December 08, 2004

• did she deserve to lose her job? absolutely. why? any reporter who is dense enough to first wonder why she's being spammed by a political group, then stupid enough to place a call from her office phone AND leave her office phone number, and rude and immature enough to say what she did on the tape, is obviously not suited to be working in journalism. i certainly wouldn't want her working for or with me.
• The spammers win again.
• I understand her anger, especially after seeing their site. When the extreme right wing has a disproportionate say in the media, as seen by the recent reveal that 99% of the FCC complaints are from one group, why the hell do they still get away with claiming that the media has a liberal bias? Reporters may or may not be liberal, but they are the ones who hold the power plug to the stations, printing presses, etc. Sometimes I wish I had a magic truth slap fish. It would just appear whenever someone lied to the public and slap them with its slimy, fishy truth. It would end all lobbying, instantly.
• She wasn't fired; she resigned. (which is probably the only smart thing she did)
• The media has a liberal bias because the media has a liberal bias. It's axiomatic. Conventional wisdom. What everyone knows. You can't seriously be suggesting that the media has a conservative bias, can you! Are you some kind of loon? Of course the media is liberal. How can it be otherwise?
• When the extreme right wing has a disproportionate say in the media, as seen by the recent reveal that 99% of the FCC complaints are from one group, why the hell do they still get away with claiming that the media has a liberal bias? How does the origin of FCC complaints indicate "extreme right wing" bias, exactly?
• *in anything but the origin of FCC complaints, that is.
• Because those FCC complaints will change the media, despite the fact that are not relective of the American public. (And I do realise this whole conversation is US-centric - but the initial lobby group is a US one.) Thus, the extreme right wing have a disproportionate say in the content of media in the U.S. There are other reasons I find the media to have a right wing bias (though not as severe as the right wingers claim the liberal bias is): while there are many centrist media sources, there is no left wing source comparable to Fox News, which has a very large share of the television news market; Air America does not have anywhere near the market access as Clear Channel. Nor is there left-wing world equivalent to Rupert Murdoch.
• I had never really put it quite so succinctly as fuyugare did in that message. I am now a believer.
• The media has a liberal bias because the media has a liberal bias. It's axiomatic. Conventional wisdom. Talk radio has a conservative bias because talk radio has a conservative bias. It's axiomatic. Conventional wisdom. Is talk radio not part of the media?
• Grammatical/spelling and stupid correction: "despite the fact that they are not reflective of the opinion of even a plurality of the American public."
• Btw, note that you can call 888-864-1964 if you'd like to leave your own message for laptoplobbyist.com. You can also fax them at 888-239-9306.
• >>there is no left wing source comparable to Fox News fox news started up because supposedly ALL of us are "liberal" media. or at least that's the public's impression.
• all of us being "mainstream media," i mean. at least i consider myself that.
• Hmmm... Laptoplobbiest (which means what???) has a Privacy policy posted, it states "We will never give your email address or other information about you to someone else." I guess that doesn't apply if you call them on the phone, or maybe the answering machine has a different policy that isn't posted. Or perhaps my mac won't properly display the "unless you leave a message in which case we'll call you're employer!" part. either way... these guys are asshats, no matter which way they lean... And, as for Rachel, she made a huge mistake... every comment up to the "kill the children" campaign was just fine... that's the one that went over the line... a little impulsive, to say the least... (and, yes, I do live in a glass house and just threw a stone!)
• "you're" means, of course "your" Midweek stupidity strikes again... /wish there was something like a "preview" button where I could check this stuff out before I make a fool of myself...
• Because those FCC complaints will change the media, despite the fact that are not relective of the American public. I'd like some evidence that the extreme right wing is changing the political message of the media, rather than allegations they *will* change it because they bitch a lot. fox news started up because supposedly ALL of us are "liberal" media. or at least that's the public's impression. I'm sure we won't get anywhere debating who's more liberal or conservative, but the funny thing about Fox News is how successful they are compared to other networks (if I'm not mistaken they were pulling in more than the other major networks according to data a few weeks ago). The viewers have shown their support, it appears. Can't say much about talk radio since I don't listen.
• Thus, the extreme right wing have a disproportionate say in the content of media in the U.S. No, they don't have a disproportionate say...they just make use of it more than the left wingers do. Damn lazy-ass liberals.
• Nice try by Rachel to reframe her stupid fuckup as "spam rage." She's an evil, horrible person, and she represents horrible ideas. Gob hates her and wants to kill her children.
• Wow, taking $20 a pop from poor trailer park conservative whiney yokels! Shit I wish I thought of this first. Only I'd append "Just kidding. PS I <3 Bill Clinton" to all the faxes and donate all the money to the DNC.
• Oh, here's a giggle: the founder of LaptopLobbyist, one Carter Clews, used to be creative director for the creators of the Psychic Friends Network. [courtesy Philadelphia Daily News]
• rocket88, you're right. So, in the spirit of being motivated liberals (or whatever we all happen to be), I give you Contact Information for the FCC: Chairman Michael K. Powell: Michael.Powell@fcc.gov Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: KJMWEB@fcc.gov Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov
• minda - can you set up an email-forwarding device that automatically emails all of them at once, and fills in my message text for me? using 5 email links is 4 links too many.
