The controversy continues over a video of Georgia director of Rural Development Shirley Sherrod at the NAACP. Sherrod, and many supporters, have objected that the tape from the NAACP event was clearly edited to cut off her comments to mislead the viewers. Andrew Breitbart released the video but insists that he did not edit it. The question is whether Sherrod can sue over the video. Most criticism is focusing on Andrew Breitbart who released the video on his media sites. Raw Story released the full video without the editing. In response, Breitbart told Fox News “this is not about Shirley and Andrew.” He appears half right given the growing condemnations directed at him.
The video itself is certainly misleading as edited.
Sherrod immediately objected that the remarks were “misconstrued.” Nevertheless, she resigned after the video was made public and was denounced by both the NAACP and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. She claims that she was forced to resign by the White House. The White House later issued an apology to Sherrod.
UPDATE: Vilsack has apologized to Sherrod and offered her a “unique position.”
The NAACP has now retracted the original statement below.
This video shows Sherrod recounted “the first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm” and how she viewed the farmer as trying to be “superior” to her while she controlled the money for such farmers.
“He had to come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him . . . I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land — so I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough.”
She notes that, to avoid any later complaints, she said she took him to see “one of his own” — a white lawyer” “I figured that if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.”
Media Matters has responded to the story and accused Breitbart of misleading people on the story. They note that Sherrod was telling a story she had described took place decades ago when she worked for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund. The video reportedly excluded the fact that Sherrod spoke of how she went on to work with and befriend the man. She is quoted as saying at the end of the story: “And I went on to work with many more white farmers,” she said. “The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it’s about the people who have and the people who don’t. When I speak to groups, I try to speak about getting beyond the issue of race.”
This account is supported by the farmer’s wife who credited Sherrod with saving their land. For the video interview, click here.
There is no question that the edited material left a false impression as to the point of the speech. Before getting to the possible legal consequences of such editing, it is important to note that the added material is redeeming but still leaves some disturbing racial elements in the speech. First, the video appears to show a few members of the audience responding positively to the racially-loaded portions of the speech, though that is subject to interpretation. Moreover, these audience comments are not made by Sherrod. However, it is disturbing to hear positive reactions to that portion of the speech. One possible interpretation is that the audience understood where she was going with the speech or was simply encouraging her in a build up to the crescendo of the speech. Second, Sherrod clearly states that roughly 20-25 years ago, she was viewing individuals in strikingly racial terms. That would put this story around the late 1980s and 1990s. It is pretty shocking to hear that Sherrod was still thinking of that white should work with their “own kind” and viewed the case in largely racial terms. The ultimate result of Sherrod overcoming race is commendable, but I have to say that I do not agree that it fully answers the concerns about this story. I would be very disturbed to hear that a white politician was in 1986 uncomfortable with fully assisting black people and actively sought to have “one of their kind” help them. It may be a sign of my age, but 1986 doesn’t feel that long ago and I would have been appalled to hear such views at that time. Moreover, the racial elements of the speech seemed to in part explain the earlier view in light of how black farmers were being treated. In defense of Sherrod, it has been noted that she was working for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund, which specifically aids black farmers.
Putting aside this issue, the editing was clearly intended to make the story worse than it was. She uses the racially loaded story to explain that “That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have.” That is a very different story where she was trying to explain how she learned to overcome racial sentiments. Other leaders like the late Henry Byrd Jr., made similar redemptive speeches. While I am still bothered by the fact that this was a revelation in the 1980s or 1990s (as opposed to the 1950s or 1960s), it is still a very different story than shown on the video released by Breitbart.
The question is whether there is legal recourse for such editing. There is but it is not easy. An employment action based on being pressured to resign is doubtful. Company and government lawyers often prefer employees to resign because it effectively waives a host of statutory and common law protections. Sherrod herself has stated that she is not sure she even wants her job back. It would have been a far stronger case if she had forced termination proceedings. However, at least one expert thinks she might have a case under employment law.
John Dean wrote a terrific piece on this issue.
The most obvious claims would be false light and defamation.
The Restatement Second defines the tort of false light:
652E. Publicity Placing Person in False Light
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
This would certainly seem to be a case of intentional or reckless act. It could also be claimed to be highly offensive to a reasonable person. However, the editor can claim that the tape was meant to show not just the racially loaded comments of a speaker but the reaction of the audience to that portion of the speech. Moreover, Sherrod is still admitting to pretty disturbing racial views in her earlier view of white farmers from the 1980s or 1990s. That is not an entirely complete defense, however, because it still does not explain why the editor would cut out the point of the story.
