Dammit. I keep screwing this message up. First I couldn't find the
original post that I meant to cut and paste and then-- Well, it isn't
worth explaining.
Let's just let it rest with this. If you can find the original post that
has a decent amount of information about the Newseek Jake project, please
screen it up, hit 'r' and mail it to me. I don't care if I get 100k copies
of it. I need to read it because I'm very sketch on the original details.
But, I'm going to try to bring them out of my rusty old mind just for the
benefit of those of you who think they may be interested in this project
but missed the original post and aren't quite sure what's going on.
So, here goes. If I screw this up, anyone, let me know:
A week or more back, someone here at alt.slack mentioned that when Newsweek
magazine receives 25 or more letters on any one topic or about a story they
have run or what have you, they consider it to be a major response from their
readership, indicative of a major consensus.
Thus, if we can scrape together 25 people willing to organize long enough to
write a letter each to Newsweek, we may be able to influence a national news
magazine, and thereby have some sort of large impact up their editorial
policies or their news focus, or something.
Whatever happens, it's likely that it will be be on the more-major-than-the
stuff-that-usually-goes-on-in-the-average-schmuck's-life level. And if not
that, well then at least it was fun.
So, we've got ten people in on the operation so far, and we need AT LEAST
15 more, though even more is even better. After we've gathered the necessary
numbers, we will decide on a definite topic which we will write to Newsweek
magazine about. (Or we can decide before we get 25 people.) Then we write.
I'm putting together a list of everyone who replies, mainly to keep track
of how many of us there are, and additionally to make up for the usual
Usenet lag. Once there are 25 I'll mail to everyone whose address I have and
post here too.
Then we'll write the letters.
Then we'll sit back and laugh our asses off.
Yay.
Rev. Matthew A. Carey ac118@lafn.org
***
Subject: Re: Newsweek jake, re-explained.
From: ljduchez@en.com (Lou DuChez)
Date: 25 Nov 1994 07:42:14 -0500
At the very least, we could get them to cover some topic that needs
covering. If they cover "Windows 95", we could demand that they cover
"Geoworks" as well. If they cover Limbaugh, we could demand that they
cover Jim Hightower and / or Jerry Brown as well. For once, we might be
leading the Con around by its nose; no reason to waste the opportunity
on buffoonery, like "I saw Cab Calloway in Brazil".
For best results, we should *respond* to one of their articles. If we
all suddenly write in about a new topic, it will look organized. If
we're responding to an article of theirs, it will make sense to get the
replies they get.
> Then we'll sit back and laugh our asses off.
Well, the way I look at it, the point isn't to laugh our asses off, but
simply to have the pleasure of FORCING the Con to do something at our
behest. So it's not really a "jake", designed to make them say
"What the -- ?" and get on with their lives; it's really more like a
SubGenius raid mission, designed to subvert a corner of the Con. And to
this effect, we shouldn't write in like wild-eyed loons; we should don
our Masks of Normality before starting to write.
---------------------------------------------------------
NEWSWEEK JAKE:
But I think it should be a subject matter that isn't so absurd they don't take it seriously. In fact it needn't be adsurd at all. Stop and think. What do WE WANT "the average Newsweek reader" to APPEAR to be DEATHLY CONCERNED ABOUT? What new "FEAR FAD" could we start that would BEHOOVE us? Perhaps... that this book their kids are buying is having... different... EFFECTS?? Nah, too obvious. Soemthing that THEIR FEAR OF WHICH would somehow SERVE DOBBS. Fear of censorship? Something that idicates that the suares, limpdicks and fundies have GONE WAY WAY TOO FAR...? Just like the scare story about the "P.C. Threat" that the other media conspiracy started. Of course "p.c." IS a threat but it was the way it got POPULARLY DEFINED that got twisted around, as if every college professor in the world was a Marxist brainwasher. THEY exploited the fear of LIBERALS AND QUEERS TAKING OVER. Our JAKE should make it appear that CENSORSHIP OF CRITICISM OF TALK SHOW HOSTS is happening -- maybe make it look like Rush Limbaugh's audience includes a loose army of thugs who suppress criticism? And somebody else write in about how Gordon Liddy's people "shut him up"? Nah, too partisan. We should make it appear that fundamentalist churchgoers (including New Agers and Muslims and so on) are getting violent with EVERYBODY, not just abortion clinics. Like huge gangs of poebuckers chasing weirdos and non-(name religious nut here) down the street chanting slogans, incredibly extreme inflamatory stuff you "heard" on the radio, etc... huh... I dunno... more kicking around of subject matter for jake needed.
Vladimir Stang
****
Original file name: The Newsweek Jake
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.