
President Obama's Weekly Address
Traveling Abroad for Our Economy at Home



VIDEO:
Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" Producer
Attends Free Health Care Clinic
" It Was Hard To Believe I was In America ! "
Danny Shea(HuffPo)
One of the free health clinics launched due to the generosity of "Countdown" viewers took place over the weekend in New Orleans.
While Keith Olbermann was unable to attend himself due to his father's illness, "Countdown" producer Rich Stockwell — who Olbermann credited on air as the brains behind the drive to raise money for the clinics — did attend, and he wrote an essay for MSNBC.com about his experience.
In the essay, Stockwell relays several stories of patients who came to Saturday's clinic: the 50-year-old woman with stage four breast cancer whose cancer was likely diagnosed so late because she didn't have insurance; the nurse who holds down two part-time jobs but can't work enough hours to qualify for medical benefits; the woman sent to the hospital with a 220/180 blood pressure who didn't know why she wasn't feeling well.
"After watching for hours as the patients moved through the clinic, it was hard to believe that I was in America," Stockwell wrote. "Health reform is not about Democrats or Republicans or who can score political points for the next election, it's about people. It's about fairness and justice in a system that knows none. I'd defy even the most hardened capitalist-loving-conservative to do what I did on Saturday and continue to pretend that the system in place right now is working....There are no words that can accurately describe the quiet desperation on the faces of the patients. Every single one I spoke to, and every one I heard talking with doctors, expressed their gratitude for the event and wished that they were held more often."
Stockwell noted that the last time the media convened in the New Orleans convention center was to cover Hurricane Katrina; this time, however, "we were there to cover a man-made disaster of even larger proportions," he wrote.
Read his full essay at MSNBC.com or watch Olbermann's segment on the New Orleans clinic below:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


But there's another alternative, according to Martin Paone. Paone, who served as a Democratic Senate floor staffer for 29 years, has been advising Democrats as they craft their legislative strategy. He proposes that Democrats try to get 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule -- which would then allow the inclusion of those non-budget-related provision in one bill that would require only 51 votes for final passage.So, as the media continues their daily rant of how imperative it is that EVERY Democratic Senator vote yes on the health care bill remember one FACT that they seem to want to hide from We The People. There IS a way for the Senate to get the bill passed WITHOUT 60 votes...without Traitor Joe...without Olympia Snowe...without Mary Landrieu...making them absolutely meaningless in the debate.
What's the advantage? And why would any senator who opposes the entire bill vote for such a waiver? The answer can be found in the specific proposals that would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Mostly, those would include reforms to the way the insurance industry operates -- for example, a ban on using preexisting conditions to deny coverage, or a law that insurance companies can't drop a client just because they get sick.
Those are wildly popular reforms. Getting 60 votes to support those policies is much easier than getting 60 for a public health insurance option, which Republicans and some conservative Democrats oppose.
Conservative senators such as Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) or Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) could, in voting for a Byrd Rule waiver, put themselves on the record as being in support of popular insurance industry reforms, while still opposing final passage of the bill -- a political strategy that may be appealing to them.


"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government"
-President Barack Obama
More Stability and Security
Quality, Affordable Choices for All Americans
Reins In the Cost of Health Care for Our Families, Our Businesses, and Our Government



Civil Rights Groups Open
K Street Office
in Final Health Care Push
By Krissah Thompson Washington Post
After some small-scale, disjointed efforts to push for health care reform, civil rights groups are renting temporary office space on K Street and combining their efforts to run an operations center with the sole goal of lobbying on health care policy.
The office will be run by staffers from the National Urban League, the NAACP and the Black Leadership Forum. Over the next two weeks, they will coordinate rallies in 10 cities, run a phone bank where volunteers will pepper members of Congress with calls and keep up with the latest developments in the debate.
The groups are calling the effort a "war room" and plan to staff it long hours each day, creating a central hub for the civil rights groups to share ideas and staff resources. The voices of minorities, who are disproportionately represented among the poor and uninsured and could benefit the most from reform -- and who also are more likely than others to have chronic illnesses such as diabetes -- have been a small part of the contentious health care debate.
Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said the groups have been working behind the scenes but are trying to push to the front in the final stretch.