False light cases have resulted in high damages against news organizations as in this case. However, this verdict was later overturned, which rejected the very use of false light as a tort action.
Some states have curtailed or abandoned false light because such cases can be properly heard in defamation cases. In this case, Sherrod would be considered a public figure or limited public figure. As such, she would need to prove that the editor or people like Breitbart acted with knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard of the falsity. The question is whether it was false in terms of what was intended to be shown. The editor could claim that he or she was seeking to show the racial elements at the NAACP in response to that organization’s criticism of the Tea Party. That is the position taken by Breitbart in interviews in response to outrage over his role in the controversy,here
Of course, if Sherrod were to sue, she would likely make it past initial motions to dismiss and could secure embarrassing discovery in the case, including possible internal emails and communications on the purpose of the editing and release of the video.
I’m going to offer a different perspective on this situation that might be startling. It is from Bruce Dixon at blackagendareport.com. There is another piece on their site by Glenn Ford. Mr. Ford does feel the Tea Party Movement is racist but still criticizes Obama.
“From the established civil rights organizations like the NAACP to legions of elected Democrats and preachers and even people like our good friends at Color of Change, the main activity these days is an endless circling of wagons around the president, defending him against the flood of racist bile that spews daily from the likes of Fox News, the Tea Partyers and naysaying Republicans. But is that really where so much of our energy and creativity should be going? Aren’t there other urgent matters more deserving of the attention of black America’s political leadership, our pastors and spokespeople and self-described activists? Matters like black mass incarceration, record unemployment, and the sinking of vast resources into multiple wars abroad?”
Elaine,
It is pretty explicit. He is saying that the sentence quoted makes for a different story from the “racially loaded story” story that appeared on TV. Do you agree that the quoted sentence completely changed the story from the one first shown on TV?
“Putting aside this issue, the editing was clearly intended to make the story worse than it was. She uses the racially loaded story to explain that “That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have.” That is a very different story where she was trying to explain how she learned to overcome racial sentiments.”
You know, it’s really funny … having failed as Catholics in running Europe as a Christian theocracy, having failed as Protestants in running England as a Christian theocracy, why in the world would Christians think that a Christian theocracy in America would result in anything other than failure … maybe C Streeters could set me straight on why replacing our Republic form of government as established by the Constitution with the newest new order of Christianity would succeed.
Blouise–
It’s not easy being green, ya know!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco&hl=en_US&fs=1]
TraderB–
I did respond at 6:30 pm yesterday. I wrote the following comment:
His (Professor Turley’s) last sentence: That is a very different story where she was trying to explain how she learned to overcome racial sentiments.”
I don’t think the meaning is clear–and I’m not sure what your point is. I do agree with what Slartibartfast wrote: It being revealed to her “that it’s about poor versus those who have.” is the epiphany that allowed her to overcome her racial sentiments.
**********
I’m not exactly sure what Professor Turley meant when he wrote that sentence. It isn’t explicit or clear to me–so I can’t agree or disagree with it. What do you think he meant to imply?
I wonder if calling out Buddha for his color makes me a racist … nah, some of my best friends are green.
Elaine M.
“TraderB–
Your responding to a comment Buddha made to me by bringing up statutory rape laws is really mature and speaks to the subject at hand.
(Please note the intended sarcasm in my comment above.)”
You are right. I should not have brought you in.
Elaine M,
You never did answer my question of whether you agreed with Professor Turley’s statement.
TraderB,
The only thing slightly scary about Buddha is his green complexion. I suppose, given his knowledge of the Constitution, he does frighten those who are attempting to subvert that document in order to establish a Christian theocracy.
I suspect that many televangelists and mega-church pastors look at the present day Mullahs and Ayatollahs protecting their respective states’ Islamic character through Islamist ideology and salivate. If only the Christian clergy lived in a Christian country run by a Christian priesthood wherein all answered to the Christian theocracy … then they too would have the power their Islamic brothers possess …. not power for themselves … heavens no … the power to save others … for Jesus of course.
What stands in the way of that big Christian takeover of our Republic is the Constitution and the Declaration that preceded it. Those who understand and defend the Constitution frighten those who want to ignore it.
