NPR Reporter Says Christians Should 'Burn'


#1

NPR Reporter Says Christians Should 'Burn’
by Terry Phillips, correspondent Hateful voice mail message to conservative group leads to resignation.

A National Public Radio (NPR) reporter has resigned after a hateful voice mail message she left for a conservative group was made public.

Rachel Buchman worked for WHYY in Philadelphia, an NPR affiliate, when she called the offices of the Web site laptoplobbyist.com to express her outrage over an e-mail the group sent to her opposing special rights for homosexuals.

“You’re evil, horrible people. You’re awful people,” she said, identifying herself only as “Rachel.” “You represent horrible ideas. God hates you and He wants to kill your children. You should all burn.”

Chris Carmouche, publisher of laptoplobbyist.com, said he’s accustomed to liberals being offended by his group’s moral stands—but added that Buchman’s message was over the top.

“We want people to know that this is not an isolated incident,” he said. “People have to realize there’s not just a media bias, but in many cases there is a media hatred, toward anything conservative, Christian or traditional.”

After Carmouche posted a recording of Buchman’s message on his Web site, she apologized for “a personal matter that was turned into a public issue.”

“Rather than call my journalistic integrity into question,” she said. “I decided to resign for personal reasons.”

Carmouche said it’s too late for her professional reputation to be salvaged.

“Conservatives will no longer tolerate the reporting of liberal vitriol as fact,” he told The Washington Times. “We will not tolerate the Dan Rathers of the world spoon-feeding the public liberal propaganda. And we will call the ‘old media’ to account when they make their biases and bigotries obvious and deviate from commonly acceptable standards of journalism.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Take a closer look at the mainstream media’s liberal bias by reading the CitizenLink commentary “Cheering in the Press Box” by Gary Schneeberger.

family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0034773.cfm


#2

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_2_25.gif

Dan Blather spoon-feeds propaganda? Say it isn’t so!


#3

I bet that “tolerant” N.P.R reporter will find a nice job at Beliefnet. The so called multi “faith” online community which hates Catholics and Evangelical Christians. LOL. I am happy the real liberal agenda was exposed!!!


#4

I think libs like her are only the tip of the iceberg. This is but one more aspect of the war that is brewing in our society.


#5

This is great news for a Monday morning! Who’s next?


#6

Where’s Peacemonger?


#7

[quote=CaptSC]Where’s Peacemonger?
[/quote]

Probably making some phone calls. :whistle:


#8

[quote=JMJ_Pinoy]Probably making some phone calls. :whistle:
[/quote]

:smiley:


#9

[quote=CaptSC]Where’s Peacemonger?
[/quote]


#10

I second that question.God Bless


#11

[quote=CaptSC]Where’s Peacemonger?
[/quote]

Until recently, the “Preemption for All” thread.


#12

Whenever I read a story like this, I like to reverse it to see how I would feel if it were the other way around.

So reversing the situation, I come up with the following as an equivalent scenario:

A pro-abortion group sends an unsolicted e-mail to a Catholic reporter, and that reporter acting on his own behalf calls the pro-abortion group to complain and to tell them how sinful abortion is.

Would we expect him to resign? I, for one, would applaud him.

But if he lost his temper and says things that he shouldn’t (“God wants your to kill your children”). I don’t know. He might lose my applause, but he would have my sympathy, I think.

It’s a personal belief, and people are allowed to express their beliefs, even (especially) if they are wrong. I don’t think that being a reporter should deprive you from private expression of what you think morality is.


#13

[quote=Timidity]Whenever I read a story like this, I like to reverse it to see how I would feel if it were the other way around.

So reversing the situation, I come up with the following as an equivalent scenario:

A pro-abortion group sends an unsolicted e-mail to a Catholic reporter, and that reporter acting on his own behalf calls the pro-abortion group to complain and to tell them how sinful abortion is.

Would we expect him to resign? I, for one, would applaud him.

But if he lost his temper and says things that he shouldn’t (“God wants your to kill your children”). I don’t know. He might lose my applause, but he would have my sympathy, I think.

It’s a personal belief, and people are allowed to express their beliefs, even (especially) if they are wrong. I don’t think that being a reporter should deprive you from private expression of what you think morality is.
[/quote]

Sounds a bit too moral relativistic to me. There are boundaries. There are absolute rights and wrongs.


#14

[quote=Timidity]Whenever I read a story like this, I like to reverse it to see how I would feel if it were the other way around.

So reversing the situation, I come up with the following as an equivalent scenario:

A pro-abortion group sends an unsolicted e-mail to a Catholic reporter, and that reporter acting on his own behalf calls the pro-abortion group to complain and to tell them how sinful abortion is.

Would we expect him to resign? I, for one, would applaud him.

