HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: unregistered@newcastle.ac.uk (Scott A. McIntyre)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Absentee Voting
Date: 15 Sep 92 09:54:57 GMT
Reply-To: S.A.McIntyre@durham.ac.uk
Organization: Synapse Computer Consultants
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

I want to make sure I can vote in the upcoming election, but I have
moved to the UK and have no idea how to make sure I can vote by
absentee ballot...if anyone knows who to contact ( I was last
regisetered to vote in California, Santa Cruz to be precise)
then I would appreciate their help.

Thanks,
Scott
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:58:55 GMT

sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.131800.26507@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>>1. Now Dan Quayle brings up the spelling thing every time he gives a speech.
>>   I guess he's decided that the poor-speller constituency is worth
>>   pursuing.

>Not me!  I couldn't spell at all until I discovered the backspace key,
>but I expect my publicly elected officials to have greater skills 
>than I do, not less.

Boy are you in for a big let-down.  What are you going to do when
Clinton and Gore make their first spelling errors?

>BTW, I deleted the distribution to the "rush.limbaugh" net
>for this thread.  

And I put it back in...  call me reckless.

I hate having to chastise somebody from my own alma-mater.  By the way
is Dr. Treadgold still there in the History Dept?  Now there is a great
conservative thinker, in the greatest tradition of an educator.  He used
to invite students to have coffee with him after class and we'd spend
hours discussing current events.  I learned more from those discussions
than any class I've ever taken.  

Long live the once and future National Champions of Collegiate Football.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Subject: Re: The Perot Phenomenon?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Distribution: alt
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 15:14:00 GMT

In article <DAVE.92Sep4175307@pipi.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, dave@pipi.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp (David Wuertele) writes...
>Were there any threads (that might be archived) about how the media
>created the Perot phenomenon?


If you believe that the media created the Perot phenomenon, you
would have to concede also that the media are pretty much creating
the rest of the campaign pheomena.
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: My challenge to Chip
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:35:43 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

sleator@CS.CMU.EDU (Daniel Sleator) writes:

>The reason that I asked you to point out more examples of what you
>understand what you're talking about.  You say I'm probably not seeing
>consider liberal bias is because I don't see it, and I want to
>it because I "agree" with the bias.  Maybe you're right, but I need
>some examples.  I selected the NY Times because it's a paper I have
>access to, so I can read the stories myself.  (Your previous example
>came from a local paper in Texas.)  The reason I suggested a
>particular day is to limit the amount of work that you'd have to do,
>and to let the readers gauge the magnitude of the bias.

>I don't think my request was unreasonable given the strength of your
>convictions.  Of course your thesis work is more important than this.
>But it's also more important than posting on these newsgroups!

Well, I seem to be able to squeeze most of my net time in while my
program is compiling, but thanks for the concern.  What I said was,
I'd read the books that Steve listed for me when I had more time.

I'm sure the NYT has it's share of liberally biased articles in it, but
I'm not going to scour it for your benefit.  What I said earlier was,
if you didn't think the last article I posted was biased, trying to
convince you of *any* bias is hopeless.  It was about as bad as it gets,
as far as I'm concerned but many people didn't see it.  I'm not going
to lose any sleep over it.  Many people agreed that it was biased, and
some probably even had their eyes opened a tad.  Life goes on.  You
will most likely argue that none of my examples are biased and that's
your perception.  I will most likely continue to post articles as I
come across glaring examples.  Please do the same if you happen to see
some of the conservative bias you see--I'd like to see examples myself.
I might even have my eyes opened a tad...

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1330 misc.headlines:6341
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: What is "widespread attention"?
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:55:38 GMT
Followup-To: alt.news-media,misc.headlines
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <15SEP199207502158@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
>>>I remember the story being on all the major TV networks after if happened.  It 
>Also, I'm glad at least somebody watches all the networks 
>simultaneously.

You are misunderstanding English phrases again.  "on all the major TV networks"
does not mean it was on all the major networks for a fraction of a second and
simultaneously.  For instance, if he watched different news programs on
different days, and the story was shown during more than one news hour, it
would be possible to see it on all the major news networks.  (For that matter,
I tend to change channels at commercials.  I really do see stories show up on
more than one network at a time.)