That’s all I’m saying. 😉
Blouise wrote:
“TraderB,
Buddha scares you … it’s obvious from your posts”
I looked at his old posts and think the opposite is true. To me, they appear to be from an adolescent posing as an adult. However, in responding to me, he clearly revealed that he is an adolescent, at least in behavior. I hope he is one in age, so that we can expect him to grow out of it.
TraderB–
Your responding to a comment Buddha made to me by bringing up statutory rape laws is really mature and speaks to the subject at hand.
(Please note the intended sarcasm in my comment above.)
What scares me is folks whose journalistic heroes are the likes of Glenn Beck and Andrew Not-So-Brightbart.
Blouise
“TraderB,
“Buddha scares you … it’s obvious from your posts”
What scares me is that there are people on this board who actually think he knows something. Professor Turley seems to wasting his time.
TraderB,
Buddha scares you … it’s obvious from your posts
Awwww. I throw in the Pryor quote and look who barked! It’s Andy’s Pet Spider! Hooray!
Did I strike a nerve there, sweet-um’s? Apparently so. But first up! Your “responses” . . . such as they were.
1) Really? Your lack of a sense of humor is the best you got in your attempt to make me look crazy? That’s just . . . sad. You do know that a lack of a sense of humor is a symptom of both schizophrenia and paranoid personality disorder, right? Which would be about par for the hiring practices of an obvious narcissist and megalomaniac. See, I kid about being a superhero. It’s called a joke, son! You’re built too low to the ground! The fast ones go right over your head! Because I’m neither delusional nor a narcissistic megalomaniac. I just play one on TV.
2) Age disparity made no difference to how bad we’ve been kicking your ass. Did it, Sock Puppet? That was a rhetorical question since you’re so slow on the uptake. As to the statutory rape aspect of your snark, I’d be more concerned about your age since you’ve been the victim in this episode, ‘lil Propagandist. But what can we say? You came in here dressed like a propaganda slut and we’ve clearly “had our [factual and comedic] way with you”. What did you expect dressed like that? (That’s also a joke – this label provided for your protection, the humor impaired.) FYI, both of us are above the age of consent in every jurisdiction. Not that you’d let a little thing like facts get in the way. You haven’t so far.
3) Crude language is not an indicator of inaccuracy. The late Mr. Pryor’s quote was indeed most accurate in re propagandists like Breitbart. If you need more powder, check Andy’s desk.
Seriously, by the quality of your trolling I’m just amazed Herr Propaganda pays you inept clowns to blog in his defense. Assuming by the low quality of work that Andy isn’t manning the keyboard himself. And that you’re smart enough to actually get paid for selling your soul no matter how small the material in question might be. He must be getting his henchmen from Regents or perhaps Liberty University to get such low quality workmanship. Then again, a race baiting toad like Breitbart isn’t going to exactly attract either the best or the brightest. Is he? (Also rhetorical.)
You be sure to come back now any time you just want another verbal ass kicking! We’ll leave a sterilized boot on for ya!
TraderB–
You wrote the following:
Buddha Is Laughing wrote:
1, July 25, 2010 at 11:40 am
“Elaine,
There may be a future for us as WWE tag team wrestling champions.’
I suggest she review the statutory rape laws beforehand. There is a vast difference in your ages.
*****
FYI: I assume I’m quite a bit older than Buddha.
Buddha Is Laughing 1, July 25, 2010 at 1:54 pm
“You can scrub it and powder it and put some perfume on it but an asshole is still an asshole.” – Richard Pryor”
Out of the mouth of babes.
Buddha Is Laughing wrote:
1, July 25, 2010 at 11:40 am
“Elaine,
There may be a future for us as WWE tag team wrestling champions.’
I suggest she review the statutory rape laws beforehand. There is a vast difference in your ages.
Buddha Is Laughing wrote at July 22, 2010 at 8:29 pm
“Slarti,
I try to use my powers for good. I don’t always succeed, but I do try.”
You are documented by the American Psychiatric Association under teenage fantasies. Hopefully, your parents will intervene quickly.
http://www.apa.org/
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-CiYpJmnM0&hl=en_US&fs=1]
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/franken-republican-agenda-dangerous-video.php Franken as usual has some wise words for those that want to throw the democrats out.