documented is that the members of the media and their
>>reporting are well to the left of D (the center in the U.S.).
>
>	Like I said, a non-post.

I posted, facts, figures, and sources, all of which you dismiss out of
hand.  You simply attack the sources, and me.  You don't even address the
evidence.  Whose is the non-post?

>Your unbiased sources are Rush Limbaugh,
>Reason and "National Review", and you're concenred about media bias. :-).

I never said my sources were unbiased (if there is such a thing).  Again,
you are ignoring the evidence.

>You're quite happy with Rushs comments on the environment when Rushs
>source Dixy Lee Ray, and Dixy Lee Rays source is (among others) Lyndon 
>LaRouche!

Rubbish!  Back up that statement.  In any case, what this has to do with
anything I've posted, I don't know.

>	You prove your point with some rather liberal statistics and 
>conclusions about the economy that directly conflict with the UD Dept
>of Labor (another Liberal orgainzation, no doubt).

You speak of non-posts!  What conflict with what data?

>	If the media is out of touch with the audiance, then market forces
>would heavily favor a more balanced source of information. FCC regulations
>are more relaxed then ever, and there are great oppertunities in the cable
>industry. Still, Right wing papers like the Washington Times can't stay
>in business, and the fastest growing network is run by a Liberal die hard.
>It sounds like you've buried yourself so deeply in statistics that you've
>blinded yourself.

The problem with this argument for why the media shouldn't be bias left,
like a well crafted argument for why the sky isn't blue, is that it ignores
the fact that it is.  I submit that you ignore the massive evidence for
this, because you have no answer for it.

I unfortunately I don't have time to respond to ever post in a timely
manner, so I'll respond to one thing here.  Elsewhere I refer to my
theory as a supposed Leftist conspiracy to control the media or something
to that effect.  I never said anything about a conspiracy and I don't
believe there is one.  I submit you are creating strawmen because you can't
address what I *do* say.-- 
				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:21:44 GMT

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>Great knee-jerk!  All I asked you to do was listen.  I made a point of
>it myself last night (NBC news).  When the topic came up, the Pro-Lifers
>were called Anti-Abortionists.  This is certainly not always the case,
>but it happens MUCH more  often than you will hear "Pro-Abortion" used.
>Apart from my own personal observations, I have some stats from a few
>years ago to back the claim up. I can post them tomorrow if you have to
>see them.

WHO referred to the Pro-lifers as anti-abortionists? Tom Brokaw? The
correspondent reporting the story? Or maybe someone who was interviewed?
I don't know. I rarely have watched NBS news since Huntley-Brinkley
retired. I usually get my news from CNN and ABC. (Regarding your
surprising comments that you feel that CNN presents a more unbiased
point of view than the others, maybe that is why I have not seen all
of the reports you claim have been happening referring to pro-lifers
as anti-abortionists.)

>As to whether you think the tag is a good choice or not, who cares?  I
>personally believe both sides' choice of labels are a bit of indirection
>from the issue.  That isn't the debate though, is it?  The point is that
>labels are everything in politics and sound bites.  They form a
>subconcious impression when used over and over.  That's why both sides
>of most all issues prefer a positive spin to their names.  And more
>often than not, the media accepts without modification the choice of a
>liberal organization's name, but seems to believe that the public should
>be protected from a conservative generated label.  The fact that most
>people never notice is all the more alarming.  (Again, specific instances
>to follow tomorrow.)  

Who cares? Well, the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers seem to care.
Pro-choicers are freqently referred to as pro-abortionists. It being
generally untrue, they don't like it. On the other hand, were is the
only place and time the pro-lifers make news? When storming abortion
clinics. Is it no wonder many people feel that the pro-life movement's
agenda is really one of anti-abortion?

Sure, you can probably come up with several news reports which back up your
claims. If you're listening for them, you'll hear them. If I had really
felt that there was such a bias in the reporting of the abortion debate,
I would have been able to probably produce just as many news reports which
did NOT refer to the pro-lifers are anti-abortionists. Therefore, your
specific instances will not mean all that much to me.

-- 
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
From: dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns 
Keywords: bias (against gun owners, that is) 
Organization: SigSauer Fan Club 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 21:46:24 GMT

In article <l6on1iINN44@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> laws calling for instant backround checks, such as the one used in VA.
>                    ^^^^^^^
>On the other hand, if the background check takes 5 days, the NRA is
>against it.  Any waiting period is considered a violation of the
>constitutional right to bear arms.  ???

