HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 22 Aug 92 06:02:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access

In article <1992Aug20.174817.9456@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.145707.18107@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>In article <4689@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>
>>|> Oh, according to NBC, the reason why they did that was to be sure "The
>>|> Tonight Show" got on time without encroaching into local news time. Uh,
>>|> excuse me!!!! ABC does that all the time on Monday Night Football !!!!
>>
>>	Monday night football has a much higher share rating then the 
>>convention, which is about the same as a typical sitcom rerun. For example,
>>the Dem. convention ran against _Revenge of the nerds III_, and has a share 
>>rating of 5.1, while RTNIII had a share of 7.6. The republicans are doing
>>about the same, share wise, although they beat out a murphy brown rerun
>>by a slight margin. Neither convention draws as many vewers as The Tonight
>>Show. 
>>
>>	What you're asking is for NBC to subsidize the GOP by making a poor
>>financial decision. When they don't, you claim media bias. Sound logic if
>>there ever was any.
>>
>Wait, I'm going to find the answer to this.  Did NBC really cut off the
>Repubs conv to hit the Tonight show?  I watched every bit of the Dem conv
>and Leno did commercials and waited late into the night to come on.  What's
>the deal folks?
>
>Ted Kalivoda

NBC did give the option for local stations to cut off at 11:00 PM for some odd
reason.  Our local affiliate continued the speech, as Gramm is from Texas...
With the expanded coverage that NBC had with PBS,  I personally found this
decision (to optionally cut-off mid-speech) pretty stupid.


Tom H.


-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Vileness in Amerikkka--Anarchists are Democrats
Date: 18 Aug 1992 15:04:53 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Aug17.215636.7266@ils.nwu.edu> comegys@eci.bbb.cal (Fred 
Comegys) writes:
> Rush Limbaugh is nothing more then a trump for the running dogs of
> Capitalist slavery.   John Switzer, Rush's Limbaugh's mindless little SA
> worshiper, who seems to spend most of his time writing the words of his
> Nazi Warlord.  So  pathetic,  like a young  Hitler,  unable to give to 
his
> own existence  any meaning, any purpose, the young failure gravitates to
> the hate filled reactional right,  in a slavish subservitude the little 
man
> finds an escape from his failure;  spiritual, economic and sexual.

For someone that is making an accusation that conservatives are full of 
hate and disrespect, Mr. Comegys does not appear to have much room to 
talk.   That in itself discredits just about everything else he had to 
say.   One thing about Rush.   He treats his callers with respect 
regardless of whether he agrees with them or not and I've never heard him 
advocating "cutting off thier balls and stuffing them down thier mouth".   
 That includes gays, women who claim feminist backgrounds and minorities.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
From: af041@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Webster)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:18:11 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


As further evidence of media bias, one need only look at Monday
night's edition of the CBS evening news.  Rather's coverage
was a tremendous job of disguising editorial comment as a straigt
news broadcast.

Lest this be mistaken as the maunderings of a wounded Republican,
I should mention that a long time Democrat who was watching the
news broadcast with me commented, "That's the best advertisement
that the Democracts have produced yet!", and then realized that
we were still watching the news broadcast and NOT an ad.

-- 
Mark Webster  af041  
  
this space available for a nominal charge 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3706 alt.politics.clinton:2160 alt.politics.bush:1976
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:42:57 GMT

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.203155.25224@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>The media used the "pro-choice" label 97 percent of the time when referring
>>to the pro-abortion side of the debate.  They used the "pro-life" label just
>>21 percent of the time when refering to the anti-abortion side (usually 
>>calling them "anti-abortionists").  Again, this has nothing to do with the
>>validity of the two sides' choice of names--only whether or not the media
>>chooses to use the chosen (positively spun) label, or whether it instead 
>>makes the judgement that another (more accurate?) label should be used.  

>Well, I think your mistake is in assuming that pro-choice ==
>pro-abortion and pro-life != anti-abortion.  I find the pro-life label
>dishonest because it implies that since I'm pro-choice I am therefore
>anti-life and pro-abortion.  Geez, I guess I'll have to mow over some
>bicylists on my way home this evening and I'll have to quit neglecting
>my job of recommending abortions to my pregnant co-workers.