To think that a story "on all the major networks" must be shown only once and
for a short enough period that nobody can switch channels, is about as silly
as equating the phrase "widespread attention" to "widespread _newspaper_
attention"....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,misc.headlines,misc.legal
From: dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard)
Subject: Re: What is "widespread attention"?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:39:44 GMT

I remember the story being on all the major TV networks after if happened.  It 
was also in the Phila. Inquirer.
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:36:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.020744.7682@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>pn> Peter Nelson
>gs> Gary Strand
>
>gs> I'm getting rather tired of this "the market did it" view, since (A) TV is
>gs> not protected by the 1st amendment; (B) the FCC regulates TV and radio, for
>gs> content, frequency, signal strength, location, and a bunch of other stuff;
>gs> and (C) the collusion between the media and government, so well-documented
>gs> by Harel and others, brings grave doubts to the "The media operates in a 
>gs> free market" point of view. The market is sufficiently distorted and con-
>gs> trolled that to call it "free" is doublespeak.
>
>pn> I don't see how the above is relevant to my point.  The broadcast media is
>pn> powerful because people CHOOSE to watch it, thus giving it that power.
>
>  Actually, television exists to sell the audience to the advertisers, not the
>  other way 'round. The reason it's powerful is because the advertisers are
>  willing to pay for it, not that there's necessarily a big audience.
>

Oh, so the advertisers only *think* that there's a big audience? You're
suggesting that billions of advertising dollars are spent in the *hope*
that millions of people will be watching?

Please, give me a break! The viewership numbers for every 10-second slice
of prime-time TV are very carefully monitored. The advertisers don't spend
their money on speculation.

>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: "Dan Gillmor" <p00107@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: Detroit Free Press
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:41:39 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

>>>
>>>One of my personal favorite news techniques is where the reporter
>>>finishes a story with, "of course critics would say that ..."  Where the
>>>reporter just inserts his opinion of what he believes a critic would
>>>most likely say.  Is there a more obvious way to insert some personal 
>>>bias into a story?
>>>
>>>--
>>Would you provide us with a specific example of this?
>
>I would be happy to, the next time I see it.  It's so pervasive on
>the nightly news that it shouldn't be too long before I see another
>example.  Of course I don't get to watch the news much lately, so no
>promises...
>
>Are you implying that this doesn't happen, or are you just curious?
>
Ah, we're talking about TV, I gather. You'll almost never find print 
reporters doing this.

I won't defend the technique, by the way -- a reporter should say
who's criticizing, or should say the source requested anonymity
(and explain why the source won't allow his/her name to be used). 
But you're presuming that this is a way for reporters to insert their
own biases into the news; maybe it happens, but the fact is usually 
that there *are* critics -- apart from the media folks -- saying what 
the reporter says they're saying.

Anyway, the next time you hear someone do this, let me know.

Dan Gillmor                                      Internet: p00107@psilink.com
Detroit Free Press                               Compuserve: 73240,334

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
From: streeter@cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter)
Subject: Lippmann and Bias
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:56:58 GMT

Since my suggestion of changing (or at least adding to) the topic being
thrashed to death here has died, let me make another suggestion (that'll be
roundly ignored, no doubt).  Go out and buy (or check out from the
library) a copy of Walter Lippmann's "Public Opinion."  Much of what has
been passing for thought in this discussion has been dealt with many
times before -- most notably by Uncle Walter back in 1922.

The careful reader who checks her or his opinions at the door and
approaches the work with an open mind will soon discover:

--The notion of press objectivity is a straw man set up by critics of
the press.

--Truth is a matter of personal perspective, news is a matter of
source and documentation.  They rarely coincide, and they should not be
expected to.

--It is only the irresponsible who expect newspapers (and, presumably,
other media) to do their thinking for them.

--The "power of the press" is overstated.

--Most criticism of the press says more about the critic than it does
the press.

