HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu (Hugh Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:14:53 GMT
Organization: Loyola University Chicago

In <1992Aug18.202358.15204@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>In my continuing attempt to enlighten those of you who refuse to believe
>there is a liberal bias in the news media, let me give an example. 
>[Examples are not given as proof of bias in all other cases.  They are
>submitted to stand alone and to make you aware of what conservatives
>feel is biased reporting]

>Pat Buchannon (sp?) is speaking and gets to the part where he makes a
>"personal attack" on Clinton's draft evasion.  As soon as he started
>into the allegation, the camera is positioned solidly on Vice President
>Quayle--and stays there for the entire duration of the "draft dodger" 
>segment of his speech.  I ask you (if you saw it), was this news
>coverage, or a producer injecting his own opinion into the coverage?

>And please don't say something like, "it was just a coincidence that he
>happened to on camera at that time..."  It was an obvious attempt to 
>draw attention to Quayle's own military record.

    And .... ahem ... folks aren't too comfortable with Dan the Hawk's
glorious war record, are they?  My VFW acquaintances aren't amused.

    Yeah, our draft-dodging, minority-quota-law-school-admission VP
didn't look too comfortable either, did he?  And Marilyn was smiling
like Sally Kellerman with lockjaw.

    After all those years of the `biased' press practically giving The
Gipper a blow job every time he opened his mouth, it's nice to see the
odd adversarial edge emerge.  The press, to my mind, should be
adversarial to everybody.  Remember how badly LBJ and ol' Jimmy C. used
to fare?

    BTW, Pat was almost wonderful.  I was on the edge of my seat
watching his speech, hoping ... no, PRAYING that he'd start talking
about `Zulus,' wetbacks, the other merde he slung during his campaign
against George Bu.... I mean, the Democrats, ahem.  He didn't, alas.
But he did tell one documented brazen lie, the one about the nursing
home that was guarded during the LA riots by valiant National Guard
troops.  The owner of the home later called the major networks and said
that the home had been defended by its elderly residents, and that calls
to the police and the National Guard had gone unanswered.

    Like Rich Bond alleging Hillary Clinton had "compared marriage to
slavery" (which she never has), the truth don't hold a good Republican
back none.

-- 
Hugh Miller         | Dept. of Philosophy | Loyola University of Chicago
Voice: 312-508-2727 |  FAX: 312-508-2292  |    hmiller@lucpul.it.luc.edu
"Read broadly, think scientifically, speak briefly, and sell the goods!"
            -- Sinclair Lewis, _The Man Who Knew Coolidge_
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: antbh@strix.udac.uu.se (Bernhard Helander)
Subject: Somalia alert: correct fax numbers
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 09:59:32 GMT


I my previous posting I unfortunately typed an error in the second
fax number, leaving an 'f'. The correct numbers are:

Mail for Mr James Baker should be addressed as follows: 

        James_Baker@f00912026477120.fax.sunet.se 

Mail for Dr Boutros Boutros Ghali should have this address: 

        Boutros_Ghali@f00912129634879.fax.sunet.se 

Keep on faxing!
-- 
*****************************************************************************
*                                  *                                        *
* Bernhard Helander                * Telephone: +46-18-182289 (office)      *
* Dept of Cultural Anthropology    *            +46-18-303448 (home)        *
* University of Uppsala            *                                        *
* Tradgardsgatan 18                * Fax:       +46-18-151160               *
* S-753 09 Uppsala                 *                                        *
* Sweden                           * E-mail: Bernhard.Helander@antro.uu.se  *                                  
*                                  *                                        *
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Subject: Re: Usual Libels against Chomsky
Organization: CS Dept., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:45:35 GMT

In article <JMC.92Aug21201408@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Very likely Eisenhower was wrong about the 80 percent or his experts were
>contaminated by sympathy to Asian communists.

Would you care to substantiate this?

>Long before the communists conquered South Vietnam, it was clear which way
>the refugees were going.

Yes, they were fleeing away from the rural villages being demolished by US
in South Vietnam and toward the cities.  Do you have some example in mind
to actually support your case?

>I admit you Chomskyans interpret matters so that the U.S. is responsible
>when the communists kill somebody

This sounds pretty ridiculous to me.  Do you have even a single example?

>Don't forget the 1968 massacre of 2,500 in Hue when the communists
>captured it temporarily.

It seems to me that similar atrocities were committed by the US and its
allies also (My Lai being only the most famous example).  Certainly there
was no shortage of barbarity on both sides.

>Does the American left have any responsibility at all for the murders
>by the people they supported?