It's A New Day !
B4B NOTE: Hate to say it but...
The Public Option In Congress is Now
A SHAM !
Article By Miles Mogulescu
The so-called "public option" -- as it remains in the bills being proposed in the House and Senate -- is a fraud and a sham. It bears no resemblance to the "robust" public option originally sold by its supporters as the most pragmatic, "uniquely American" multipayer way of achieving affordable universal health care, instead of importing successful single payer models from other democratic capitalist countries which provide better health to its citizens at considerably lower costs.
The pygmy public option now being proposed in the House and Senate will not be a viable competitor to mandated private insurance.
• It will not put any meaningful pressure on private insurance companies to moderate their premiums.• It will not have the market power to pay lower fees to doctors and hospitals than private insurance and will thus not be less expensive than private insurance.
• It will not even be available to most Americans.
• Since it will be unable to effectively compete with private insurance, it will end up with few, if any customers.
At this point, it really doesn't matter whether or not a final health reform bill includes this type of public option in name only. The public option, as it's now being proposed in the House and Senate, will have no meaningful impact. If Joe Lieberman or other corporate Democrats kill this meaningless public option, it will make no difference in the lives of most Americans. With or without a fraudulent public option, millions of Americans who will be required to buy insurance or pay a fine will see their premiums skyrocket as there will be no effective limits placed on how much private insurers can charge the customers whom the federal government will make buy their product.
The final nail in the public option's coffin came when House Democrats (with no help from President Obama to twist Blue Dog arms) fell 10 or 12 votes short of including a requirement that the public option pay providers Medicare rates plus 5% and instead will be required to negotiate rates with each doctor and hospital in America. This all but guarantees that the public option will end up paying more to doctors, hospitals and drug companies than private insurance.
It's like a brand new Mom and Pop store trying to compete with WalMart.
Here's why, without a tie to Medicare rates, the public option will end up paying more to providers than private insurance: The largest private insurers in each market already have tens or hundreds of thousands of members. When they negotiate rates with providers, they get volume discounts of as much as 30%-40% off "retail rates," just as WalMart gets volume discounts because of its market clout. (Because of its even greater bargaining power, Medicare often pays providers 15%-20% less than private insurance).
But without the ability to tie pricing to Medicare rates, the public option will have no ability to negotiate volume discounts. It will start out with no subscribers. It will then have to go to each hospital, doctor and drug company to negotiate rates. Without any subscribers at the outset, these providers will have no incentive to give volume discounts to the public option, which will end up paying more than large private insurers. This in turn will make the public option more expensive than private insurance. As a result, it will sign up few subscribers. With few subscribers, it will be continue to be unable to negotiate volume discounts. Even if the public option were allowed to pay Medicare plus 5% rates, unless it already had a large number of subscribers in a particular market, providers would simply refuse to accept public option patients at these reduced rates, prefering to treat patients from higher-paying private insurers. So it's a chicken and egg situation. Few subscribers will lead to higher costs. Higher costs will lead to few subscribers. This is a public option designed to fail.
As a result, when the Congressional Budget Office first evaluated the Senate negotiated-rate public option plan, the CBO concluded that it would end up with no subscribers. Perhaps with a little pressure from Congress, the CBO is now projecting that by 2019, approximately 6 million Americans would be enrolled in the negotiated-rate House public plan. The CBO also projects that "a public plan paying negotiated rates would...typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for private plans." The CBO notes that this public plan would attract a "less healthy pool of enrollees" than private plans. With a less healthy pool of enrolees who require more services than private plans, the cost of the public plan would continue to escalate beyond the cost of private insurance, further reducing the number of people who sign up, and further reducing its negotiating clout, leading to a vicious circle of increasing costs and unaffordability that would do little or nothing to put pressure on private insurers to lower their premiums.
As Kip Sullivan, a long-time fighter of universal health care, has argued articulately, the devolution of the public option from a robust proposal projected to cover over 129 million Americans and lower insurance costs to a sham public option that will at best cover 6 million Americans in 10 years and have no impact on lowering insurance costs is a case of "bait and switch".
The "public option" was initially proposed by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker and Campaign for America's Future leader Roger Hickey as a more politically "pragmatic" alternative to the long-time progressive goal of establishing universal single payer health care (as though insurance companies and their paid-for Congressional allies wouldn't fight against a robust public option as hard as they would fight against Medicare for All).
Hacker and Hickey laid out 5 criteria that, they argued, were essential to the success of the public option.
1. The PO had to be pre-populated with tens of millions of people by shifting all or most uninsured people, as well as Medicaid and SCHIP enrollees, into the PO, so like Medicare, it would represent a huge pool of enrollees on day one.
2. Only enrollees in the PO, not in private insurance, would be eligible for government subsidies.3. The PO and its subsidies would be available to all nonelderly Americans (not just the uninsured and employees of small businesses).
4. The PO would pay Medicare reimbursement rates.
5. The insurance industry had to offer the same minimum level of benefits that the PO offered.
If these criteria were met, the Lewin Group (a subsidiary of health insurance giant United Health) projected that the public option would enroll 129 million Americans, have overhead of 3%, pay hospitals 26% less and doctors 17% less than the private insurance industry, and have premiums 23% below the private insurance industry average.
That was the "bait." Now came the "switch." The puny public option proposals that are still on the table in the House and Senate meet only the 5th of the 5 criteria for an effective public option and eliminate the first 4 criteria. They are not pre-populated; subsidies go to both the public option and private insurance; large employers are barred from buying into the public option; and the public option is not allowed to use Medicare rates but must instead negotiate rates on a provider-by-provider basis.
The result is that instead of enrolling 129 million Americans and decreasing insurance premiums, the sham public option being proposed in the House and Senate will enroll between 0 and 6 million Americans and will cost more than private insurance.
It's time that organizations which supported a "robust" public option tell their supporters the truth: that the public option in the House and Senate bills bears no relationship to the public option they have been fighting for. (Instead, the Health Care for American Now blog praises the public option in the House bill as "a strong competitor to private insurance, keeping prices down and attracting customers.") Its time that "progressives" in Congress like Anthony Weiner, Alan Grayson, Jan Schakowsky, Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey admit to their constituents that, with no help from President Obama, they've lost the battle for a "robust" public option. Media figures like Keith Obermann and Rachel Maddow, who've been vocally talking up the public option, should be reporting the truth about the pitiful public option that's left on the table.
As it stands now, the sham public option in the House and Senate bills serves only one purpose. It gives political cover to progressives and liberals in the House and Senate to vote for mandates that will use the power of the federal government to force uninsured individuals to buy inferior and over-priced private insurance or be fined by the IRS by being able to say, "Well, at least the bill contains something called a public option," even if it's a public option in name only. Better that Joe Lieberman's filibuster threat forces Congress to drop this sham public option from the bill. At least, then, progressives and liberals will have to squarely face up to the implications of their vote and decide if this type of "health care reform" is really in the interests of the American people, or indeed, in the interests of the Democratic Party.
As the final bill takes shape, it's going to be a close call whether this type of mandated "health insurance reform" with no price controls on premiums is better than no reform at all. (Thanks HuffPo)
Share The Facts...
Then Fight...Call...DEMAND !
STRONG Public Option ONLY !




