The Shirley Sherrod Fiasco

[WuDrWu]

I am a little surprised we haven't discussed this more.

I found this article looking for more information. I am a little surprised this was printed in the examiner:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Shirley-Sherrods-Disappearing-Act-Not-So-Fast-98846149.html

I actually found the initial video obviously (to me) unclear and immediately felt there was going to be more to the story that wasn't fully being told at that point.

I want to know more and look forward to a more detailed accounting of what has happened over time.

One thing I want to know, for sure, is how someone sues the government and then gets hired by that same agency. I am going to have to have that explained to me in detail before I feel I have a real good understanding of this situation.

[Maggie]

I can’t answer your question about the lawsuit. It is an interesting (strange) twist to the story but I doubt it will be pursued further. My guess is that all parties (with the possible exception of Sherrod) just want this issue to go away.

This situation is appalling from all sorts of angles. First, there’s the knee-jerk reaction of the administration to demand her resignation - by her account, she was asked to pull over to the side of the road to resign by cellphone by a USDA official, who claimed pressure from the White House. This shows a despicable lack of respect for due process: Surely Sherrod was entitled to at least defend herself - to produce the full text of her remarks in order to show her broader point. These people at the White House are uber-sensitive – and I think it is interesting (and disconcerting) what issues they deem important enough to respond to quickly – but that is a different discussion.

Second, as I understand it, her remarks related to her conduct as a non-governmental official more than 20 years ago. She did not claim to have denied government benefits on the basis of race, which would have been a violation of the applicant’s constitutional rights, but rather recounted a story of her time in, as I understand it, a non-profit organization. And it turns out that her story was merely a description of how she came to have more enlightened views on issues of race and poverty (at least in part based on some subsequent comments by Sherrod this lady obviously still has some baggage). Look it is not surprising that a black woman growing up in the deep South might harbor some suspicions of her white brethren; it is reassuring that Sherrod was able to overcome those preconceptions (to a degree), and it is refreshing that she could admit to having had them - an honest admission that certainly doesn’t cast her in the most flattering light, until you listen to her whole story.

Finally, Breitbart has some ’splaining to do. His defense that it was about the audience’s reaction and not Sherrod’s words strikes me as weak. The obvious impact of the video is to paint her as a racist who abused her power. She didn't. I would agree that the NAACP is chock-a-block with people whose race-centrism and air of moral certainty would be immediately denounced as racist if it came from white people (and rightly so). Furthermore, I would agree that the NAACP carries water for the Democratic Party and it has been discredited, again, by initially denouncing Sherrod – while they had the full tape all the time. But all that is at best secondary at this point. It is dangerous to run with a story based on a snippet - and Breitbart has an obligation to investigate before rolling out an expose on someone (especially someone as obscure as Sherrod) as do those on the Left (e.g., Dan Rather).

Sherrod is no angel; but she was wronged, she is entitled to apologies from all concerned and she should get her job back.

[vbird53]

Another issue that I have with the whole mess was all the mis-reporting. I heard snippets from several outlets that never really got the story right.

I know this is a broader issue, but it certainly came to light in this example.

[shockall]

....or could this just be another left winger's method of setting herself up for an "easy-to-win" lawsuit against the government? The whole thing could have been staged for her own benefit........stranger things are happening ...right now!

[wu_shizzle]

But all that is at best secondary at this point. It is dangerous to run with a story based on a snippet - and Breitbart has an obligation to investigate before rolling out an expose on someone (especially someone as obscure as Sherrod) as do those on the Left (e.g., Dan Rather).

Maggie if you had a blog it would be daily reading for me and I always look forward to your observations, but I don't think the Rather analogy applies.

I know David Frum has made the analogy as well but this WSJ post blows it up in my opinion: WSJ Link

[Maggie]

But all that is at best secondary at this point. It is dangerous to run with a story based on a snippet - and Breitbart has an obligation to investigate before rolling out an expose on someone (especially someone as obscure as Sherrod) as do those on the Left (e.g., Dan Rather).

Maggie if you had a blog it would be daily reading for me and I always look forward to your observations, but I don't think the Rather analogy applies.

