HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 09:06:44 GMT

jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

[...]
>What can we conservatives legitimately ask for.
[...]>
>3. A clear separation of news and commentary.  Editors should enforce
>this and brag about it.  In fact many media claim to have such standards,
>but they are lax in enforcing them.  If all newspapers were as careful
>as the New York Times, things would be a lot better than they are,
>though far from completely unbiased.  I note that Accuracy in Media
>has almost no complaints about the New York Times and many complaints
>about media whose editorial policies are not to the left of the New
>York Times.
[...]

The head of AIM was on the local radio call-in yesterday. He seemed to
criticize the NYT quite a bit. When asked: what about all those
conservative local papers likes ours in Champaign-Urbana? He said that
AIM concentrated on the national media, which for newspapers meant the
Washington Post(?), NYT, the LA Times, and the WSJ. If AIM doesn't
think local papers are a problem, doesn't think the NYT is a problem,
doesn't think the WSJ is a problem (I assume), then is the only
problem with newspapers the LA Times and the Washington Post(?) ? My
impression now is that he doesn't like the NYT because of its
editorials.

I called in and asked if objectivity was even possible of it is was
just a myth. He said it was possible, not just within a story, but
also in the selection of and importance given to stories. I asked him
to elaborate on this second part. He said "It's like pornography, I
know it when I see it" and then a few more examples of unobjective
writing within a story.

I can almost believe that a given story can be written objectivity or
not, but is objectivity even possible in the selection of and
importance given to stories?

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:57:07 GMT

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.

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

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush's TV show & the FAQ
Date: 15 Aug 92 15:12:13 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


As Rush branches out into the television market in September it seems 
inevitible that the FAQ will need to keep a list of all the stations and
times that Rush's show airs.  Since several markets have already begun
advertising the show I thought it might be a good idea to get a head start
on that portion of the FAQ.  If you have information on the airing of Rush's
show in your area please let me know.  I am considering the following one line
format for each entry:

ST  MARKET           CALL    TV/CABLE   AFF   DAY    TIME    DAY    TIME
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC  Raleigh          WRDC    28/12      NBC   M-W    7-8p    F      9-10p

(Note:  the days and times here not correct - this is just an example)

Thanks to all of you who've helped keep the FAQ current!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Atteberry              |  The heart of the wise inclines to the
attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu  |  right, but the heart of the fool to the
D-D-D-Dittos!                |  left.  -Ecclesiastes 10:2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:40:25 GMT

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

>[I]s objectivity even possible in the selection of and
>importance given to stories?

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

>Only if the reporters and editors make a very conscious effort to do so.
[...]

I'm skeptical. Only one story can get the big headline. Only a few
stories can appear on the first page. How should they be selected?

Consider this thought experiment. Suppose that the newspaper had a
table that told it the value (in, say, dollars) of each story for each
reader. Which stories should it select?

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: schubert@capri.berkeley.edu (John Schubert)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: What a speech - Thank You Ronald Reagan!!!!
Date: 18 Aug 1992 06:24:17 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: schubert@united.berkeley.edu (John Schubert)
NNTP-Posting-Host: capri.berkeley.edu

Hello,

I imagine that the text of last nights speeches might be printed in some
newspaper, but I just wanted to check something out with you.

I thought one of Reagan's funnier "jabs" at the Democratic Nominee was the
following:

	When we see all of that rhetorical smoke billowing out from the
	Democrats take the advice of their Nominee:  Don't Inhale!!

Is this the correct wording of His quote???

I'm asking because when I make up some t-shirts with this quote on the
front, so I can wear them around UC Berkeley, I wouldn't want to be accused
of a misquote or some spelling error (you know, like adding an extra "e"
on the end of some word.  Heaven forbid-e!!!)

Thank you-e,

-John Schubert
schubert@united.berkeley.edu
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: the Keating 5
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:52:10 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

No, the Keating scandal broke *long* before Cranston had his cancer.

It took the Senate that long to get around to their *own* investigation.
(Since they exempt themselves from the Special Prosecutor law.....)

Cranston didn't get more blame because he was retiring anyway.  He took
the lion's share of the money (like more than all the other 4 combined)
and had his son set up as the head of one of the receiving organizations.
He got more of the blame because he deserved it.  Not enough of the blame 
though.  All should have been censured and expelled from the Senate.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3857 alt.news-media:909
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 22 Aug 92 23:21:11 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Aug21.142913.10969@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>Only if the reporters and editors make a very conscious effort to do so.
>If it isn't in the forefront of their thinking at all times, human
>nature will take over and their own (well documented) biases will make
>themsleves obvious.

Right on, Chip.  Unfortunately, the major media is lazy.  They don't make the
effort.

Not only do they make no effort to control their own bias, they go out of their
way to CREATE their own news.  I'm talking polls here, folks.  The job of the
media is to REPORT the news, dispassionately, accurately.  Rush and Paul 
Harvey both inject opinion in their reporting, and both label it news AND
commentary.

*****************************************************************************
*  Bill Green, Minot, North Dakota   *    Forget the "Brad", it's really    *
*  Internet green@plains.NoDak.Edu   *                Bill                  *
*     Cleveland Freenet ak385        *   We put the wheat in your wheaties  *
*****************************************************************************
* Researching: BROWN (1579-1905 Eng/Ma/Ks)   HOWLAND (1600?-1687 Eng/Ma)    *
*  WILSON (1917-1978 Il)     COOK ( 1875-1950 Ks)   STANLEY (1870-1950 Ks)  *
*  LAMB (1870-1950 Ks)       SMITH (1855 Ia)        WILMARTH ( 1730 Ma)     *
*     KOTCHIAN, KOHOUTEK, MARSCHALL, ANHORN (All Eastern Europe-ND)         *
*****************************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:19:24 GMT

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>It may be an established fact in your world, where the Rush Limbaugh Show
>>is a balance perspective, but out here there are quite a number of people
>>who believe that the media is pro-government and pro-business.

>Who have you heard say Rush is a balanced perspective?

    Rush.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: The PC Catechism of Clintonomics
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Aug18.130526.10449@afit.af.mil>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:23:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.130526.10449@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
   In alt.rush-limbaugh you write:

   >"unfair"? (Answer: because Republicans feel they should be exempt from
   >taxes.)

   You know for a smart mathematician or computer scientist, you are pretty
   quick to stick your foot in your mouth.  You look smart and reasonable
   for a while arguing the facts (as you see them), but when stuff like this
   shows up in your post, you lose all credibility.  Think about it.

Well, feller, you oughtn't to get your back up too high. Declarations
about Republicans and taxes might not be legitimate arguments. But they 
won't hold a candle to most of the genuine horse dung posted here by the 
rabid Dittoheads. 

Honest debates about real issues may be found somewhere else, but seldom in
alt.rush. and virtually never on Radio Rush.

   P.S. I'd on most occasions be happy to argue a controversial point, but
   this isn't even a point.  I don't debate stupidity--it's a waste of
   time.

I suspect you'll not want to waste your time.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Revered, now I live on. O did I do no evil, I wonder ever.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:08:58 GMT

dash@skyy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (O.P.P) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.134016.1153@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>|> mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary) writes:
>|> 
>|> >>Irish-Catholic governor of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, asked to say a
>|> >>few words, on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since
>|> >                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> >                                        no such thing
>|> 
>|> Care to debate whether or not a baby one hour before birth is a "child"?

>Sure.  Since the line said "25 million unborn children destroyed", I guess
>you know of several abortion clinics that perform abortions "1 hour before
>birth."

I am really getting tired of people who can't seem to stick to a subject
and debate reasonably about same.  

Your quote is above.  "There is no such thing as unborn children."
I pointed out what I believe to be a fallacy in that statement and would
be happy to elaborate if you want to debate it.  To come back to me with,
"I guess you know of several abortion clinics that perform abortions 1 hour
before birth." is no less than changing the subject.  It is not even
remotely close to what I asked you.  It is the tactic of someone who
knows they cannot defend what they said.  

Just for the record, although it should go without saying, I never even
hinted that I believe abortions are done that late.


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

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3609 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4471 talk.politics.misc:39592 alt.politics.bush:1513 alt.politics.clinton:1901 alt.politics.elections:10541
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: the Keating 5
Date: 14 Aug 1992 06:41:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tornado.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug13.162811.12863@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:


>	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 not running for re-election. Barbara Boxer and
Bruce Herschensohn are slugging it out to succeed him.
Last I saw Boxer was about 18 pts ahead.

I believe the 1 Repub in the Keating 5 (McCain) has a tough
fight but is facored. The others, I dunno.
From: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Buffum)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:13:21 GMT
Organization: Just Some Guy

In article <19780@plains.NoDak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>
>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?

	WARNING!  THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE AN IRON-CLAD LOGICAL ARGUMENT!

	Rather, it is a short observation about public speaking and the
role of television in the political arena.

	Phil Gramm's speech was one of the worst examples of public speaking
I have ever seen.  His delivery was wooden, his material (admittedly, I
could not suffer through the entire mess) was lame, mean-spirited, and
petty, and his facial expression was actually more unpleasant than usual.
His narrowed eyes, grotesque sneer, and monotonous droning of useless
material all added up to one of the most harrowing forensic experiences
since the press hounded a poor, exhausted George Schulz after Reykjavik
and made the poor man seem incoherent.