Article by Sam Stein (HuffPo)
Baucus: There May Be 60 Votes for
" Less Pure' Public Option
Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.) insisted on Monday that a public option for insurance coverage was very much "alive" as he and two other Democratic senators merged together disparate health care bills.
But in what will surely be a disappointment for progressives, the Montana Democrat hinted strongly that the provision would be watered down.
"This issue is alive and we are looking at it to see what makes the most sense," the senator declared on a conference call with reporters. "The major overall goal here though is to get health care reform that passes the Senate, gets 60 votes, and I just don't know if there is 60 votes for the most pure kinds of the public option. There may be 60 votes for the less pure kinds."
The less pure kinds, Baucus explained, were co-ops, a public plan triggered by economic conditions and an insurance structure that allowed states to opt in or out of a public option. He seemed to find the last option the most intriguing.
"It is new and it is interesting," said Baucus. "Senators are trying to think it through, its effect, what it will do? We don't know yet."




Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy



DISGUSTING !!!
Insurance Industry Going GANGSTER !
Threatens To Jack-Up Rates if HCR Passes !
The insurance industry inadvertently gave health reformers the best argument we ever could have had to pass a public option and the strongest possible regulations on insurers. Declaring that rates will go up dramatically if reform passes, insurers launched a full-scale open assault on the idea of any reform at all yesterday, except I guess a reform plan especially tailored to them and their profitability. What they left out of their little study is that they are the ones who decide when rates go up because the biggest companies have very little competition in most of the markets they are in. There is no federal rate regulation, there is no anti-trust enforcement in insurance (they are specifically exempted from it in the McCarran-Ferguson Act), and unless there is a public option, there will be little competition. They will be the ones who decide if the rates go up, and they have just guaranteed they would raise those rates if we don't stop them from doing it.
It's sort of like the sheriff in Blazing Saddles holding the gun to his own head, and saying "back off or I'll shoot." The insurance industry is saying that if they don't like what's in the bill, they will just decide to arbitrarily raise the rates. But we can stop those rates from going up by checking the insurers' power. That's why a public option, real competition for an arrogant out-of-control, way-too-powerful industry, is so essential. Without it, we are left to their whims, and anytime, for my reason, they will just jack up their rates. If their stocks go down, if they just want more profits, if some regulation they don't like is passed, they will just raise their rates. With a strong, robust, nationwide public option, we can force insurers to the table, and give them real competition.
Personally, I think we ought to repeal McCarran-Ferguson and impose tough rate regulation as well. That would really open up competition and guarantee lower prices. But at the very minimum, we have to have a strong national public option. The insurance industry has just reminded us as to why that is. Thanks for the help in making our case, friends.
By the way, it's not just me who thinks this. Voters do not support being forced to buy health insurance unless there is a public option -- at that point, as the polling clearly documents, voters are fine with an insurance mandate. As long as there is real competition with a public option, voters are fine with being asked to buy insurance. Sometimes I think regular voters are smarter than the politicians they elect to govern them. (Thank You HuffPo)

We MUST DEMAND...DEMAND...DEMAND...
A STRONG, VERY COMPETITIVE
PUBLIC OPTION !!!!
(The ONLY Safety Net)
Anything short (i.e. co-ops, opt-in/opt-out, triggers etc...which are all WEAK) would result in higher rates from the gangster insurance companies and NO true, competitive alternative for We The People, topped off with a MANDATE (law forcing everyone to buy high-priced, unaffordable coverage or be penalized) !


B4B COMMENTER SPOTLIGHT:
Philip Calderone, Filmmakers for Obama
B4BIt was amazing to wake up to this news today. The "too early" argument actually highlights the fact that this president has accomplished in months what many presidents have failed to accomplish in years--breaking the me-first cynicism and helping people realize that we are one human race now facing problems too large for any one government, superpower, alliance, or country to handle.
And yet again, the argument that his popularity comes from merely Kool-Aid drinking celebrity status is incorrect, ignoring the egg for the chicken. Obama is hugely popular because he promotes opinions and policies that most of the world supports. His popularity demonstrates that there are more kind, decent people in the world than those who are not. Finally now we have a spokesman with extraordinary eloquence, intellect and respect for others to help us see this.
Congratulations President Obama. It is a great accomplishment for him, our country, and the billions who applaud him around the world. May your accomplishment be an inspiration to the rest of us as we strive to make this world a better place for us all. Time to get in line and give this man the tools to turn his great words into great actions.
( Philip Calderone, B4B Commenter SPOTLIGHT )
By Jeff Muskus/HuffPo
House leadership is still hedging its bets on what version of the public option will make it into the unified House health reform bill, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday that Democrats are nearing the 218 votes needed to pass a strong public option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates.
"It's very close, it's very close," Pelosi said of majority support for the so-called "robust" public option, which she personally supports. She did not commit to getting the strong option into the bill, however. "We're in a good place, because we have many good options," she said.
On both counts, the Speaker's assessment seemed more optimistic than that of Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Raul Grijalva, who suggested to the Huffington Post that progressives might scuttle a bill that forces the public health exchange to negotiate its own reimbursement rates with insurers -- the policy favored by conservative Blue Dog Democrats. Grijalva estimated Wednesday that the strong public option had the support of 160 to 170 Democrats, a number significantly lower than the whip count his co-chair Lynn Woolsey has reportedly bandied about.
Though she declined to cite a precise number of supporters for the robust plan, Pelosi was confident enough to say that while the strong public option was only one of three public insurance exchanges the House has sent to the Congressional Budget Office for cost analysis, scores on the two weaker options -- both of which would require the new exchange to negotiate its own reimbursement rates -- were requested simply to give conservative Blue Dog Democrats another chance to make their case.
"In all fairness to those who believe that the negotiated rates work better for them in their district, we're trying to get from the Congressional Budget Office how we could have more savings out of negotiated rates," Pelosi said. The strong public option would save $110 billion over 10 years, she said, compared to $25 billion for an option with negotiated rates according to preliminary estimates. "That's a big difference."
For the first time since their 1995 inception, the Blue Dogs have found themselves out-organized by their liberal counterparts, and their commitment to decoupling the public option from Medicare has been slipping. While progressives have united behind a strong public option, conservative Democrats are concerned variously with addressing regional disparities in Medicare reimbursement, keeping the bill's final cost below $900 billion and waiting to see what the Senate does.
Bridging the gap in savings between the weaker and stronger public options won't be easy for Blue Dogs, and they won't like one possibility that Pelosi confirmed has been floated in a "very preliminary" form: a windfall profits tax on income for health insurers. "I have asked Chairman [Charlie] Rangel [D-N.Y.] to ask his staff to see what is in it for us," Pelosi said. "Let me say that I believe that all of the participants, whether it's insurance companies or the pharmaceutical industry, have much more they can put on the table to help reduce costs." (HuffPost)
NOTE from B4B's Greg Jones:
More News You DON'T Hear in our 'Great Media'.
This past Tuesday, Congress approved a $680 BILLION DOLLAR DEFENSE BUDGET. Yes...$680 BILLION !!! In the midst of our 'great' politicians making a major ruckus over spending $90B per year for 10 years (total $900B) for Health Care Reform to SAVE AMERICAN LIVES...they (quietly) pass this gigantus defense budget with such ease you would almost think they were paid (lobbied/bribed) to pass it. The Time Is NOW for our politicians to get America's priorities in the right order. We MUST have a strong, competitive Public Option (which simply means another Choice or alternative to the gauging of current private insurers). ANY politician who would deny Americans the right to CHOOSE an OPTION to stay alive should be removed from serving the people !
Make Those Calls...
Make Those DEMANDS...
We Must SHAME Them Into Doing the RIGHT THING !!!




Lobbyists Donating Twice As Much
To Democrats As Republicans !
NOTE: After today's Senate Finance Committee, disappointing double NO vote
AGAINST Public Option this bit of info is VERY enlightening.
The Wall Street Journal reports that lobbyists have donated twice as much to Democrats as Republicans this year -- a direct result of Democratic control over both Congress and the White House.
Corporate political action committees spent 60 percent of their contribution money on Democrats, who have in turn raised $153.5 million in the first six months of the 2009-2010 election cycle. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that in that time Democrats have raised a staggering 62 percent more than Republican candidates.
Meanwhile, lobbyists have made 70 percent of their donations to Democrats, up from 37 percent in 2006.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Spokesmen for the companies say they donate to politicians who support their priorities. Ron Rogers, a spokesman for Merck, said that the company donates more to Democrats now because "there are more Democrats that there used to be."
Republicans, however, may have some reason to hold out hope for the 2010 midterm elections: The Republican National Committee raised more than the Democratic National Committee last month.
****
B4B NOTE: Unfortunately, it is obvious that the well bribed Dems and the Just Say No (also paid) Repubs are working in concert AGAINST the needs of We The People. The ONLY way we will achieve a strong Public Option with truly accessible quality health care for all will be through the Power of each one of us...bombarding the politicians with phone calls/letters and emails letting them know...
We DEMAND Public Option AND Quality Health Coverage
FOR ALL !



President Obama Addresses the UN General Assembly from White House on Vimeo.


Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA! Yes We DID! Welcome to the blog for Blacks4Barack.org A Multi-Racial, Net/Grassroots Organization established in February 2007 to increase support for Barack Obama...President ! Greg Jones (Cleveland, Ohio) is National Director. Yes We DID ! Thank You America ! PLUS ! Listen to the new Obama TALK RADIO show NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH with Greg Jones. Just click 'Join Us' below to Listen/Call-In LIVE! Also, see 'FlashBacks' below to review the Historic Campaign '08 !
ALWAYS SPEAK OUT against the wrongs of The Media !
ABC News
77 W. 66 St., New York, NY 10023
Phone: 212-456-7777General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com
Nightline: nightline@abcnews.com
20/20: 2020@abc.com
CBS News
524 W. 57 St., New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-975-4321
Fax: 212-975-1893Email forms for all CBS news programs
CBS Evening News: evening@cbsnews.com
The Early Show: earlyshow@cbs.com
60 Minutes II: 60minutes@cbsnews.com
48 Hours: 48hours@cbsnews.com
Face The Nation: ftn@cbsnews.com
CNBC
900 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Phone: (201) 735-2622
Fax: (201) 583-5453
Email: info@cnbc.com
CNN
One CNN Center, Box 105366, Atlanta, GA 30303-5366
Phone: 404-827-1500
Fax: 404-827-1784
Email forms for all CNN news programs
Fox News Channel
1211 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 301-3000
Fax: (212) 301-4229
comments@foxnews.comList of Email addresses for all Fox News Channel programs
Special Report with Brit Hume: Special@foxnews.com
FOX Report with Shepard Smith: Foxreport@foxnews.com
The O'Reilly Factor: Oreilly@foxnews.com
Hannity & Colmes: Hannity@foxnews.com, Colmes@foxnews.com
On the Record with Greta: Ontherecord@foxnews.com
MSNBC/NBC
30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, NY 10112
Phone: (212) 664-4444
Fax: (212) 664-4426List of Email addresses for all MSNBC/NBC news programs
Dateline NBC: dateline@nbc.com
Hardball with Chris Matthews: hardball@msnbc.com
MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: joe@msnbc.com
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: nightly@nbc.com
NBC News Today: today@nbc.com
PBS
2100 Crystal Drive, Arlington VA 22202
Phone: 703-739-5000
Fax: 703-739-8458The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: newshour@pbs.org
National Radio Programs
National Public Radio
635 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001-3753
Phone: 202-513-3232
Fax: 202-513-3329E-mail: Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, Ombudsman ombudsman@npr.org
List of Email addresses for all NPR news programs
The Rush Limbaugh Show
1270 Avenue of the Americas, NY 10020
Phone (on air): 800-282-2882
Fax: 212-445-3963
E-mail: ElRushbo@eibnet.com
Sean Hannity Show
Phone (on air): 800-941-7326
Sean Hannity: 212-613-3800
James Grisham, Producer: 212-613-3807E-mail: Phil Boyce, Program Director phil.boyce@citcomm.com
The Los Angeles Times
202 West First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: 800-528-4637 or 213-237-5000
Fax: 213-237-4712L.A. Times Contact Information by Department
Letters to the Editor: letters@latimes.com
Readers' Representative: readers.rep@latimes.com
The New York Times
620 8th Ave., New York, NY 10018
Phone: 212-556-1234
D.C. Bureau phone: 202-862-0300
Fax: 212-556-3690Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com
Write to the news editors: news-tips@nytimes.com
Corrections: senioreditor@nytimes.com
New York Times Contact Information by Department
How to Contact New York Times Reporters and Editors
USA Today
7950 Jones Branch Dr., McLean, VA 22108
Phone: 703-854-3400
Fax: 703-854-2078Letters to the Editor: editor@usatoday.com
Give feedback to USA Today
The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty St., New York, NY 10281
Phone: 212-416-2000
Fax: 212-416-2658Letters to the Editor: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Comment on News Articles: wsjcontact@dowjones.com
The Washington Post
1150 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20071
Phone: 202-334-6000
Fax: 202-334-5269Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com
Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com
Contact Washington Post Writers and Editors
Newsweek
251 W 57th Street, New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-445-4000
Fax: 212-445-5068Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com
Time
Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, 1271 6th Ave., New York, NY 10020
Phone: 212-522-1212
Fax: 212-522-0003Letters to the Editor letters@time.com
U.S. News & World Report
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-955-2000
Fax: 202-955-2049Letters to the Editor letters@usnews.com
Associated Press
450 West 33rd St., New York, NY 10001
Phone: 212-621-1500
Fax: 212-621-7523
General Questions and Comments: info@ap.org
Partial Contact Information for the Associated Press by Department and Bureau
Reuters Editorial Feedback
United Press InternationalComments and Tips: tips@upi.com
FAIR wants to hear about your media activism. Please send copies of your letters to journalists to
FAIR