[nicmarlo]

Per your request re: an updated media e-mail list, this is the best I could come up with, for print, radio, and television media. Obviously, I didn't include many that others might want to have. But I think it's a good start, IMHO:

media@sycophants.com,speaker@aim.org,conedit@ajc.com,letters@baltsun.com,letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com,opinion@charlotte.com,news@cleveland.com,letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com,letters@denverpost.com,business@det-freepress.com,letters@examiner.com,letter@globe.com,news@globe.com,HeraldEd@herald.com,letters@latimes.com,Inquirer.Opinion@phillynews.com,DailyNews.Opinion@phillynews.com,letters@post-gazette.com,editor.reuters@reuters.com,editpage@seattle-pi.com,opinion@seatimes.com,letters@sjmercury.com,politics@startribune.com,letters@suntimes.com,letters@time.com,letters@uniontrib.com,editor@usatoday.com,letter.editor@edit.wsj.com,Letterstoed@washpost.com,Letters@washpost.com,pat@theamericancause.org,cato@free-market.net,drudge@drudgereport.com,letter@globe.com,hq@lp.org,morning@npr.org,totn@npr.org,nsight@wt.infi.net,cbnonline@cbn.org,evening@cbsnews.com,cnn.onair@cnn.com,ConnieChungTonight@CNN.com,crossfire@cnn.com,feedback@cnn.com,late.edition@cnn.com,InsidePolitics@CNN.com,NewsNight@cnn.com,Reliable@CNN.com,TalkBack@CNN.com,comments@foxnews.com,hannity@foxnews.com,oreilly@foxnews.com,special@foxnews.com,Dateline@nbc.com,dateline@news.nbc.com,hardball@cnbc.com,imus@msnbc.com,letters@msnbc.com,MTP@nbc.com,nightly@news.nbc.com,Nightly@nbc.com,opinion@msnbc.com,ReutersNews@msnbc.com,TheNews@msnbc.com,today@news.nbc.com,today@nbc.com

I have posted the following notes regarding problems/conditions with other media sites (and those sites previously provided have now been excluded from the above list so that at least you will not get the same "refusal" messages. That's not to say that you won't get any, lol:

abc news, good morning america, etc.:
abc provides no email address. You must use their form to submit any emails.

viewer@c-span.org
They don't accept mass mailing. Here's an excerpt of their response: "There was a problem with your message. It appeared to be "bulk mail" instead of viewer comments regarding C-SPAN programming."

letters@newsday.com:
They won't read or print emails unless your personal info. was supplied. Here's an excerpt of their response: " . . .Please note that only letters that include the writer's full name, postal mailing address, and day and nighttime telephone numbers will be read and considered for publication. . . ."

letters@nytimes.com, nytnews@nytimes.com
They do not accept/consider mass mailings. Here's their response, in part:
". . . Letters should be no longer than 150 words and may be shortened to fit allotted space. They must be exclusive to The Times and refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days. Letters must include the writer's address and daytime and evening phone numbers (not for publication).

viewpoints@chron.com
Viewpoints will not publish letters unless personal info. is supplied. Here's their response, also in part:
". . . To be considered for publication, letters must include the writer's name, full address, and daytime phone number for verification only. . . . All letters are subject to editing."

letters@newsweek.com
Will not accept mass e-mails or letters to multiple addresses. Again, another excerpt:
"When you write, please include the DATE and TITLE of the article your letter refers to in the subject-heading of your message. E-mail messages that do not address material printed in a recent issue of Newsweek are rarely considered for publication. WE CANNOT OPEN E-MAIL ATTACHMENTS of any kind, and will not consider press releases, mass e-mails or letters sent to multiple addresses."

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Yes folks, irony really is dead:

U.S. Issues Hand-Washing Guidelines

By DANIEL Q. HANEY
AP Medical Editor

October 26, 2002, 1:16 PM EDT

CHICAGO -- The government issued guidelines Friday urging doctors
and nurses to abandon the ritual of washing their hands with soap
and water between patients and instead rub on fast-drying alcohol
gels to kill more germs.

The goal: reduce the hospital spread of viruses and bacteria that
infect an estimated 2 million people in the United States each year
and kill about 90,000.

Many hospitals, anticipating the new guidelines from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, have already made the change,
and studies show this can cut their infection rates in half.

Soap and water have been the standard for generations. But
washing up properly between each patient can take a full minute and
is often skipped to save time, especially in busy intensive care units
where the risk of spreading germs is greatest.

While the alcohol-based gels and solutions kill more microbes, the
main advantage is they are easier to use. With vials clipped to their uniforms, nurses can quickly swish
their hands while on the move without stopping at a sink. The CDC estimates this saves an hour in an
eight-hour intensive care shift.

"We've learned that using alcohol-based products improves adherence to hand hygiene," said Dr.
Julie Gerberding, the CDC's director. "We will end up with more people doing the right thing and
cleaning their hands."

She released the guidelines in Chicago at a meeting of the Infectious Disease Society of America.

The solutions are intended only to kill germs, not remove visible dirt. So hospital workers are still
expected to wash up if they get messy hands. Also, surgeons have the choice of using the gels or
sticking with antimicrobial soap.

Many brands of the solutions are available in grocery stores. They vary in how they look, feel and
smell. But all contain 60 percent to 90 percent ethanol or isopropanol, and they are considered
equally effective at killing germs.

The new guidelines apply only to hospitals and clinics, where there are many particularly nasty
microbes, along with sick people who are susceptible to catching them.

At home, where such dangerous bugs are far less common, experts say ordinary soap and water are
probably all people routinely need. But the alcohol gels can make sense in situations where water is
not be easily available, such as at picnics, in portable toilets or on airplanes.

Hospital workers are instructed to clean up between each patient, before they put on gloves, after
they take them off, when inserting catheters or when doing anything else that involves contact with
body fluids.

Besides giving individual containers of gel to their staff, hospitals put dispensers at patients'
bedsides, in clinics and wherever sick people are seen.

The alcohol dries in seconds without a towel and is so easy to use that "it is almost indefensible now
not to clean your hands. People can't say they are too busy anymore," said Dr. David Gilbert of
Providence Portland Medical Center in Portland, Ore., president of the Infectious Disease Society.

Using the gels involves squirting a dime-size dollop on one palm, then rubbing the hands together,
covering all the surfaces, until the hands are dry.

Typically, people carry between 10,000 and 10 million bacteria on each hand. The medical profession
has long known this is one way disease is transmitted. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis pioneered the field in
Austria in 1846, when he speculated that doctors spread "cadaverous particles" when they delivered
babies after doing autopsies. He insisted that students clean their hands with chlorine.

Introduction of the alcohol gels "is the biggest revolution in hand hygiene since Semmelweis," said
Elaine Larson, associate dean for research at Columbia School of Nursing. "We used to say `hand
washing.' Now it's hand hygiene."

* __

[ProbableCause]

Thanks man. You've really rendered a service to interested people on this posting board. It's my weekend project to make a subject letter template and blast a copy off to these addresses.