It's an amazing book, and has held up well over the decades.  There's a
Free Press (a MacMillan Co. division) edition that's all of $12.95.  The
ISBN is 0-02-919130-0 (paper).
-- 
Tom Streeter                                |   streeter@cs.unca.edu
Dept. of Mass Communication                 |   704-251-6227
University of North Carolina at Asheville   |   Opinions expressed here are
Asheville, NC 28804                         |   mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,talk.politics.misc
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Subject: Re: CNN Anchor Admits Pro-Clinton Bias
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 20:08:06 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Dan,

I haven't read Lee and Solomon myself.  Does it really contain anything
new that you can't find in other similar books?  Or would it just be
a repeat of the same type of stuff I've seen elsewhere about conservative
media bias?

steve

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,misc.headlines,misc.legal
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: What is "widespread attention"?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 15:15:08 GMT

In article <12SEP199223131323@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
>The NY Times of Sept. 3 reported that Cameron Kocher, now 13,
>pleaded no contest in the death of a 7-year-old playmate, shot by him
>on March 6, 1989, when he was 9. The story said the case drew
>"widespread attention." I've become curious about this phrase,
>as well as "widely publicized," both of which I've seen the
>Times use before in connection with stories that I hadn't heard
>much about.

This is an odd thing to be curious about.  "Widely publicized" does not mean
that every single individual in the nation heard of it; it only means that it's
_likely_ someone heard of it.  If you read a newspaper often, and see many
uses of that phrase, there will be some you are unfamiliar with--merely by
chance.  It is misleading to then use such stories to imply that the newspaper
habitually misuses "widely publicized"; in fact, you might just have gotten
unlucky in not happening to have heard this particular one.  Unless I know how
many "widely publicized" stories you _did_ hear of, I have no way to tell if
there's really something odd, or if you just deliberately picked the one story
out of thousands where you got unlucky.

"Widely publicized" also does not mean "on newspaper front pages".  For
instance, the incident sounds like one which gun control supporters could use
in propaganda.  If the gun control group is nationwide, such a use could, by
itself, make the case "widely publicized" even if there are few newspaper
articles.  (And your search, as described, would miss any newspaper articles
where people make statements about gun control and refer to the incident.)

The story is also a good one for sound bites, and therefore evening television.
If it had appeared on the CBS Evening News, it surely would be "widely
publicized", but your reference search would not have found it.

>Incidentally, I checked the phone book for the area, and while
>I found listings for each of the family names involved -- Kocher,
>Carr, and Ratti (the Kochers's neighbors), none matched the
>first names of the fathers or mothers of the children involved.

Is this supposed to mean something?  (I hope you are not suggesting these
people don't exist.)
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:52:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.131800.26507@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:
>1. Now Dan Quayle brings up the spelling thing every time he gives a speech.
>   I guess he's decided that the poor-speller constituency is worth
>   pursuing.
Not me!  I couldn't spell at all until I discovered the backspace key,
but I expect my publicly elected officials to have greater skills 
than I do, not less.
>
>2. Dan Quayles primary purpose for the Republican is to appeal to arch-
>   conservatives in the party.  And apparently they love him; rush to
>   his defense, blame the liberal media for his image problems, etc. etc.
>
>   On a good day, Dan Quayle is a complete dunderhead.  On a bad day,
>   someone should get him a CAT scan and look for brain lesions.  Why
>   are conservatives so attracted to him.

You answered your own question.

>3. By the way, being a glutton for punishment, I've been watching
>   Quayle quite a bit on CSPAN.  Anyone else notice he's developed a
>   real penchant for bizarre hand gestures?  He's beginning to look
>   like Madonna in the 'Vogue' video.

Remember in 1988, when it was pointed out to the Bushman that he
had absolutely no hand movement in his speaches?  Maybe Dan-o
is using GB's old gesture coach.

>--

>Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu
>"I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me

BTW, I deleted the distribution to the "rush.limbaugh" net
for this thread.  Whereas I have found many of his intellectual
predecessors (like Joe Pine in the 1960's) to be highly amusing
and occasionally thought provoking, RL seems to do nothing
except (1) call people names, and (2) get his facts wrong.
Humor?  Not!

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky alt.news-media:1154 alt.rush-limbaugh:4371 alt.activism.d:3061
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:58:35 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <wwqntfg.adamsr@netcom.com> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
->	Two points:
->
->	1. The primary question is not whether the reporter DOES make such a
->statement, but whether such a statement is true. Clearly in the example
->given above it IS true. I does not represent bias to provide this factual
->input, it would only represent bias if the _original_ event was reported in
->a manner which was not factual, or if the Reporter used a statement such as
->"Of course critics of the arms race can demonstrate that the Soviet Union
->was already on the way down, and thus claims that the Conservatives had
->anything to do with it are clearly inaccurate." THAT would be a biased
->statement.