	I'm not excusing the networks' decisions.  Commercials have to air,
and some people get paid a lot of money to decide when; I don't, so I
can complain about it, but not much more.  Interviewing Kemp DURING THE
SPEECH sounds like a real boneheaded play to me, also.  But I'll tell ya,
I didn't notice that NBC had cut Gramm off early.  I'd cut him off long
before.  To reiterate: Gramm's speech was PHYSICALLY PAINFUL to watch.
The American Public (God Bless 'em!) deserves to be spared.

	Insert smileys where appropriate.  Using more than 2 would be
ill-advised, however.

--
Steve Buffum           | "Jane!  Stop this crazy thing!" -- G. Jetson
swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Vileness in Amerikkka--Anarchists are Democrats
Date: 18 Aug 92 00:05:29 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood


  Take note. Your Organization Line contains a spelling mistake.

   Enviornmental Concern Institute should be

      Environmental Concern Institute.

 Im sure you dont want to damage your institutions reputation.
 Or was that part of a joke ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush in Amerikkka.
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:13:31 GMT

comegys@eci.bbb.cal(Fred Comegys) (Fred Comegys) writes:
>The Fascist regime of Amerikkka Capitialists pigs will not stop until they
>have established a world company state.  Rush Limbaugh,  who is nothing
>more then the arrogant  payed point man for commericalism,  is an evil
>symbol of white male domination.

    Looks like somebody's trying to usurp my comedic license.

>Make no mistake,  Rush is a worshipper of death and destruction.  The fat
>big,  all 320 pounds of him--a Georing for our modern age,  delights in the
>sounds of animals being butchered.  He referes to Amerikka's most powerful
>female as a Navi and a bitch.

    I can't ever recall Rush referring to Barb Bush as a "Navi" (and if 
there's a woman in America- sorry, Amerikkka- with more influence over 
George than she does I'm sure she'd like to know who).

>Dittoheads,  better called unthinking fascists,  are the enemy--and if they
>think that they can engage in such hatred without consequence they will
>learn that they are wrong to late.

    Darned tootin'. Those evil dittoheads.

>Blacks, wymmyn, Gays and radicals will defend themselves.

    You forgot environmentalist wackos and animal rights activists. And 
you call yourself a revolutionary...

>===================================
>THE ONLY SOLUTION--A REVOLUTION

>Anarchy

    Thanks. Great post. You have shown me that I really need to work on 
my humor-via-gross-exaggeration skills.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 21 Aug 92 03:33:32 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Aug20.162724.2478@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>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. 
	Exactly.  And so far evidence of that influence is what hasn't been
presented.  So far all we've seen are claims that reporters (but not, we may
note, the people who own the firms for which they work) tend to be more
politically liberal than the population as a whole.  The (unsupported)
presumption is that they will therefore deliberately bias news reporting to
support their political views.
	Carl Edman has even gone so far as to suggest that *all* news from
"mainstream" media should be discounted.  Whether this should include *all*
reportage or only that which is unflattering to rightists he has not said.
	"Media bias", of course, is usually the first defense of the scoundrel
caught in the act these days.  One hears it from the left and the right,
despite what the "All reporters are pinkos" crowd has ben claiming.
>
>
>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
>
		Your .sig is more valid than you may realize.
Chuck



--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:54:50 GMT

While reading article <1992Aug18.230036.759@pony.Ingres.COM>, I noticed that
rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner) said the following:
 >There is certainly a bias in the 'news media' and it isn't a 'liberal'
 >bias.  Millions of high school students are encouraged to refer to the
 >bibles of popular media (t*me,n**wsw**k), which are so far right wing
 >it's not even funny  (not to mention popular television, that propaganda
 >instrument of the consumerist society).

Time?  Conservative?  The same Time magazine that said the
environment was so important that it was no longer going to be objective on
the issue?

Newsweek? Perhaps a millimeter or two to the right of Time, but conservative?

By these standards, I guess Michael Kinsley is a Republican, too.
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3834 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4742
From: schubert@capri.berkeley.edu (John Schubert)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clinton commuted life sentences for murderers???
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:33:00 GMT
Reply-To: schubert@capri.berkeley.edu.UUCP (John Schubert)
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: capri.berkeley.edu


I was just reading todays (Friday 21 August) Wall Street Journal.  On page
A10 in Paul Gigot's "Potomac Watch" column I read the following direct quote:

	One private GOP survey showed at least 10 issues that would
	make voters less likely to vote for Mr. Clinton.

	The biggest mover was Mr. Clinton's commutation of life
	sentences for murderers after he vowed he wouldn't.

----------end quote


Has anyone heard about this before?  I have heard that Clinton is for the
death penalty, but I don't know if that has anything to do with this quote...

-John

John Schubert
schubert@united.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh