HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Media Bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:31:55 GMT

I think our newsfeed problems are gone, so I'm going to repost a couple
of items that didn't make it out.


The following information is from the Media Research Center[1], a conservative
organization trying to prove many of the things I have been saying.  Please
don't automatically reject the information simply because it's from a right-
wing group.  That doesn't make the information any less correct--just a little 
more suspect.  I certainly do not discount everything I hear on the evening news
or in my local newspaper simply because I believe the media is generally 
liberal.  Besides this information is amazingly easy to confirm since it is
all in the public domain (and I have not heard the media ever dispute it...)

During four months in 1988 (during the presidential race and after the 
Supreme Court agreed to hear a controversial abortion case), the MRC reviewed
all stories that discussed abortion aired on NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN primetime
news shows.  

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.  

Just one example.  It happens over the entire spectrum of conservative vs.
liberal news stories.  Perhaps the biggest injustice done by the media is in
constantly labeling conservative ideas or people as "right-wing", or "arch-
conservative", or some other warning to the public to watch out for the 
following idea.  They rarely use anything but the self-chosen name in reporting
on liberal ideas or people.  When was the last time you heard Ted Kennedy 
called a "radical liberal", or "left-wing" (by the media)?


[1] _And That's The Way It Isn't, A Refference Guide To Media Bias_, MRC, 1990


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
                        


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3828 alt.activism.d:2755
From: fkilpatr@afit.af.mil (Freeman A. Kilpatrick)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 20:48:59 GMT

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.  


>Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
>                        

Now that makes me wonder what the media used as a label for the 'pro-choice' people
the other 3 percent of the time...

Pro-death?
Anti-life?
Pro-abortion?
Anti-anti-abortionists?
Anti-pro-lifers?


Hmmmm.....
-- 
Alex Kilpatrick  fkilpatr@afit.af.mil  
"Where the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1 1/2 tons." 
---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3668 alt.politics.clinton:2030 alt.politics.bush:1744
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: California Senate races  (was Re: the Keating 5)
Date: 16 Aug 1992 16:00:14 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.berkeley.edu

In article <36875@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator) writes:

>Has Herschensohn actually said he wants *more* defense spending?  As I
>understand it, he just wants to keep the levels the same.  He opposes
>the radical cuts proposed by the more "dovish" Dems.

Yes he has said that.

>Most of Herschensohn's views are compatible with the suburban voters
>he's counting on to put him over the top, particularly Orange and San
>Diego Counties, as well as the Inland Empire.  This is how he won the
>primary, and this is how he hopes to win the general election.

Like abortion? Ooops. Maybe that's why Boxer is still running ahead of
Herschensohn in Orange County itself -- where he needs at least 60% to
balance how far back he will run in SF, LA, East Bay, and the Coast.

>I
>consider Herschensohn the second-best candidate of all the Republicans
>running (for either seat) in the primary.  Media-unknown Bill Allen
>(eek!  another black conservative) was tops.

If Allen had his way, Herschensohn wouldn't even be eligible for office.
According to his opponents, Allen ran on a platform to make America
Christian, including a prohibition of non-Christian office holders.
Alas, with Allen running in single-digits, I didnn't bother to get the
source.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:10:06 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <1992Aug20.151048.27671@m.cs.uiuc.edu> 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.
>
>- Carl
>--
>Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Or maybe conservatives get converted into liberals with day-in, day-out
exposure to the facts! :)  :)  :)

Carl's question is a good one.  Assuming that the opinions and attitudes
of the media are somewhat to the left of the population, which I am
willing to grant, why?

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3853 alt.news-media:907 alt.politics.bush:2523 talk.politics.misc:41303 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4756 alt.fan.dan-quayle:2857 alt.politics.elections:11297 alt.politics.clinton:2600
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: If Quayle only knew: another Dan screws up!
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:02:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Recently it has been pointed out that Dan Quayle had said in an
interview that he, Kemp, Buchanan et al. was getting ready for the 1994
Presidential Election. Of course, the next election after this one is in
1996. But it seems, Dan wasn't the only man to trip up on his history.