 Heres an example out of memory from yesterdays LOCAL news cast on KABC
channel 7 in Los Angeles. They covered the rally for Diane Feinstien and
Barbara Boxer. The rally seemed to be a little smallish. They did not
mention the size of the crowd but gave selected quotes from both candidates.
The reporter finished the story by saying (I paraphrase). Its a sure bet that
due to the economy, the Republican candidates will be fighting an up hill
battle. They had earlier layed the groundwork for this claim by reciting poll
data that they sponsered that mentioned both democratic candidates were lead-
in all polls. No actual poll data was presented though.
 When they covered the Republican rally the crowd appeared a little small for
the event. This fact was trumpeted quite often. They even said that the crowd
was stacked with party loyalists who screamed when given the que. They also
quoted the 2 Republican Senatorial candidates Seymor and Herchinson. No one
mentioned that all crowds were small on this particular Labor Day. Later in
the broadcast this simple fact was verified by helicopter footage of the very
lite freeways.
 Note - KABC tends to be moderate. They were very pro-war like during the
        Gulf War, otherwise individual reporters usually have seperate
        biases.

 The reporters who covered the above stories were obviously biased. Both
 crowds appeared to be small.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
From: "Dan Gillmor" <p00107@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Chip Switzer
Organization: Detroit Free Press
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:31:01 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

> I was a 
>little suprised to read one post, though, that suggested this "bias"
>argument should be taken elsewhere and leave alt.news-media to discuss
>the media.  I happen to think it's a pretty important issue in the
>media. 
>
>-- 
>
>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 

I think you're referring to my posting. Journalists' bias is clearly a 
legitimate topic here; what I suggested moving elsewhere, I recall, was a 
back-and-forth between two non-journalist newsgroup folks about their 
own alleged biases.

Dan Gillmor
Detroit Free Press

Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:19:33 GMT

mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:

>In <1992Sep6.232130.28126@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>>"Dan Gillmor" <p00107@psilink.com> writes:

>>>>
>>>>One of my personal favorite news techniques is where the reporter
>>>>finishes a story with, "of course critics would say that ..."  Where the
>>>>reporter just inserts his opinion of what he believes a critic would
>>>>most likely say.  Is there a more obvious way to insert some personal
>>>>bias into a story?

>>>Would you provide us with a specific example of this?

>>>Dan Gillmor
>>>Detroit Free Press

>>I would be happy to, the next time I see it.  It's so pervasive on
>>the nightly news that it shouldn't be too long before I see another
>>example.  Of course I don't get to watch the news much lately, so no
>>promises...

>>Are you implying that this doesn't happen, or are you just curious?

>I think "Dan Gillmor" is wanting you to prove that when a reporter
>says "insiders say" that he's simply giving his own opinion. Of course
>it happens all the time...but he wants you to back up your assertion,
>not merely prove reporters say that.

>Michael

There is a subtle difference between what I originally said and what it
seems to have evolved into.  I didn't say that whenever a reporter 
says, "insiders say..." that he simply inserts his own opinion (or that
of his bus mates).  I assume that this does take place to a certain 
extent and the burden of proof is not on me to convince anybody that
this happens--it would be very easy for a reporter to give the names
of these "insiders" and thus prove I'm wrong.

What I was pointing out, originally, is that reporters will often end
a piece (esp broadcast news) with, "of course critics would say..."
There is no critic that he is quoting here.  He is just giving the
conventional wisdom of the critics he knows, or assumes, exist.  

Contrived Example:  A reporter is going over the Republican platform
and is giving an objective view of how they contend that the Cold War
has been won by conservatives and that the arms race served its 
purpose, etc.  He might easily close with, "Of course critics of the
arms race would tell you that the Soviet Union was already on the way
down and the Conservatives had nothing to do with it."

This is not necessarily a reporter's attempt to slant the story to the
left.  It is most likely caused by some conviction that the story 
needs to be balanced out.  My points are: 1) If a personal bias is
going to make itself evident in a story, this vehicle is about the 
easiest and most straight-forward way of doing it.  And 2) I see this
happening at the end of stories covering conservative ideas much
more than their opposites.  
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.rush-limbaugh