HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Tuesday, 21 Jul 1992 11:38:06 MST
From: <ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Distribution: usa
 <rdippold.711259340@qualcom>

In article <rdippold.711259340@qualcom>, rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron
Dippold) says:
>
>I'm not sure if even that would cover it.  While you can argue back
>and forth forever whether the media is left-leaning or right-leaning,
>I don't think there can be a whole lot of argument that the media is
>unabashedly pro-government.  Anti-government people in the sense that
>they always cut down whoever is currently in government, but
>pro-government in that they love government, and the more of it the
>better.  They seem to feel that a perfectly rational/compassionate
>massively authoritarian government can do a lot of good (and it could,
>if you could get it), and that they, the media, are perfectly capable
>of controlling any massive government so that it will be perfect.  As
>if they think the lion at the end of the leash is a chihuahua.

If everyone believes your statements about the media being pro-government, as
you state, there should be no question about which way the media leans.

I'M not disagreeing with you but I  think you could get some serious
debate from others aboutit.


Eric Owens

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Name-calling in the abortion battle (media bias?)
Keywords: bias
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 02:14:08 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>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."

OK. I'll admit to this. That is, quite often when the abortion issue
is reported by the media, they refer to people of "the other side" as
"anti-abortionists". Why? What has usually happened which has become
a media event? Usually those fanatics of Operation Rescue either "alledgedly"
bombing an abortion clinic or performing such acts as to disrupt the
legal operation of an abortion clinic. Operative words are "abortion
clinic". These people are trying to STOP abortion and FIGHT to make
abortion ILLEGAL. If that isn't "anti-abortion", then what is?!?
-- 
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: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Organization: Western Washington University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:56:14 GMT

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

>	I guess I was simply annoyed at the NRA's stance of no gun
>restrictions whatsoever. If one is willing to live with having to get
>a driver's license in order to drive a car, then I don't see why we
>can't have some system of gun permits. I'm sure that with suitable
>gun-permit system, it may actually be more straightforward for those
>with a clear record to purchase guns than under some systems.

Where did you read the NRA's stance, from the NRA?   No?  Then it is
not hard to understand your ignorance of the topic.   The NRA supports
sanctions against criminals who purchace, steal or possess firarms, as
well as against those who use them in crime.   They have supported 
laws calling for instant backround checks, such as the one used in VA.
Convicted felons may not legaly purchace or own firarms in any state.  

JD
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Control of the media (was: Some reasons...)
Organization: Mississippi State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:53:01 GMT

dbetz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Drew Betz) writes:

i>John Naisbett's group looks for media trends by counting the number
>of newspaper lines dedicated (or words?).  I'm not sure that just
>looking at headlines is as informative.  Just my two cents, though.

MegaTrends himself?  sheez, that guy scares me.....
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Jul22.143241.13229@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Jul22.164951.22822@umbc3.umbc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:36:37 GMT

<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:

<   >Why do you think Rush Limbaugh is so popular? 

<	   Just a guess, but maybe for the same reason that Larry King is
<   so popular? Must be the far right politics that they both preech, huh?

	Possibly it's not the "preeching" but rather entertainment?

<   >  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.

	Then again, perhaps "liberals" prefer easy Journalism
	courses to such subjects as Engineering?

	And I would be a bit careful about "preeching" the
	virtues of spelling, if I were you.

<	   Seriously: Why are reporters/editors so "liberal". Were they 
<   brainwashed? Are conservatives really just morons? Maybe Elvis comes
<   down in a spaceship and touches journalists on the forehead, pushing
<   them leftward.

	Could there be a selection process? If the vast majority
	of editors are white, male, from the mid-atlantic states,
	with degrees from the Ivy League or certain other schools...
	is it surprising that they would tend to select others
	just like them to work in the media?

	Say, since you're a "liberal", you probably approve of
	"Affirmative Action"; how about mandating quotas of
	political conservatives to be hired by TIME, the Washington
	Post, NBC/CBS/ABC News, the New York Times, etc. until
	such time as the reportorial/editorial staff "reflects
	more accurately the philosophical makeup of the general
	population".

	
<	   This is better then the JFK assasination - maybe you can get
<   some right wing director to make it into a hit movie?

	Just how many "right wing" directors can you name in
	Hollywood, please?

	HINT: Oliver Stone doesn't count.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2527 alt.rush-limbaugh:3120 talk.politics.misc:36054
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Global Warming, again (was Re: Media bias)
Date: 26 Jul 92 18:17:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

|]|Atmospheric scientists do not share your optimism (er, pessimism)
|]
|]Umm, pardon me. Do you care to cite some evidence of this claim?
|]I am not exhibitting either optimism or pessimisim. I am merely quoting the
|]evidence printed in respected scientific journals. Generate your own
|]optimism (or pessimism) yourself, based on the REAL data.
|
|Sure. Read "The Heated Debate" by Robert Balling (a climatologist).
|Not only does it present a very detailed summary of the evidence,
|but it references lots and lots of papers in "respected scientific
|journals."

I never said that there was no dispute or that there were not people who
felt that global warming is not happening. I took the comment as an
assertion that ALL atmospheric scientists feel that way. The original
poster who made that comment probably didn't mean it that way, but that
is what he said, and that is what I replied to.

|]Below the level predicted is welcome news. However it IS on an upward
|]trend. Daytime vs. nightime temps is a non-issue.
|
|Actually, it is not. Balling shows that if the same models that predict
|global warming have any validity, then most warming will occur at night,
|at higher latitudes, with increased precipitation - all of which is
|mostly BENEFICIAL.

As I have said before, I personally do not feel that modelling is very
accurate and that it is not used as a SOLE means of proving global
warming.

Besides, beneficial to WHOM?

|]Sorry, you are not reading the graph very well. It shows that global temps
|]flucuated with a slight upward trend from 1856 to 1920, but since 1920
|]they have virtually skyrocketed, to use your term.
|
|Not ture.

Try looking at the graph. You'll find that my comments ARE true.

|]You do not appear to understand the difference between meteorlogy (weather
|]forcasting) and climatology (long range foregcasting).
|
|And you don't appear to understand the complexity of climatological
|forecasting.

Your opinion, which you are more that welcome to have. I disagree.

|]We are not predicting weather, we are predicing long range climate changes.
|]There IS a difference.
|
|Yeah, weather predictions can be verified.

I suppose you have never heard of "historical climatology", eh?
-- 
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: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul31.054759.1093@s1.gov>
Distribution: usa
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:17:21

When I read in a dispatch from Israel, "The terrorist was shot by
a passerby", I imagine reading in a dispatch from the U.S., "The
bank robber was shot by a customer."
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Media bias
Keywords: bias
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:26:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services

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

	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).

	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.


-- 
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: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Control of the media (was: Some reasons...)
Date: 25 Jul 1992 20:13:25 GMT
Organization: Gamma Rays for Peace
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <JMC.92Jul25122315@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I intended to copy down the newspaper headlines at the time of the
>Democratic convention to compare them with the headlines, if any, at
>the time of the Republican convention.  The Democratic headlines
>struck me as very upbeat.  I suggest you remember and make the
>comparison when the Republican convention rolls around.

Remember what?  As I remember the headlines were first about Rollins
leaving the Perot campaign and then Perot leaving the Perot campaign.
The only unknowns at the Democonvention were Jackson and Brown and
the headlines said Jackson gave Klingon a lukewarm endorsement and
Brown didn't even mention his name.  Arithmetic is failing me except
to point out that the upbeat headlines were _after_ the convention
when the overnight polls showed Klingon leading Bosh by almost 2 to
1 (probably due to Perot's implicit endorsement of the Dems).

Do you have a hypothesis?
---------
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

Histories make men wise; poets, witty; the mathematics, subtile;
natural philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able
to contend.
    --Francis Bacon
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2513 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3836 talk.politics.misc:35997
From: yin@ucsee.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Control of the media (was: Some reasons...)
Date: 26 Jul 92 01:16:55 GMT
Reply-To: yin@ucsee.Berkeley.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of CO2 Society for Electricuting Environmentalists

In article <14scl5INNhu@agate.berkeley.edu> bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>the headlines said Jackson gave Klingon a lukewarm endorsement and
                                 ^^^^^^^

So occasionally a news article does inspire a good idea: from now 
on, we should use "Klingon" to denote a Democrat, and "Romulan" 
a Republican.  As I watch the hopelessly liberal "Star Trek, the 
Next Generation," I have developed a preference for the Romulan 
Empire over the Klingon Empire.
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Control of the media (was: Some reasons...)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1014@bug.UUCP> <1992Jul25.160415.14762@athena.mit.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:23:15

I intended to copy down the newspaper headlines at the time of the
Democratic convention to compare them with the headlines, if any, at
the time of the Republican convention.  The Democratic headlines
struck me as very upbeat.  I suggest you remember and make the
comparison when the Republican convention rolls around.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: mitja@hera.Berkeley.EDU (Mitja Baumhackl)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Activist seeks candy wrappers for college tuition
Date: 21 Jul 1992 21:33:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hera.berkeley.edu

Student activist seeks candy wrappers for college tuition:

I'm a 23 year old student, returning to New York University in Fall 1992,
and am having a hard time paying for the high tuition.  I've been
turned down for all grants, and will be borrowing up to $15,000 in loans.
I dropped out of high school in order to support myself, and worked
hard to be admitted to NYU. 
NYU kept denying me aid until
I contacted Congressman Bill Green (R-NY) who called NYU on my behalf.

For every candy wrapper (M&M/Mars) turned in before October 15th, I
get 5 cents.  

My activism includes:
1.  Started "Students for Reproductive Rights" at Diablo Valley College in
California.
2.  Been trained by the War Resister's League as a draft counselor.
3.  Coordinated clinic defense groups for the Bay Area Coalition Against 
Operation Rescue (now Bay Area Coalition for our Reproductive Rights)
4.  Member of ACLU, GLAAD, CISPES.
5.  Have demonstrated against the Klan, Bush, Gulf War, Mario Cuomo (budget
cuts in AIDS research)...
6.  Having filed a lawsuit against the Berkeley Police Department for
violations of Constitutional rights during People's Park demonstrations.

I want to finish my undergraduate education so that I can go on to
public interest law. 

Wrappers may be from a Single or King Size bar of the following:

M&Ms, Snickers, Milky Way, Starburst, Twix, Skittles, Bounty, PBMax, Mars,
3 Musketeers, Pizza Combos, Today's Munch, Dove (chocolate bar), and
Snickers Ice Cream Bars.

My address:	Mitja Baumhackl
		1739 Lincoln Street A
		Berkeley, CA  94703

Thank you.

mitja@hera.berkeley.edu
Not endorsed by UC Berkeley.
(I go back to school in Sept., wrappers must be mailed before Oct. 15)

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Whole Foods and Coors -- The Thrilling Second Episode
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,talk.environment
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: 22 Jul 92 12:50:33

I advocate boycotting Ben and Jerry ice cream.  I don't agree with
their donating part of their profits to some leftist cause - I
forget which.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2446 alt.rush-limbaugh:2974 talk.politics.misc:35445
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Control of the media (was: Some reasons...)
Summary: Captains of industry aren't necessarily conservative.
Keywords: media, bias
Date: 20 Jul 92 02:27:58 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

In article <1992Jul5.170727.11551@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu
(William December Starr) writes:
>Control of any business, like a newspaper or a television network,
>comes from the top.  That "80% of the people working at the big 3
>network news desks are registered Democrats" isn't relevant if the
>tiny group of people who control the networks are conservatives.