According to Tom Shales, the Washington _Post_ article on Th Aug 20 92,
Shales writes about a little mistake:

"... In the confusion of a late signoff [Tuesday night], CBS' [Dan]
Rather talked himself into befuddlement. He told viewers <<my edit>>:

	Make no mistakes. The Republicans believe that this remains
Ronald Reagan's election to lose, that he can lose it, yes he may lose
it, but it's Ronald Reagan's election to lose even now.

... The next night Dan tried to rewrite history:
	I'm on record as saying it's George Bush's election to lose."
-- 
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.politics.clinton
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: The PC Catechism of Clintonomics
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:05:26 GMT


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.

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.


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
From: dash@skyy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (O.P.P)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh
Reply-To: dash@skyy.b17d.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:43:48 GMT

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."

                                O.P.P
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Reagan's full speech
Keywords: Reagan Republican Convention speech
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:03:15 GMT
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <37041@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator) writes:
>%
>%  REAGAN92.TeX
>%

>\def\parskip=6pt

>%  Speech by Ronald Reagan to the 1992 Republican Convention,
>%   Astrodome, Houston, 17 August 1992

>%  Typeset by Roderick N. Lee, 19 August 1992

Oops, this line should be \parskip *not* \def\parskip.  The
unnecessary \def cuts off all text before finding a close brace.

Agitator
  #->

"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider
--------------- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------\\ //------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?           \X/  Only AMIGA!
========================================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ==
Roderick Lee, HMC '91      "The Professional Agitator"      agitator@ucsd.edu
From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: The PC Catechism of Clintonomics
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:05:08 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <4618@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> [Richard Rahn is president of Novecon, an adjunct scholar at the Cato
> Institute and former chief economist of the US Chamber of Commerce.
> Theodore Suranyi-Unger, Jr., is an economist and senior advisor at
> Novecon. This editorial is taken from the Washington _Times_ from Fri
> Aug 14 1992.]
> 
> THE PC CATECHISM OF CLINTONOMICS
> 
> We are told that Gov. Bill Clinton is a very bright fellow. If you were
> given the following facts, how would you respond?
> 	Fact #1: From 1983-1989, federal spending and taxing fell as a
> percentage of GNP, and the growth in government regulation slowed down.
> During that same period, the US experienced record peace time economic
> growth, the federal deficit fell in real terms,  and a record high
> percentage of the adult population had jobs at record high real wages.
> 	Fact #2: From 1990-1992, federal taxing and spending grew
> rapidly as a percentage of GNP and the growth in regulation sharply
> increased. During that same period the economy was stagnant, the deficit
> grew rapidly in real terms, and no new jobs were created.

As someone else has pointed out, these facts are constructed so as
to confuse the derivative of a function with the function itself.
Let's look at the deficit *numbers* for the first fact:

	1981	 ~50 billion	(Carter's last budget)
	1982	~100		(Reagan's first)
	1983	~200		
	  .
	  .
	  .
	1989	~160
So, yes, the deficit went down from '82-89, but it went down from
4X Carter's worst to a little over 3X carter's worst. How good is
this? Does it sound like success to you? It sounds like "borrow &
spend" to me!

As for "fact #2" the debt has *ALWAYS* been growing rapidly in
real terms, ever since we elected Reagan. Now bush has made the
second derivative positive too, but remember: the debt has *always*
been growing in real terms, and much faster than under Carter.

					- Lee Campbell
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3773 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4688
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:48:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: schubert@capri.berkeley.edu (John Schubert)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Info on Dan Quayle's camera coverage during Buchanan's speech
Date: 21 Aug 1992 17:17:48 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: schubert@united.berkeley.edu (John Schubert)
NNTP-Posting-Host: capri.berkeley.edu

For the last few days there has been some debate about whether the camera
focusing on Dan Quayle when Pat Buchanan talked about Clinton's draft
dodging was intentional or not.  To be honest I can't remember how the
debate went on here in the group.  But whatever conclusion you people came
to I saw an interesting story in today's NY Times that might interest you.