Since gun controllers advocate the use of waiting periods
as a means of fighting crime, they need to explain the following.  It
turns out that the interstate sale of firearms has been illegal since
the passage of the (in)famous Gun Control Act of 1968.  Thus, people
MUST buy firearms in their state of residence.  If waiting periods
are such a panacea for crime, then why is it that those states
that have enacted them cannot demonstrate a drop in crime, EVEN
INCLUDING the so-called "crimes of passion?"  The data show clearly
that waiting periods do nothing to stop crime at all.  The reason
the Brady Bunch wants their bill passed - a bill which, by the way,
does NOT *require* a background check - is because they have openly
stated that they will sue the first chief of police that OKs a
sale which later results in a murder.[1]  In such an environment its
easy to imagine chiefs simply "deep-sixing" all background check
requests.  The net result is a backdoor gun ban, their real goal.
My I remind you that the Staggers Bill, which would have *required*
an instantaneous-check using NCIC, was *opposed* by HCI?  If they
were truly out to stop criminals from obtaining firearms, its
most curious that they would support a bill that does NOT
require a background check instead of one that DID.  

The fact is that a background check *does not* "take five days"
as you suggest.  Waiting periods are designed to harass gun buyers
today and set the stage for tort-law gun bans tomorrow.  If you
care to insist that they "take five days," then please explain 
how the State of Virginia can routinely run background checks
in minutes.  

For a further discussion of how waiting periods are such 
a crock, see David Koepel's "Why Waiting Periods Threaten Public
Safety" (Independence Institute #4-91).

Drew 

[1].  This is the case even if the purchaser had no prior criminal
record and the chief had no valid reason to deny the request.
Presumably HCI would try to argue that the chief in question
"should have known better" in court. 
--
drew betz : wj8k : dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu   
"A winning team for the alumni, good parking for the faculty, and
 sex for the students."  OSU President E. Gordon Gee on the three
 things a great university must provide. 
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:49:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.023750.2194@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 

>Wrong! The networks news and the mainstream newspapers are losing
>customers. Meanwhile talk shows like the Rush Limbaugh show are
>picking up listeners. Rush Limbaugh's audience of 12,000,000 is very
>impressive when you consider how few people listen to talk radio.

	This is not accurate. The networks were losing steadily to cable
until this year, when they actually picked up a few points. Newspapers are
not necessarily losing an audiance as a whole, although they are consolidating
considerably. The New York Times, for example, is expanding rapidly in the
national and international markets.

	As for Rush and his 12M listeners, I think that you're being sucked
into the vacuum created bu Rushs rapidly expanding ego. It is true that his
show is expanding in the talk show market, but that has little to do with
the main stream media. Rushs significance is on par with the Billboard music
charts: he deserves respect in his field (talk radio), but it doesn't tranlate
into anything tangable anywhere else.

	Rush is good at his job, which is running a talk show. The talk radio
audiance is notoriously non-partisan when it comes to the ideology of the host,
most talk radio fans will listen to anything, as long as it is entertaining.
I would expect that many of the people who listen to Larry King also listen to
Rush, including the callers.





-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Saddam, Bush, Rabin, Clinton: speculation
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 26 Jul 92 20:32:24

If I were Rabin I might have said to Baker.  If you don't suppress
Saddam's capacity to make missiles we will have to do it.  Baker
might have told him that Israel doing so might damage the Middle
East peace process.  Rabin might have replied if Baker had
spent many hours wearing a gas mask in a sealed room, he might
realize that Israelis would regard the peace process as a secondary
consideration.

I speculate about Israel in this, because I see in the U.S. and the U.N.
capacity for infinite temporization.  Something, more than a mere desire
to finish what they said they would do may be driving them.

So Bush may really mean it.  I was very pleased to see Clinton and
Mitchell back up Bush.  I hope that if the crisis were to last into
a Clinton presidency, Clinton would also be resolute.  However, I
worry that it might be mere electoral tactics.  If Bush has to zap
Saddam again, the public will support it, and politicians who don't
will lose.

I suppose it may not be the Israelis but merely Bush's electoral
situation that makes him take a tough line.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2482 alt.rush-limbaugh:3040 talk.politics.misc:35796
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Name-calling in the abortion battle (media bias?)
Keywords: bias
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:13:04 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
:jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
:>Great knee-jerk!  All I asked you to do was listen.  I made a point of
:>it myself last night (NBC news).  When the topic came up, the Pro-Lifers
:>were called Anti-Abortionists.  This is certainly not always the case,
:>but it happens MUCH more  often than you will hear "Pro-Abortion" used.
:>Apart from my own personal observations, I have some stats from a few
:>years ago to back the claim up. I can post them tomorrow if you have to
:>see them.
:WHO referred to the Pro-lifers as anti-abortionists? Tom Brokaw? The
:correspondent reporting the story? Or maybe someone who was interviewed?
:I don't know. I rarely have watched NBS news since Huntley-Brinkley
:retired. I usually get my news from CNN and ABC. (Regarding your
:surprising comments that you feel that CNN presents a more unbiased
:point of view than the others, maybe that is why I have not seen all
:of the reports you claim have been happening referring to pro-lifers
:as anti-abortionists.)
	[rest of article deleted]

I vaguely recall Bill Plante (CBS News) and a few ABC News reporters
using "anti-abortion" a few times a while ago. I guess I'll wait for
Chip to itemize. I do remember Eleanor Clift on the McLaughlin Group
referring to the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd as "anti-choice."

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc