Spams Help

#1
I need to write to the quality Spam newspapers to contradict an erroneous statement made by the British Ambassador about who is the First Lady of the Uk.

Can any well intentioned Spam let me know the e-address of whatever passes for a quality newspaper in the land of the free?

Thanks
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#2
No need for that old boy, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall St Journal (in that order). You might also like to consider Time Magazine and the Economist or The Financial Times (US edition).

You can google all of those to get the official websites/email addresses.
 
#3
Mr Happy said:
No need for that old boy, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall St Journal (in that order). You might also like to consider Time Magazine and the Economist or The Financial Times (US edition).

You can google all of those to get the official websites/email addresses.
Washington Post and New York Times quality papers....now that is fecking funny.

The WSJ is probably your best bet, the rest of the papers are losing readers at an astounding rate, since most are feed up with the tripe the publish as news.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#4
Herald & Tribune is another but that's just name for euro edition of the Washington Post right?

The Post and Times I thought are about as good as it gets are they not?
 
#5
You could route it through the Telegraph, who carry an extract of some spam rag on Thursdays - I'm assuming the arrangement is mutual here.
 
#6
The Los Angeles Times (www.latimes.com) serves a huge contingent of British expats, as well as having a higher overall readership than a lot of the major papers.

Chicago Sun-Times is the other one I can think of. All of those websites have email addresses on their websites.

Did you also consider the Toronto Star? A lot of our news is picked up from them, strangely enough.

Finally, email CNN. It might filter from there, if nothing else.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#7
TankiesYank said:
Finally, email CNN. It might filter from there, if nothing else.
Yep, Questy read out my email on-air. Among my friends and colleagues I was a god for 24hours! Touched by Questy.

Met his ex-producer on a flight to India once too. Interesting stuff.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#8
Regarding the Post.....

The United States (or at least its Baby Boomers) has been gripped by the
revelation that the fabled Deep Throat, the person who provided the
legendary Woodward and Bernstein the guidance needed to cover the Watergate
scandal, was Mark Felt, a senior official in the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. In spite of the claims of some, Felt was never high on the
list of suspects. The assumption was always that Deep Throat was a member of
the White House staff, simply because he knew so much about the details of
the workings of the Nixon White House. A secondary theory that floated
around was that Deep Throat was someone from the CIA -- that the CIA, for
some unclear reason, wanted to bring Nixon down.

The revelation that Deep Throat was a senior FBI official -- in fact, so
senior that he was effectively J. Edgar Hoover's heir at the FBI -- is full
of historical significance. Even more, it has significant implications
today, when U.S. intelligence and security forces are playing a dramatically
enhanced role in American life, and when the question of the relationship
between the constitutional life of the republic and the requirements of
national security is at a cyclical pitch. If Felt is Deep Throat, then the
history and implications of this revelation need to be considered.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question of Nixon's guilt. It has
been proven beyond doubt that Nixon was guilty of covering up the Watergate
burglary, a felony that required impeachment, even if presidents before him
had committed comparable crimes. It is not proven, but we are morally
certain, that Nixon knew about and possibly demanded the break-in both at
the Democratic National Committee headquarters and in Daniel Ellsberg's
psychiatrist's office. There are too many hints of this in the famous Nixon
White House tapes -- and in the existence of an 18-minute gap inserted into
one tape -- to doubt that. Nixon was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

None of this, however, has anything to do with Mark Felt's motives in
leading Woodward and Bernstein to water and teaching them the fundamentals
of drinking. Felt's motives are important regardless of whether Nixon was
guilty because they tell us something about what was going on in the FBI at
the time and how the FBI operated. That is what has to be thought through
now.

Felt's position has been simply presented. He is portrayed as a patriot who
was appalled by the activities of the Nixon White House. Having had Patrick
Gray slipped in above him for the top Bureau job, Felt believed that
resorting to the normal procedures of law enforcement was not an option.
Gray, a Nixon appointee and loyalist, would have isolated or fired Felt if
he tried that route, keeping Felt away from grand juries and the normal
process of the legal system. The only course of action for Felt was,
according to this theory, to leak information to the press. His selection of
Woodward and Bernstein for the prize was happenstance. Felt needed national
coverage, and that was provided by the Washington Post. Felt claimed a
passing acquaintanceship with Bob Woodward, a very young and inexperienced
reporter, and this became a convenient channel. In short, Felt was
protecting the republic by the only means possible.
 
#9
Mr Happy said:
Herald & Tribune is another but that's just name for euro edition of the Washington Post right?

Herald Trib mainly derives copy from news agencies - not really a 'digusted of Tumbridge Wells' type of paper.
 
#10
Mr Happy said:
Herald & Tribune is another but that's just name for euro edition of the Washington Post right?

The Post and Times I thought are about as good as it gets are they not?
The Post and Times are in the business of making news not reporting it. The Times had the whole Jason Blair episode and the Post is still basking in the glow of Watergate. Most papers are extremely liberal in slant and don't hide it. They increasingly provide their slant not only in the editorial pages, where it is acceptable, but in the news itself.

When there is no news, in their view interresting news, they tend to sponser a poll and then report that as news.

I get the local paper only on Sundays and only for the adverts and coupons, The bulk of the paper goes in the trash unread.

Newspapers are losing readers quicker then the Titanic took on water...their gig is up along with the big three "mainstream" TV news (ABC, NBC, CBS) :D
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top