But if he lost his temper and says things that he shouldn’t (“God wants your to kill your children”). I don’t know. He might lose my applause, but he would have my sympathy, I think.

It’s a personal belief, and people are allowed to express their beliefs, even (especially) if they are wrong. I don’t think that being a reporter should deprive you from private expression of what you think morality is.
[/quote]

Are you saying that being against the murder of abortion is a moral equalalent to being a practicing homosexual? If not, you can’t simply reverse roles.


#15

[quote=fix]There are boundaries. There are absolute rights and wrongs.
[/quote]

Agreed. But what we’re discussing is a person responding to an e-mail and supporting their own personal beliefs. Whether or not their personal belief is right or wrong, they should be allowed to express it. (Not act on it, but express it).

[quote=fix]Are you saying that being against the murder of abortion is a moral equalalent to being a practicing homosexual?
[/quote]

No, I was saying that speaking one’s conscience is the moral equivalence of speaking one’s conscience.

It is possible that we are approaching a day and age when Christianity will once again be the minority religion. If, from a secular stand-point, Christians expect those who believe differantly from us to be forced into silence, then we must be willing to accept the same treatment.

I, personally, prefer a society in which we allow people to speak their conscience, right or wrong.


#16

This reporter was spewing hatred, knowing that her words were being recorded via voicemail.

It wasn’t, "Your philosophy is flawed, you’re breaking God’s laws, etc., " which is what would be said by a pro-lifer.

It was “You people are horrible. You should burn. God wants your children to die.” That is hate speech.

As a professional reporter, she should be expected to conduct herself in a respectable manner, whether she’s on the air or not.

I am amazed, however, that she did resign. Normally such people adamantly defend their actions, and liberal big wigs go right along with that.


#17

[quote=Timidity]I, personally, prefer a society in which we allow people to speak their conscience, right or wrong.
[/quote]

No one impeded anyone to speak their conscience. However, in doing that, everyone must bear responsibility for that, especially when it crosses the line of hate speech. In this case, it boarders on a threat (“Should I watch my children?”, the listener might wonder).


#18

[quote=Lilyofthevalley]I bet that “tolerant” N.P.R reporter will find a nice job at Beliefnet. The so called multi “faith” online community which hates Catholics and Evangelical Christians. LOL. I am happy the real liberal agenda was exposed!!!
[/quote]

Did you get that email from bud about REteach being a moderator on Catholic Debate? What a joke!


#19

[quote=Panis Angelicas]This reporter was spewing hatred, knowing that her words were being recorded via voicemail.

It wasn’t, "Your philosophy is flawed, you’re breaking God’s laws, etc., " which is what would be said by a pro-lifer.

It was “You people are horrible. You should burn. God wants your children to die.” That is hate speech.
[/quote]

Agree and for that she should personally be criticized and her firing/resignation, whatever, was appropriate.

[quote=]As a professional reporter, she should be expected to conduct herself in a respectable manner, whether she’s on the air or not.

I am amazed, however, that she did resign. Normally such people adamantly defend their actions, and liberal big wigs go right along with that.
[/quote]

…but let’s all keep our shirts on and recognize that in her post she was not pretending to or actually speaking for NPR, nor have I heard any suggestion that NPR supported her outburst as permissible free speech or any other such non-sense. It’s great to call a spade a spade, but let’s not be too quick to piant with an overly broad brush. I’m sure NPR is no more eager to claim her than the pro-life movement is to claim those who would justify murdering abortion providers.


#20

I just gave a talk to a group of college students yeaterday, and one of the topics I covered was the loss of “intangibles,” in our society in the last 40 years. We’ve lost the true meaning of what it means to be a human person, of human dignity, of individual character, of…well, you get the idea.
I explained that when I was growing up in the '50’s (I know, antidiluvian) the word “right” was never separated from the word “responsibility” by more than a few other words, like, "for every right, there is a commensurate responsibility."
When’s the last time you heard that anyone had “responsibility” to go along with his "rights?"
We all have the right of free speech. We have the responsibility to not lie, not slander and, in a civil society, not vent our hate for the views of another with whom we disagree.
Additionally, this woman is (or was) a public person whose objectivity was, I’m sure, trusted by many.
Along with Rights - Responsibilities comes actions - conseqences.
Speaking one’s conscience is not the issue. This was not conscience being spoken, it was sheer vitriol spoken by someone who should know better.
Her right to say what she did - guaranteed.
Her subsequent resignation - the proper thing to do.
The posting of the tape on a web sight - great topic for another thread. Did she have the expectation of privacy? Was it proper because of her position?
Just to finish the thought, I don’t think NPR has any part of this, any more than CNN, FOX, or ABC would, though I wouldn’t mind seeing a “Rather-type” incident pulled by NPR. As far as I know they haven’t and should be left out of it.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.