Like I have stated before, both labels where carefully chosen by each
group to have the greatest impact.  This debate is not about whether you
approve of the names.  It's about whether the news media blindly uses
whatever a liberal organization wants to be called and refuses to give
the same consideration to a conservative group (or idea).  

Examples abound.  How about the Peacekeeper missle?  The media wouldn't
have it.  They refused on idealogical grounds.  How about the Strategic
Defense Initiative?  It was immediately belittled by the media who to
this day call it the Star Wars program.  

Before you liberals line up to say things like, "but it *shouldn't* be
called a Peacekeeper because of this and that..." etc., remember what is
being discussed here.  The opinions you may have about whether or not a
certain label is valid only prove my point.  The media is also liberal
and refused to use the names for the exact same reasons.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Who Said Media Was Supposed To Be Unbiased?  (was Re: Media Bias at RNC)
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:00:19 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <FOX.92Aug19225130@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
->solidarity.  It was a serious mistake in strategy that no
->amount of whining (and I'm referring to the Republican
->panelists on PBS, not to Mark Webster) will recover.  Carter
->never complained publicly about the "bias" of the intelligence
->community.

 The medias popularity was already pretty low before this issue happened.
They are showing the american people that the republicans and Rush Limbaugh
were right all along. In case you havent noticed it yet, the conservative
strategy has been well thought out and may come to a wonderful climax.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3750 alt.activism.d:2713 alt.news-media:847
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:09:00 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

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

>Every poll I have ever seen (including one I posted by the L.A. Times)
>has put the news media considerably to the left of the American public.
>Would you like me to repost it or email it to you?

I don't remember; did it allow for comparable levels of education,
and comparable kinds of degrees?  Or is it the claim that educated
people with social science degrees are generally on the left?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: The PC Catechism of Clintonomics
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:57:33 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: world
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <l90881INNmtb@spim.mips.com> mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

->1) The federal debt grew at an alarming rate, although the year-to-year
->deficit varied.  2) Selected, protected individuals benefited greatdly,
->skewing the "economic growth" figures.  3) What growth there was occured
->at the expense of basic structure, the absence of which led to the 
->problems beginning during the BUSH presidency.  The problem with Bush
->is that he didn't see it coming.

 When Reagan left office the federal deficit was falling as a percentage
of GNP. Give us an example of what a selected, protected individual look-
ed like. Give us an example of what a basic structure looks like. I plead
naivity when I read these terms.

->Clinton is proposing a balanced economic agenda that will benefit all
->americans, not just the few that already have a solid position at the 
->beginning of his administration.  There is no question that by following
->the Bush plan we can have even wealthier wealthy at the cost of an 
->even poorer poor, a more militant dis-enfranchised, and a more incompetant
->world economic factor.  I think we call that a 3rd world country.

 Even Democrats admit that Clintons plan only generates at best 80 percent
of the revenues required to cover his spending proposals. This is not a
balanced economic agenda. Sounds like you are guilty of stimulating class
warfare. A common democratic dirty trick.
 
->A cost-benefit analysis needs to be done on putting cyanide in breakfast
->cereal.  Having regulations against it may cost more than the lives
->that are saved are worth.
->The environment is very similar to the cold war.  As the story goes,
->the American President and the Russion Premier are standing in a 
->basement filled with gasoline up to the waists.  One has 100 matches,
->the other has 200 matches.  Who is winning?

 If memory serves me right, Senator Gore has stated that he wants to
replace the Cold War with an Eco War. The only problem is that while
he admits that the world wants free markets in his book "Earth in the 
Balance", he dosent seem to know why we want them or why the free 
markets run more efficient then the best statist planner. Who is going
to be the enemy in Senator Gore's Eco War ? The statist, anti-freedom
communists where the enemy during the cold war.
 Why arent the militant environmentalists concerned about making a 
mistake or doing the wrong thing due to lack of verifing research ?
A mistake could cost us more then doing nothing. 