On page A7 of the Friday 21 August issue in "A Vice President Who Has Been
Tested" by Kevin Sack it states:

	Patrick J. Buchanan was about to deliver his most memorable
	zinger, the line about how Gov. Bill Clinton "sat up in a
	dormatory in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge
	the draft."  An impish producer at NBC News, who had an
	advance text of Mr. Buchanan's Monday night speech to the
	Republican convention ordered the cameras trained on
	Vice President Dan Quayle.

	As the Astrodome crowd erupted in cheers, Mr. Quayle sat
	stiff and expressionless, his eyes shifting self-consciously
	to the left and then to the right.  The camera lingered.
	Mr. Qualye, whose own candidacy was bombarded by questions
	about the draft four years earlier, did not smile.



-John

John Schubert
schubert@united.berkeley.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3620 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4494 talk.politics.misc:39708 alt.politics.bush:1577 alt.politics.clinton:1931 alt.politics.elections:10578
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
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 92 17:21:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

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 :)

Actually it should be the "Keating Three".  Two (McCain and Glenn)
were exonerated, leaving Alan Cranston (D-Ca), Don Riegle (D-Mich),
and Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz).

CW says that the recession was partly caused by the S&L crisis, but
the only scapegoat out there seems to be Bush's son.  Where is the
self-righteousness against these three?  We certainly still see it
against Weinberger and Iran/contra.

As for Cranston, he is resigning for "health" reasons.  The "real
reason" is probably because the Dems knew they couldn't hold the seat
with Cranston in it, but figured they would have a greater chance with
Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy against any random GOP "unknown".  No prominent
GOP personality, like Dornan or Peter Ueberroth, signaled their
interest in the seat, so McCarthy was considered a "lock".

Of course, now Barbara "Bouncer" won the nomination over McCarthy, and
she is being portrayed as the "outsider," just because she is a woman.
What a joke  (see .sig).

Agitator
  #->

"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider
--------------- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------\\ //------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?           \X/  Only AMIGA!
========================================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ==
Roderick Lee, HMC '91      "The Professional Agitator"      agitator@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Summary Aug 6, 1992
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:21:55 GMT

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>>Yes, Quayle is the current vice president and will likely run for it
>>again, and yes the vice-president is not the CiC, BUT he is but ONE
>>heartbeat away from being CiC, so that argument for looking at Clinton
>>while not looking at Quayle is moot.
>
>Right, Quayle is superior to Clinton!

Huh? Just how the heck do you come up with THAT interpetation of what
I said?

>But Quayle served somewhere.

SO WHAT?!??!!?

[regarding Bush's so-called "war record"]

>What a puny point!  I'm certain you are aware of his record but your
>lack of respect for it alone displays that your judgement is clouded
>by your political opposition to the man. 

I have no lack of respect for Bush's war record, why should you think so?
You jump to conclusions! I admire Bush for his war record. On the other hand,
I feel that one's war record (or lack thereof) is a useless metric for judging
one for their qualifications for president or their level of patriotism.

>>But seriously, what the hell difference does one's military record
>>or lack thereof make? Not a thing.
>>
>You can't be serious.  What difference, then, does _anything_ _anyone_
>does make?  What people do and say is the best measure of their character.
>Your attitude is not surprising since those to the left of center typically
>believe in rights without responsibilities and thus place little value
>in a persons actions as a measure of their character.

I am most certainly serious. One's service or lack of military service has
absolutely nothing to do with said person's capabilities to be president.
How many Americans are veterans of the military? Less than 20%? Why
make the remaining 80% immediately unqualified for the office of the
presidency merely due to their military service status? Why make the 20%
who are veterans somehow more qualified?

I think you have closet anti-opinions of Clinton due to his opposition
feelings of the Vietnam war, which MANY, MANY people also had in the
1960s and 1970s (including me). Why immediately mark those people as
unqualified to be president? Was our country not founded on the principle
of free speech and individual opinion?

btw, I am a Vietnam-era Veteran with an Honorable Discharge and DAMN proud
of it!

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Aug19.010825.16749@afit.af.mil>
	<1992Aug19.235041.24611@techbook.com>
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:13:54

Liberal media bias and corporate media ownership are both well
documented.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

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: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:29:13 GMT

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

>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?

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.


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.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: the Keating 5
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:28:11 GMT

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?

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

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services