• Spam rage? Perhaps she should have used the "junk" feature in hotmail to stop those single-sourced emails from coming? Or tried a little-known but super-effective new feature called the "delete" button? I think the real question here is whether she's (a) incredibly stupid and/or mentally handicapped or (b) being even more disingenous after what I can only assume was some misguided effort to generate some sort of anti-spam ("Do you hate spam? Not as much as I do, by cracky!") story backfired miserably.
• I see nothing wrong with what she did. So what, she fucked up and left her office number. Should she be forced to resign? meh. If she was in PR, sure, but she works for a shitty talk radio station. I think that the people at laptoplobbyist should burn in hell. I will furthermore state that their children should be brutally tortured until they beg for the Almighty to end their miserable lives. Simple death is too easy for those shits.
• housepig, that's kinda strange. I'd recommend putting the Chairman in the "To" field, and the rest of them in the "CC" field. Speaking of e-mailing the FCC, I had gotten half-way through my e-mail when weatherbug popped up with an urgent weather message, and then refused to go away. I tinkered around with it until I found the way to turn it off, then when I clicked a button to save it all, it hijacked the page I was writing my e-mail in. I went back quickly, but to no avail; the e-mail was gone. It's a conspiracy, I know it!!
• Isn't WHYY an NPR affiliate in Boston?
• Hell, maybe she was having a bad day at work, and noticed that the dumbasses sending the e-mail left a phone number. Crap, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Especially given the chance to piss off some dumbass hick religious folk. (I wouldn't leave a phone number though... work or cell) I'd just spam their machine with endless ramblings. Worst case scenario, you get a minor harassment charge, but only after they ask you to stop. I always respond to those stupid "Hey I'm in Nigeria and I have twenty billion dollars I want to deposit in your account because the mean man killed my dad/husband/son" e-mails. I leave the phone number and address to the FBI office in NY as my contact. I'm sure they never call or write a letter, but I'll still do it if I'm particularly bored. I don't understand why everyone is so quick to rush to judgement on this.
• No, WHYY is the public TV and NPR affiliate in Philadelphia.
• minda - can you set up an email-forwarding device that automatically emails all of them at once, and fills in my message text for me? using 5 email links is 4 links too many. You could join Working Assets and pay them to automatically send CitizenLetters whenever there's an issue that they think you'd be concerned about. They're good liberal issues too - this month featuing Harry Reid and Diplomacy in Iran! I am a member but even I think this is a dumb idea.
• I think it's time for me to put away the keyboard; I'm having a blonde day. Usually they're just moments, so I can deal with it. It's going to be an interesting day at work...
• Hah! Now I remember why I know those call letters. That's Fresh Air's Terry Gross' home station. I wonder if Terry gets a lot of spam...
• minda, cabingirl - sorry, I guess I should have put the proper markups in my post : , . (and [just to be extremely explicit] sarcasm not directed at you all - directed at the people who find it fulfilling to be an activist and fight for their cause... when other people make it a one-click, no-thought process)
• Chairman Michael K. Powell: I am writing to bring this very important matter to your attention. Last night, after buying my children McDonalds happy meals for dinner, I sat down with them to watch what I heard was a great new show called "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." When the program came on, I was shocked to see homosexualists on my television! I had to cover my children's eyes and lead them out of the room before they were brainwashed by the evil Jesus haters. I am appalled that this program is allowed on the air and I demand that it be removed!
• housepig, honestly it's pretty damn funny. I thought you were having technical problems, and cabingirl thought you were serious. Oh, man, I'm gonna be laughing at that one for a while.
• Man, SideDish, Fes, you're both full of shit on this one. I'm a journalist too, and honestly, what she did wasn't firing material. She made a mistake when she was pissed, but a) the message really wasn't that over the line and b) spammers are evil. My wanting to work with her in a news room would be based on how well she writes (or speaks into a microphone, given her medium). And, for the record, what she said was pretty accurate. God will kill their children, eventually. Though hell is unlikely to exist, so it's doubtful they'll burn in it.
• js, I really wish you'd be a little more polite. It's great that you're upfront and all, but I saw another comment today telling people to shut up, iirc, and now you're telling people they're full of shit? There are better ways to disagree.
• If she's a bad reporter, she should lose her job. That should be the only thing that determines someone losing their job. It shouldn't be based on politics and PR.
• I didn't think housepig was being serious. I was just pointing out that such devices do exist for the lazy left as well as the right. But boy, everything I type comes across so dour...I'll just have to start using exclamation points everywhere!!