John, once again what do you mean by "support"?
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media
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
	<1992Aug19.182247.23335@afit.af.mil>
	<LARRY.92Aug20101635@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Aug20.182419.3620@afit.af.mil>
	<LARRY.92Aug21085207@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Aug21.170423.12567@afit.af.mil>
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:38:02

"Embargoed" doesn't mean that the media don't have a copy of the
speech.  On the A.P. newswire, you see items all the time, labelled
something like "embargoed till 6am".  It means that the medium has
been given the speech or press release under the understanding that it
won't be used until the given time unless someeone else uses it first.
You also occasionally see A.P. items saying "The embargo on
such-and-such story has been broken; you may now use it any time."

Of course, the only way an organization can enforce an embargo is by
the threat of not letting the embargo breaker into the press
conference next time - provided they can find out who it was.  If
the item is used by some medium not represented and not given the
item, they know that someone spilled the beans, but they don't know
who.

My impression is that reporters for a single medium differ in the
extent to which they put bias into new stories, and editors differ
in the extent to which they enforce policies against it, and
rewrite men differ in the extent to which they carry out the
editors' announced policies.


--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2674 alt.activism:14766
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism
From: rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Re: More on Phone Zap
Organization: Memes-R-Us
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:53:56 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>A few years ago somebody ran a 'Jym boycott' campaign by recommending that
>people email a posting Jym made back to him. Jym's reaction? He howled so
>loud I could hear him here in Michigan. He then demanded an apology.

Seems to me you have trouble distinguishing between harrassment disguised
as boycott, and actual boycott.

Perhaps a dictionary will help you understand this simple matter ?

-- richard

-- 
-- richard childers		rchilder@us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                   Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2725 alt.rush-limbaugh:3782
From: brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:22:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Francisco, Dept of Lab Med

In article <1992Aug19.192633.24635@afit.af.mil> you write:
>brianc@jekyll.ucsf.edu (Brian Colfer) writes:
>
>>I think each party controls the camera shots for their convention... 
>
>Oh, that makes sense.  That's probably why every tenth shot on NBC
>conspicuously frames the NBC booth behind the "real person" they are
>highlighting.

I only watch CNN, PBS, and C-SPAN.  I know they all use the same
shots... I've seen the exact same coverage on all three.  If you are
talking about the "on the floor coverage" then it is the networks but
the convention shots are controlled by Republicans.  So think about it
we have what 8.5 different networks (ABC, CBS, C-SPAN, CNN, Comedy Central, 
Fox, MTV, NBC & sort of with PBS) covering the convention each has
their own cameras for every speaker? No way... 

>>So, maybe its the Republicans want to make the Quayle look bad or maybe
>>they are just incompetent.
>
>Again, impeccable logic. 

Its a joke!
-- 
Brian  Colfer          | UC San Francisco        |------------------------|
                       | Dept. of Lab. Medicine  | System Administrator,  |
brianc@labmed.ucsf.edu | S.F. CA, 94143-0134 USA | Programer/Analyst      | 
BRIANC@UCSFCCA.BITNET  | PH. (415) 476-2325      |------------------------|
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN, RON)
Subject: Re: Usual Libels against Chomsky
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Chomsky, Vietnam War
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 00:46:00 GMT

John McCarthy (jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU): (my emphasis)
>I was aware of the context of Chomsky's statement about denazification
>at the time of our unsuccessful effort to **prevent the communist
>conquest of Vietnam**.  He was an S.O.B. then, and he still is.  Why aren't
>you ashamed of all the boat people the leftist aid to the conquest
>of South Vietnam helped drown?  Why isn't Chomsky ashamed of all
>the people he helped drown?

In the words of that well known radical leftist, former U.S. President
Dwight D. Eisenhower (in his circa 1964 memoirs, "Mandate for Change",
quoted in "The Experts", edited by Clyde Pettit, 1975) [this is from
memory, but its close]: 

"I never talked to anyone knowledgeable about Indochina who doubted
that Ho Chi Minh might win as much as 80 percent of the popular vote
in a free election."  

In the valuable book, "Vietnam Folly" by [then U.S. Senator] Ernest
Gruening and Herbert Beaser (1968, DS 557 G73) Gruening notes that by
late 1967 or early 1968 the Administration had given up even
*attempting* to defend the lies in the 1965 State Department White Paper 
(which is included as an appendix in the book) which nominally provided
the justification for the war; instead they relied on the "spilled
blood" justification -- i.e. never mind why we started this war, we're
here now, American blood has been spilled, credibility, our reputation
as guarantor of the free world is at stake, etc., etc.. But now, 25 or
more years on, the lies in the 1965 White Paper return unchallenged. 

[Ernest Gruening (1887-1974) was U.S. Senator from
Alaska.  Gruening and Wayne Morse were the 2 Senators who voted
against the Tonkin Gulf resolution.]

As for shame, one might think that the destruction of virtually all of
Indochina (including widespread ecocide via the "Ranch Hand" herbicide
program, among others) and the murder of 3-4 million fellow human beings
by American military actions should be occasion for considerable shame
for those who had the opportunity and did not speak out against these
actions; Chomsky is not one of these.

The history of the "denazification" programs carried out by the Allies
after WWII and the relevance to the crimes of the American war planners
in Vietnam, is discussed in a long essay by Marcus Raskin, "From
Imperial War-Making to a Code of Personal Responsibility" (one of 3
essays in "Washington Plans An Aggressive War" by Ralph Stavins, Richard
Barnet, and Marcus Raskin; Random House 1971, DS 557.A63.S84. Stavins
gives the historical background to the war, Richard Barnet discusses the
psychology of "The Men Who Made the War".) 

Ron Balden
From: sammy@anagld.analytics.com (Sam Blackburn)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: More on Phone Zap
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:17:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:

>=o= You seem to be confused.  ACT UP's "phone zaps" are meant
>to communicate a message.  This is not by any means the same
>as berating or harrassment.

ACT UP?  I remember when they protested in DC that the gov't wasn't spending
enough money or doing enough research on AIDS by making a lot of noise outside
the researchers offices so they couldn't think!  Real smart.  Maybe some 
researcher would have had a train of thought that may have lead to a new
treatment but lost it cause of the noise.  Why don't people help instead of
hinder.  Were I in charge, I'd stop all research while ACT UP was in the area.

If you haven't noticed, they aren't one of my favorite groups.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2675 alt.activism:14767
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: More on Phone Zap
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:07:47 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug13.215356.24987@oracle.us.oracle.com> rchilder@us.oracle.com (Richard Childers) writes:
>aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>>A few years ago somebody ran a 'Jym boycott' campaign by recommending that
>>people email a posting Jym made back to him. Jym's reaction? He howled so
>>loud I could hear him here in Michigan. He then demanded an apology.

>Seems to me you have trouble distinguishing between harrassment disguised
>as boycott, and actual boycott.

Rich, you deleted some pretty essential info.  Jym was advocating a
"phone zap" - phoning up a company on their 800 number to berate them
and waster their money and tie up their phones.

Now please explain why this was a boycott but sending Jym's postings
back to him is harrassment.

>Perhaps a dictionary will help you understand this simple matter ?

I doubt it.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: 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
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:15:29

If you think the left could ever agree that the media has a leftist
bias, just try talking with Chomsky.  To him, and those who agree
with him, everything to the right of themselves is rightist.  An
apposite Chomsky statement is that what the U.S. needs is not
reform but denazification.  If you take him literally, it means
that he gets to kick anyone out of public life whom he regards as
being a Nazi, and that covers a lot.

The only objective comparison that can be made is comparing the
media with the public at large.  That has been frequently done
and the media always come out on the average to be to the left
even of the Democrats - at least of today's Democrats.  This
doesn't convince a real leftist who will say that the public
suffers from "false consciousness".  As far as I can make out
false consciousness is when someone who is declared by someone
else to be a victim, refuses to declare himself a victim.

You can also find various memoirs by leftists bragging about how
they sneaked leftist slogans into the media.  In one book, a
journalism professor at U.C. Berkeley, as soon as he got tenure,
bragged about all the stuff he sneaked into the Wall Street Journal.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media
From: antbh@strix.udac.uu.se (Bernhard Helander)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Fax for Somalia...via Sunet! CORRECTION
Date: 14 Aug 92 10:20:45 GMT
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden

As some have already discovered the second faxnumber is wrong, the leading
'f' that preceedes the number is left out in the Boutros Ghali number.

The correct numbers should be:

	State_Department@f00912026477120.fax.sunet.se

	Boutros_Ghali@f00912129634879.fax.sunet.se

-- 
*****************************************************************************
*                                  *                                        *
* Bernhard Helander                * Telephone: +46-18-182289 (office)      *
* Dept of Cultural Anthropology    *            +46-18-303448 (home)        *
* University of Uppsala            *                                        *
* Tradgardsgatan 18                * Fax:       +46-18-151160               *
* S-753 09 Uppsala                 *                                        *
* Sweden                           * E-mail: Bernhard.Helander@antro.uu.se  *                                  
*                                  *                                        *
*****************************************************************************
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
Subject: Re: Global Warming
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:55:14 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <JMC.92Aug16151701@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Does anyone think the three year difference in life expectancy between
>black women and white men is significant?
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

C'mon, John.  Comparing men to women masks the difference.  What is the
difference between white and black men?  Also, what is the trend for this
figure? Increasing or decreasing?
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d
From: drk@melodian.cs.uiuc.edu (Dave Kohr)
Subject: Re: Usual Libels against Chomsky
Keywords: Chomsky, Vietnam War
Organization: CS Dept., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:38:22 GMT

In article <21AUG199217464308@reg.triumf.ca> orwell@reg.triumf.ca (BALDEN,
RON) writes:
>As for shame, one might think that the destruction of virtually all of
>Indochina .... and the murder of 3-4 million fellow human beings by
>American military actions ....

This "3-4 million" figure seems a bit high.  All of the estimates I've seen
are between 2-3 million, and include ARVN soldiers (most of whom were
presumably not killed by American military action).
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2681 alt.activism:14824
From: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.activism
Subject: Re: More on Phone Zap
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Date: 14 Aug 1992 16:54:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
	<1992Aug13.215356.24987@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<1992Aug13.220747.25591@oracle.us.oracle.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

[Note that this is a discussion, not activism, and thus does not
belong in alt.activism.  Followups to alt.activism.d *only*.]

>>> A few years ago somebody ran a 'Jym boycott' campaign by
>>> recommending that people email a posting Jym made back to
>>> him. Jym's reaction? He howled so loud I could hear him here
>>> in Michigan. He then demanded an apology. 
>> Seems to me you have trouble distinguishing between
>> harrassment disguised as boycott, and actual boycott.
> Jym was advocating a "phone zap" - phoning up a company on
> their 800 number to berate them and waster [sic] their money
> and tie up their phones.

=o= You seem to be confused.  ACT UP's "phone zaps" are meant
to communicate a message.  This is not by any means the same
as berating or harrassment.

=o= Seeing as how in the hypothetical situation above I would
be receiving only what I myself has posted, that situation could
hardly be anything *but* harrassment.

=o= Note that I said "hypothetical."  Alan Sherzer's claims are
fiction:  There was never actually a "Jym boycott", nor was
there any howl, nor any demands for an apology.  Only one person
has attempted to letterbomb me, and he ran afoul of some of the
nasty daemons protecting my mailbox.  He did not repeat the
attempt.

=o= Brett Wright ("demon@desire") did letterbomb Harel Barzilai
in the manner described above.  There were complaints about
that.  Perhaps this is what Mr. Sherzer is misremembering.
    <_Jym_>
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2758 alt.rush-limbaugh:3829
From: mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece)
Newsgroups: alt.activism.d,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:22:34 GMT
Organization: Apple ATG
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
X-Xxdate: Fri, 21 Aug 92 16:23:49 GMT

Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
From: Chip Switzer, jswitzer@afit.af.mil
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:07:34 GMT
In article <1992Aug21.040734.7265@afit.af.mil> Chip Switzer,
jswitzer@afit.af.mil writes:
>mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece) writes:
>
>>As for the conventions, how come when Clinton talked to Jesse
Jackson or
>>somebody from NOW or from a labor union he was "pandering to
special
>>interests" but Bush can go slobber over Pat Robertson and the
religious
>>right and just be "protecting his core constituency"?
>
>Because the Democratic party is caught in the web of special
interests.
>You could run off a laundry list of groups that form and try to
control
>the liberal agenda.  Shall I start?  Environmentalists, abortion
>activists, minority groups, animal rights activists, feminists,
unions,
>NEA (in a different class from unions), AIDS activists, athiests,
>lawyers, greenpeace, etc.  I'm sure I'm forgeting a multitude.
>
>Conservatives have no such special interest groups hounding them
for a piece
>of the power.  Fundamentalists (a la the Moral Majority) are about
it.
>There is the beginnings of our own pro-choice coalition, but it
isn't
>much of a voice yet.
>
>Did I answer your question?
>
You tried, but I don't buy it. A laundry list is a laundry list, and
I can give
you one for the Republicans as long as the one for the Democrats:
Moral
Majority, Right-to-life, NRA, anti-labor business interests, 
anti-environment business interests (the Council on Competitiveness
lobby), and so on. I could get rhetorical (as you did by including
atheists
and animal rights activists in your list - surely these are not major
democratic "special interests") by pointing to the "special
interests" that 
Buchanan was pandering to in his hate mongering speech, but I won't.
By
the way, I think putting "greenpeace" in your list is clearly a
duplication
of "environmentalists" -- you must have been running low. My point
stands:
the Republicans are just as beholden to their establishment/big
business/
religious right "special interests" as the Democrats are to theirs on
the other end of the spectrum, and the decision to label one a set
of 
"special interests" and the other "constituencies" is arbitrary and
unfair.

Mark Preece.
Xref: sparky alt.activism.d:2761 alt.news-media:891