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:53:50 GMT

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>>Who have you heard say Rush is a balanced perspective?

>>    Rush.

>OK, all you dittoheads out there can correct me, but I have heard Rush
>say several times that he doesn't even *try* to give a balanced
>perspective.  He has said that his show is a balancing force in the
>media.  Meaning to me that he is not trying to be objective, but instead
>giving the viewpoint that is missing from the rest of the media.

    Well, I have heard Rush say numerous times that his program does not 
require "equal time". Maybe we are having a semantic disagreement over 
whether Rush claims that his program is internally balanced or whether he 
claims that his program somehow balances the preponderance of liberalism 
in the mainstream media. The latter claim would be difficult to believe, 
although it wouldn't be out-of-character if that's what Rush is trying to 
say.

    I would agree with you 100% that Rush does *not* try to be objective, 
however I'm not sure whether that helps when it comes to determining the
value of the information conveyed by Rush's program.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: There he goes again..
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:50:30 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <Phil_Warburton.0ank@grace.UUCP> Phil_Warburton@grace.UUCP (Phil Warburton) writes:
>Well, it looks like Bush is going to start a war for votes.. The
>Republicans are sure losers this time around.. But it won't work this
>time.. Well, as they say, you can't win 'em all.. 

Regardless of the final outcome, standing up for your values does not make
one a loser in a very real sense (i.e. I am beaten, but not defeated).
I am very suspicious of Clinton's values because of the way he has tiptoed
around difficult questions in the past (Flowers, the Draft, Smokin' dope,
the Gulf War).
>
>Of course, It has been said that the Republican Party [wants] bush to lose,
>so when clinton ruins the country, they can come in and win a landslide
>victory. Of course, neither will happen.. Clinton will do a better job than
>Bush.. And the Republicans will lose election after election, until after 8
>successful terms of Democratic presidents, the Republican party will
>gradually dissolve.. 
>Conservative? Me? I'm not OLD enough!
>
I've heard of this attitude (wanting Bush to lose) and I lump it together
with those people who protest by not voting - both useless and ineffective.
There is indeed a chance that Clinton could do a better job than Bush, but
intellectually I cannot believe it.  Taxes and surtaxes are on his agenda
and I am unable to understand how taking more money out of the economy will
help ( I don't believe that the Government is the source of real jobs ).

>There is no such thing as a conservative.. They are all old farts.. The
>only reason Conservatives even exist is because Old rich people think
>that's just the way things are, old rich people are conservatives.. My
>grandfather is a registered conservative, and he is Pro-choice, and he can
>program the timer on his VCR (amazing, George bush is fascinated with the
>cash register). He is a conservative solely because "I'm old, and Old
>people are conservatives".

Churchill said, "He who is not a liberal when young has no heart.  He who
is not a conservative when old has no brain".  Hopefully, if you live 
long enough, your brain will show up.

PS.  The Founders were modern "conservatives" (liberals in their time) 
     because they believed in _limited_ government.  Modern "liberals"
     believe in beeeeg government and the dependency of the people 
     thereon.  

PPS. Hey, I'm young and a conservative.  I'm also Pro-choice - but only 
     to a certain point.  I believe in the right but I also believe in
     the responsibility associated with the act which caused the pregnancy.
     To believe in rights without responsibilities is basically immature.


Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: crisp@netcom.com (Richard Crisp)
Subject: Re: the Keating 5
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 06:19:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug13.185412.22319@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.162811.12863@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>> In article <mykes.0ca9@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>> 
>> >Remember the Keating 5?  Where's all the unbiased news coverage of those
>> >guys?  Note - they are still in office.  S&L, my butt :)
>> 
>> 	I was under the impression that Alan Cranston was either going
>> to retire or was really fighting for his seat because of Keating stuff.
>> Any Californians want to comment?
>
>  Cranston is out (as is Wilson, incidentally). He claims that it
>was prostate cancer which made him decide not to run, not the 
>Keating 5 thing. Barbara Boxer, Bruce Hershensohn and June Genis
>are all vying for the incumbentless seat.
>
Yeah, and Barbara Boxer (a hard core liberal) was nearly at the top
of the check kiting scandal as I recall. What's more, she had some really
trite excuse like "she was new on the hill and everyone did it, so she did too"
Poor Barbara, I guess Lt. Calley's men tried the same excuse and bound up in 
the pen!

