Skip to comments.'Spam rage' leads to reporter quitting
Posted on 12/13/2004 5:58:08 PM PST by NCjim
A radio reporter in Philadelphia has resigned from her job after an angry message, left by her on the phone of a lobby group whom she believed were spamming her, was sent to her employer and the media.
Rachel Buchanan, 27, wrote that she had been receiving unsolicited email at her web mail account from a group known as www.Laptoplobbyist.com.
The group makes money by charging $US20 to send faxes to people in power and lobby on selected issues such as minimising separation of church and state and preventing the UN from "brainwashing our kids" into "despising" America.
Ms Buchanan wrote that she had called the number at the bottom of one of the emails only to go to an answering machine. This annoyed her, she says.
Unfortunately, she left her name and number when asked to do so by the recorded message. She put this down to an automatic reaction as she normally leaves these details many times a day in the course of her job.
Then she lost her temper and after calling laptoplobbyist.com again left a voicemail wishing their children ill. She described it as a "terrible message."
This voicemail has been published on laptoplobbyist.com's website and says:
"Hi, my name is Rachel, and my telephone number is [number]. I wanted to tell you that you're evil, horrible people. You're awful people. You represent horrible ideas. God hates you and he wants to kill your children. You should all burn in hell. Bye."
The head of laptoplobbyist.com called her a few days later; he had called her office number which in turn gave her mobile number.
The angry voicemail she had left was converted to an MP3 and sent to her employer, other media and also put up on the laptoplobbyist.com website.
Her boss told her that the alleged spammers wanted an apology. She agreed to this but says the question did not come up when she quit her job a few days later.
Listen to the voicemail here:
Hah. Took her a few days to come up with an alibi, I see.
Talk about carrying water for a disturbed woman. What this woman said did not at all sound like someone lost in the heat of the moment. Her voice was even and her tone was cold.
Has it only been days? Feels more like weeks since I first read about this story.
Of course, the difference is they call me.
Wait a minute! Isn't this the same chick that works for NPR? Wasn't there a story here last week on this same situation but from the angle of the guy who got her nasty message, then researched where she worked, found out it was with NPR and went to the media to ask why she could leave scathing messages on company time?
Both were named "Rachel," but this piece doesn't mention who SHE worked for and that she was leaving nasty messages on the taxpayers dime. (Granted, I'm sure those Laptop Lobbyist people can be QUITE annoying, too.)
Unless I'm losing it? Must stop freeping so much...
Great excuse. SHE's the victim!!! Next, she'll be suing under ADA claiming she's got an illness that allows her to pull such BS stunts.
Yes, its the same woman. I haven't confirmed it yet but I was told by a friend today that she got a job with the ABC television affiliate in Philadelphia, channel 6.
Cold? All femenists are frigid.
I doubt I'm the only one here who is not surprised. As natural as liberals breathe, they lie.
EXACTLY. This is the excuse she'll use from here on, and the excuse the next paper that hires her will 'accept.'
A: Only one, dammit, and it's not funny!
Told to me by my college professor brother, strangely after his neo-feminazi wife left him for her boss at the lawfirm where she had been studying divorce law as an intern for two years, leaving him with their two children, one of which she LaLache breastfed until she was six. Lie down with Liberals, get up with fleas.
Just Rachel's god. Anybody see a cry for help in this? She screaming to evangelicals, no-I'm-not-saved, no-I'm-not-saved. Isn't the bit that cut off - save me! ?
Sounds like her way of reaching out. Rachel may not have a lot of hope in her life. She may be at one of those 'damascus' points. I know what those are about.
So the "I hate spam" is a smoke screen?
Yes... actually we issued a press release (see below) but we're still debating whether we should release it or not. The problem -- the media being what it is -- is that we may give them the opportunity to give the false accusation more traction by responding. Give them the opportunity and the media will burn you.
SPAM or MEDIA SPIN?
By Christopher Carmouche
Executive Director Laptoplobbyist.com
Hi, my name is Rachel and my telephone number is ______________. I wanted to tell you that you're evil horrible people. You're awful people. You represent horrible ideas. God hates you and he wants to kill your children. You should all burn in hell. Bye."
What would you do if you were a local media personality and you left the preceding message on the voicemail of a public policy organization?
What would you do if the public policy organization published the voicemail message and as a result of the controversy, you tendered your resignation?
If youre Rachel Buchman, formerly a reporter for WHYY the Philadelphia NPR affiliate, the answer is simple. You write a hit piece and accuse the organization of spamming you in an attempt to skew the issue and rationalize your actions.
In the hit piece, published last week in the Philadelphia Weekly Online, and reported in the Wall Street Journal Online, Ms. Buchman attributes her motives for making the call to what she calls spam rage.
Unfortunately, Ms. Buchman fails to mention that during a phone conversation I had with her the Saturday after Thanksgiving, she acknowledged that she had, in fact, subscribed to receive the mailers in question.
So, from whence did the accusation come?
During that Saturday phone conversation, Ms. Buchman told me she was having difficulties unsubscribing. Was that actually the case? I dont know. Only Mr. Buchman knows the answer.
For our part, we take the scrubbing of our lists very seriously, but mass mailing is a very frustrating task on occasion.
We do receive the periodic voicemail message from people who only supply their first name or the periodic email from a person who sends the unsubscribe request from an alternate email address. In both cases, we have no way of knowing the address at which the person is subscribed, but these rare instances are usually resolved with a phone call or follow up email to he person in question.
Of course, this skewing, on Ms. Buchmans part, should not come as a surprise. After all, when the Rathergate scandal broke, Dan Rathers initial reaction was to stand by the story and cast aspersions back at President Bush even though it was obvious that the documents on which the story was based were forged.
The accusation of spam is not the only fact that Ms. Buchman skewed. There are others.
Buchman claims that the voicemail message was a personal issue and that she simply made a mistake in leaving her work number. What Buchman fails to mention is that she made the call from work during office hours.
Perhaps, the public apology issued by WHYY states it best, This was an unfortunate incident. It serves to reinforce the understanding that every staff member represents WHYY in every aspect of his or her life both personal and professional.
Buchman claims that I personally campaigned to get her fired. Actually we never called for her termination or resignation. Our goal was, and still is, to illustrate instances of media bias, make those instances of media bias known to the public and encourage the public to sound-off on these issues.
Buchman claims, The company makes money charging $20 a pop to "Insta-Fax" senators, congressfolk (sic) and other people in power form letters on selected issues.
What Buchman does not mention is that Laptoplobbyist.com is incorporated as a 501c4 non profit, so, in essence, we do not make money. While the statement on Buchmans part is carefully worded, the implication is clear. Its tantamount to accusing a church of making money simply because they pass the collection plate every Sunday.
During the conversation we had the Saturday after Thanksgiving, I specifically asked Ms. Buchman if, considering the hateful tone of the message, she could reasonably consider herself an unbiased reporter.
Based on Buchmans response in writing the hit piece in question, the answer is definitely, No.