I know David Frum has made the analogy as well but this WSJ post blows it up in my opinion: WSJ Link

.

I think you and the WSJ make a valid point as far as it goes - I will try to respond on Sunday or Monday.

[Maggie]

wu_shizzle,

To begin with you are correct that taken as a whole the Breitbart and Rather analogy is not the best one – perhaps I should have used someone like Andrew Sullivan (of baby Trig fame) instead of Rather. I don’t know. But I was disappointed with Brietbart (who I think has done some good things) and I believe I had cause to be disappointed.

Brietbart, as I understand it, seems to be driven to expose and/or highlight certain stories he believes the MSM ignores. He believes they ignore such stories because of an inherent liberal/progressive bias. So Brietbart scrutinizes people and organizations on the Left with an almost religious fervor – he is probably not going to focus on those on the Right because he believes others already do so. He believes he is filling a gap. But Brietbart is upfront about all of this – everyone knows where he is coming from and he has no duty to report news in a neutral manner. He is closer to an editorial writer than a straight journalist – but in reality he is neither.

By contrast Rather held himself out to be an objective mind. He publicly claimed that his job was to simply report the news and let the facts fall where they will. As a journalist/reporter he does have a duty to report the news neutrally and allow both sides of an issue close to equal time.

My point was narrow (and upon reflection not the best example): Both Rather and Brietbart share a duty, as I wrote, to investigate and verify information before disseminating it publicly, especially where it could have an adverse effect on those who are featured in a story. This is essential if you want to have any sort of creditability regardless of your ideological bias or role in the media. Both failed to meet this fundamental standard.

Brietbart published an edited version of Sherrod’s speech (a lady who by the day is losing sympathy with me by the bucket full) without checking for context – that was a mistake and it cost him. Rather’s failing was far more egregious because he held himself out to be objective – he ran with a story that could effect a presidential election without checking into all the facts. And even when Rather’s story was proven to be false he strangely dug in his heals and stood by his narrative (in the meantime the story took on a life of its own) – to my knowledge he stands by it to this day.

Both Brietbart and Rather see the world, as we all do, through an ideological prism. The difference is Brietbart admits it and Rather piously claims to be on the "side of the Angels". This is where the analogy falls apart.

Thanks for the feedback wu_shizzle – I think you are correct and it was not my intention to imply that Brietbart’s and Rather’s situations were equivalent.

[rZ]

As I have followed this story the past few days, I was to understand that the video originally posted by Breitbart did include Sherod stating that she learned it wasnt about race but about haves vs. have nots (paraphrased). Its just that that statement was at the very end of the video and almost nobody got past the original race comments. Am I mistaken?

Its difficult to keep some of the facts straight with the mainstream media and cable news each twisting what they can to make their respective points.

[RoyalShock]

I read a transcript of that portion of the video. IIRC, she said, paraphrase, it's not about race - well it sort of is - but also about haves vs. have-nots.

She tried to say it wasn't about race, but was ultimately unable to betray her instincts and included the disclaimer.

I haven't heard the audio so I can't verify the claim that the NAACP audience was gleeful at her description of the incident. If so, that is the bigger issue, IMO.

The media (whoever that includes) that ran with the "juicy" part, should be ashamed.

[Maggie]

As I have followed this story the past few days, I was to understand that the video originally posted by Breitbart did include Sherod stating that she learned it wasnt about race but about haves vs. have nots (paraphrased). Its just that that statement was at the very end of the video and almost nobody got past the original race comments. Am I mistaken?

Its difficult to keep some of the facts straight with the mainstream media and cable news each twisting what they can to make their respective points.

I believe the original edited video that was posted by Breitbart excluded language you are writing about – which I know came at the beginning of the speech (I didn’t watch the whole thing so she probably mentioned it later as well).

Which is, in part, why I believe Breitbart's defense that he was targeting the audience doesn’t get him very far. That may have been his primary motivation but one could simply say – the audience knew where she was going with her little morality tale.

If he had to do it over again, I would like to think Breitbart would have done things differently.

[SB Shock]

Maybe she was actually fired for the $13 Million dollar fraud she committed of the U.S. Government and they were just to embarrassed to admit their own Governmental incompetence.

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/?singlepage=true