-- 
Richard Crisp           Cupertino, Ca.           crisp@netcom.com
(415) 903-3832 wk     "No more new laws"       (408) 253 4541 fax

We have entirely too much complexity in our laws, codes, and regulations.
Even the IRS cannot understand their own regulations. I propose that we
pass a constitutional amendment that requires two laws to be eliminated
for every new one that is passed. Ok guys, pass all the ones you want, 
but you better pick them carefully.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3536 alt.activism.d:2667
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Abortion label on McNeill-Lehrer Re: Media Bias
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:35:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

To put this on the record, McNeil-Lehrer's graphic concerning the
abortion debate at the RNC Platform Committee yesterday had two signs:
pro-choice and anti-abortion. Maybe there is hope after all. :)

-- 
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!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Funny quote just heard on Rush
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:30:39 GMT

schubert@capri.berkeley.edu (John Schubert) writes:

>I just heard on today's program the following:

>Rush said that he saw a funny sign on the floor of the Convention last night:

>	Woody Allen: Bill Clinton's family values advisor

>Perhaps some other posters can dig up an equally funny sign from last months
>Democratic Convention...

My absolute favorite was the giant "e".  Really brought the point home...


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: yholbroo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Yash Holbrook)
Subject: Time IS a Conservative Mouthpiece
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 21:45:33 GMT

[Note, I have been unable to post an original posting, due to 
user ignorance <<mine, jof course.  The only way I could 
figure out to get this into the thread was to reply to 
a posting.  Anyway, it continues the thread about media bias-yh]

>From a review in the Book World section of the Wash. Post National
Weekly Edition, Aug 17-23, p. 35, by Jonathan Yardley.  The 
book he reviewed was _Marching in Place, the Status Quo
Presidency of George Bush_, written by Michael Duffy and Dan
Goodgame, two White House correspondents for Time magazine.
 
After saying that GB the guy is an amiable guy, difficult NOT to like,
they blast him to pieces on his vacillation and cowardice.  But
just as interesting as the review itself are Yardley's comments
on the political leaning of Time magazine.  Speaking of the 
harsh critiques levelled by the two authors, Yardley writes:

"These are the jugments not of Democratic partisans, but of
correspondents for Tim, a magazine that over the years has often
been identified with precisely the same establishmentarian, Ivy
League Republicanism with which bush himslef is most 
comfortable..."

There you have a source to prove that Time is a conservative mouthpiece.
Prove may not be the right word, but in the face of some of your
derisive rebuttals to the contrary, this quote seems to 
substantiate the claim that Time truly IS a conservative 
publication.

-Yash
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:02:49 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network


Okay, how's this for bias (you can call it liberal bias or anti-Republican
bias, it's the same thing).

Tonight, Graham gave the keynote address.  CBS and NBC ran commercials during
the first few minutes of his speech.  CNN tried to interview Kemp during the
speech (Kemp wouldn't hear of it). NBC quit five minutes before the speech was
over.   Did they do this to Mario?

After building up Bush using an attack in Iraq to boost his ratings, there
wasn't an attack.  Did they say they were wrong?  Nope, they claimed their
reports on it prevented the action!

Can any thinking person watch any of the news networks (except C-Span) and
listen to the bashing and not see the bias?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:27:24 GMT

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

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

>[...]
>>Every poll I have ever seen (including one I posted by the L.A. Times)
>>has put the news media considerably to the left of the American public.
>>Would you like me to repost it or email it to you?
>[...]

>So what do you want quotas? If conservatives are less likely to choose
>media careers, that is their own fault.

Please listen to the debate.  Nobody has made any mention of whether or
not people *should* be in journalism.  The discussion is about whether the
news media is biased to a particular view-point and whether that bias 
influences the news content. 


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502

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