Know the Achilles heel

[Oliver]

Just a thought. The most vulnerable point of FOX News is
their Advertisement department, isn't it?

The point is that those "Achilles heels" of a company are
very, very easy to attack or block by simply flooding them
with calls, snail-mail and e-mail.

What other critical Departments at FOX come to your mind?

FOX Advertising addresses:

FOX News Channel
Cable Advertising Group
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
(212) 301-3000

FOX Business Network
John McCann
Vice President, Sales
(212) 301-5009
john.mccann@foxnews.com

Detroit
John Luginbill
VP, Advertising Sales
(248) 687-1038
(248) 687-1646 Fax
john.luginbill@foxnews.com

Eastern
Mike Mandelker
VP, Eastern Sales
(212) 301-5412
(212) 301-5419 Fax
mike.mandelker@foxnews.com

Southern
Sam Moser
VP, Advertising Sales
(817) 348-0964
(817) 348-0453 Fax
sam.moser@foxnews.com

West Coast
Mary Jack
VP, Advertising Sales
(310) 444-8754
(310) 444-8660 Fax
mary.jack@foxnews.com

Midwest
Steve Sorich
VP, Advertising Sales
(312) 494-4790
(312) 494-0365 Fax
steve.sorich@foxnews.com

Southern
Lisa Meade
Account Executive
(817) 348-0335
(817) 348-0453 Fax
lisa.meade@foxnews.com


Source: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22FOX+News%22+advertising+site%3Awww.foxnews.co m&btnG=Search

[Oliver]

For FOX News radio advertising:

John Murphy
Dial-Global
(212) 967-2888
jmurphy@dial-global.com

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/mediakit/ad_radio_contact.html

[FacelessJoe]

I really don't suggest this. Spamming us only puts us on the same level as they are.

[Oliver]

I really don't suggest this. Spamming us only puts us on the same level as they are.

I strongly suggest this if they mess with us to push the
agenda of their and "FOX's friends" idea of foreign policies.
That's exactly what they tried to censor all the time.

[Oliver]

*Blimp* for more vulnerable communication dependent departments.

[rockwell]

It is if you really think that Fox is a business. If their stock sank to zero tomorrow, do you really think they'd turn off the cameras and go away?

LMFAO, you haven't been paying attention.

[tcindie]

I forget the exact amount, but the fine for spam is somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000 per occurance. Doesnt' seem to me that would be a good use of campaign funds, and I certainly wouldn't want to be personally responsible for any of that.

No matter how unethical they may be, technically they do have a right to conduct their business as they see fit. The fairness doctrine doesn't exist, so we aren't guaranteed airtime for Ron Paul. I'm glad he has been given the time they've given him.

Are they treating him right? No. Are they ethical? No... But there's nothing that says they have to be. It's unfortunate, but if you believe in the message of freedom that we're promoting here you really can't do anything to them. They'll come around eventually, and if not -- well for all the hate they gave Clinton, he still got two terms.

[Oliver]

I forget the exact amount, but the fine for spam is somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000 per occurance. Doesnt' seem to me that would be a good use of campaign funds, and I certainly wouldn't want to be personally responsible for any of that.

No matter how unethical they may be, technically they do have a right to conduct their business as they see fit. The fairness doctrine doesn't exist, so we aren't guaranteed airtime for Ron Paul. I'm glad he has been given the time they've given him.

Are they treating him right? No. Are they ethical? No... But there's nothing that says they have to be. It's unfortunate, but if you believe in the message of freedom that we're promoting here you really can't do anything to them. They'll come around eventually, and if not -- well for all the hate they gave Clinton, he still got two terms.

Nobody is going to Spam Fox - it would be a massive amount of requests
and questions by many individuals towards the addresses. And it is just a
Strategy "in case of".

Just in case. And I will look up the "Spam-Law" to make sure that asking
questions isn't considered as Spam.

[Oliver]

According to http://www.spamlaws.com/spam-laws.html, it wouldn't be scam.

Did you have other laws in mind?

[tcindie]

I think a mass amount of email sent with malicious intent would be construed as spam. I know as an IT person I would probably go after it that way -- or at least look into it. I'm sure Murdoch has got a lot of lawyers in his pocket

And if not spam.. it could almost certainly be considered a denial of service attack and harassment