• thanks, monkeybashi, but no offense taken. js, if she as a "journalist" is wondering why she's being bombarded with messages from political groups, she's far too dense to be working in this industry. simple as that. we are reporters. we may be the only citizens that any and all groups have a right to pester. it's their duty to get their message out there. and her behavior was beyond immature, it was reprehensible. there are more than 5,000 credentialed reporters here in d.c. alone. imagine what would happen if each of them got pissed at the political spam they receive (each day i routinely receive between dozens and hundreds, depending upon current events) and picked up the phone and left threatening messages for groups with which they personally disagreed. the key there is "personally." she let her personal bias trigger a professional response. utterly, totally wrong, wrong, wrong. go back to Ethics 101, this is basic groundrule stuff. don't know how long you've been in the biz or who you write for, i've been in daily newspapers since my first byline at age 14. that was 1974.
• >>If she's a bad reporter, she should lose her job. That should be the only thing that determines someone losing their job. there's a lot more to journalism than that, knick. ethics figures in greatly. ethics keep us accountable. you're unethical, you're outta here.
• She made a mistake when she was pissed I got sacked once for turning up pissed.
• What SideDish said re: taking offense. I'd further echo what SideDish said about reporters (and I too was one, beat for 3 years, news director for another two): part of being a journalist is keeping your personal feelings in check to do the job right - something that, sadly, has taken a bit of a back seat in journalism the last few decades. Personally, I differ from SideDish in that I don't think incident was based in stupid, I think she was purposefully trying to generate a response from laptoplobbyist so that she could spin this up into some sort of right-wing-spammers-are-meanies story. She calls up, tells them God wants their children dead and LEAVES A CALLBACK? No one is that stupid. She was purposefully trying to provoke a nasty response.
• and that, fes, would also be extraordinarily unethical.
• SideDish- First off, this isn't a political group. This is a commercial service with political leanings. I get probably about 100 messages a day, mostly from musicians. I also get probably 40 messages a day from commercial spammers, and that pisses me off. It would piss me off more if it was a far-right scam, and I had tried to unsubscribe. I can't set a spam filter, because I miss too much info that I need to do my job. But hell, I have a published email address, so I take what I get and try to weed out everything I can. She doesn't, so far as I can tell. Further, she doesn't say whether this happened through her work email or her personal email. Ethics are different from aesthetics. What she said was tasteless, but not unethical. There was no threat there, despite you calling it "threatening." (Since you want to brag about how long you've been in dailies, maybe that's turned you over to yellow journalism in sensationalizing this. I think you should be fired for letting your personal beliefs come through, here, on a message board). She did not let it impair her judgement on a story. She did not give the appearance of impropriety with regard to any story. She was listed as a freelancer and sometimes-producer. Even if the message had been played for other media, there would have been zero stink. This is a no-harm, no-foul situation. Editors get thousands of complaints every day from politically motivated assholes like this, and they shrug them off. Because what matters is how well the person does the job. The only thing she did that landed her in this situation was giving her work number as a call-back. If she had left the message with her cell phone number, we wouldn't be hearing about this. And no, Fes, she probably wanted someone to call her back so that she could be dropped from their email list. I've said at parties that some of the people I cover are real assholes. They are. I still cover them fairly, no matter what stupid shit they're up to. Should I be fired? No. The measure of journalism isn't having no personal feelings, or never expressing those feelings, it's covering the news fairly and objectively. You're trying to make this a bigger thing that it should, and you're caving to the right-wing bullies on this, and that's wrong. Just like it would be wrong if the Washington Post had really suspended the woman in Iraq who wrote the email about how things were really going.
• >>What she said was tasteless, but not unethical. what she DID was absolutely unethical. and what she SAID was indeed threatening -- at least most people would consider wishing someone's children dead as threatening. you and i are worlds apart on journalistic ethics, js. a number of comments in your reponse reveal you just aren't familiar with the subject. i'm leaving it at that. i won't debate with someone who doesn't know the basics, it'll just seem like i'm ganging up on you.
• In the end we must, js, I suppose, disagree. Regardless of motivation, unlike your party talk she said things on a recorder that went public and, in my opinion, changed her ability to do her job in the manner that journalistic ethics, as I apprehend them, require. It is something that as a journalist she should have known not to do. As for her getting fired for it? In the end, it comes down to the opinion of her boss, who knows her work and character far better than any of us. He felt it was worth firing her over, and that is his sole prerogative. Whether or not he caved to right wing bullies is both speculative and, in any event, moot.
• We've all made mistakes in our journalism careers, to greater and lesser punishment, comparatively, than Ms. Buchman. What we do is learn from those mistakes. Ms. Buchman's article, while ostensibly an apology, really is not - it's an explanation and a shot at her detractors. Perhaps that is what irritates me about this case - I feel that journalists have greater need of ethics than the average person, because of the privileges that we enjoy that come with the press card, the power we can exert. Ms. Buchman shows, in her actions and her "apology," that she is both impulsive and petulant - neither of which are good qualities for a journalist. And when Ms. Buchman displays these qualities publicly, all journalists are demeaned and distrusted just a little bit.
• After reading the laptoplobbyist site, I'm comforted by the fact that those responsible for it might not be able to reproduce.