What evidence do you have that they are conservative, or that they affect
the content of the news if they are.  There is some evidence that the
owners are liberal (by which I mean left of the center in the U.S.).  If
the owners of the media were conservative, you would expect that the
foundations they also own and run would give mostly to conservative causes,
groups, and think tanks, wouldn't you?  In fact, they give mostly, almost
exclusively, to liberal causes, groups, and think tanks.[1] So if you are
going to claim that the owners of the major media in this country are
conservative, you better get some evidence of that.  L. Tisch is certainly
a liberal.


[1] "And That's the Way It Isn't: a reference guide to media bias", by L. B.
Bozell III & B. H. Baker, 1990, pp 86-94.  "Of nearly four million dollars
contributed to political organizations, the foundation for ten of the
biggest media empires allocated 90 percent to liberal organizations and only
10 percent to conservative ones."  The most balanced was the General Electric
Foundation (GE owns NBC), which only gave 72.4% of it's donations (in 1986)
to liberal organizations.
-- 
				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,talk.politics.misc
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Pro-government media bias (was Re: Media bias)
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:15:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul19.011105.1309@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>	And not driving a car will reduce auto accidents, not swimming
>	will reduce drowning deaths and not going to work will reduce
>	the spread of nasty flu viruses. 

But you don't see activists clamoring for the government to "do something"
about auto accidents, drownings, or the common cold. (Perhaps they just
haven't gotten around to it? In Florida, the Safety Nazis are banning bungee
jumping!)

At the very least, you would expect people who engage in promiscous sex to
have to pay higher health insurance premiums. But pushing the government
"do something" button could lead to some perverse consequences. If you try
to make society responsible for the consequences of free sex, don't be
surprised to wake up one day and find a tax on it.





Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
From: geff@iastate.edu (Geff Underwood)
Subject: Re: Media bias
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns
Summary: Petrich _still_ doesn't get it.
Keywords: bias
Organization: none for me, thanks, I'm trying to cut down
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:36:29 GMT

Note the Followup-To: line.

In article <1992Jul31.054759.1093@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1017@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>				I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
>
>	For what reason? Are you _that_ confident you'll wind up on
>top of the big armed free-for-all that the NRA seems to think is the
>ideal?

I can't speak for him, but I really doubt that he has any such confidence.
After all, there _is_ no "big armed free-for-all that the NRA seems to
think is the ideal", so it would be rather difficult for him to be on the
top of it (or the middle, or the bottom).  I don't know where you're
getting your ideas about the NRA's views, but I really wish you'd find a
better source.  I recommend the NRA itself.

>I don't know of the NRA wanting to find ways of avoiding using
>guns, other than to proclaim how law-abiding they are.

I don't know of the ACLU wanting to find ways of avoiding drunk driving or
Nazi parades.  I really don't see how this weakens their arguments in favor
of privacy and free speech.

Despite that, I think I should tell you about the NRA's CrimeStrike
program.  I don't remember all the details, but the basic idea is to draw
attention to violent repeat offenders, in order to encourage the courts to
keep such people imprisoned.  For more information, look in a recent issue of
_American Rifleman_ magazine, or call the NRA.

>After all, in a
>confrontation, the advantage will be to whomever draws their gun
>first.

Don't count on that.  It is possible to draw and fire before somebody else
notices the motion and makes their own decision to fire; action is faster
than reaction.

>	I am very disappointed that the NRA does not push for
>nonlethal weapons, like Mace and stun guns, to be more available, not
>to mention defense measures like bulletproof vests.

What restrictions are there now, that you want removed?  Why should it be
the NRA's job to remove those restrictions?

>	Personally, I'd prefer wearing a bulletproof vest and a helmet
>to wielding a gun.

There are two big problems with that idea.  First, you will attract lots of
unfriendly attention, both from police and from criminals.  Second,
"bulletproof vests" aren't.  They sometimes help, but they're not magic.

Go ahead, if you really want to, but I _don't_ recommend it.

--
Geff Underwood
geff@iastate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc