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.
Byron,
You’re right, we should impeach the bastards who let the New Black Panthers off the hook… Unfortunately the Bush administration is no longer in office. It’s disgusting how Fox News makes a huge hue and cry about the failure of the Bush justice department to prosecute the inept voter intimidation by a pair of NBP asshats (they were in a district that voted overwhelmingly for President Obama) while ignoring decades of successful voter suppression by Republicans.
Swarthmore mom
1, July 26, 2010 at 10:55 am
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/07/republican-national-committee-event-featuring-andrew-breitbart.php?page=1 Republicans and Breitbart are joined at the hip.
================================================================
And at the head but most importantly … in the heart!
Swarthmore mom
1, July 26, 2010 at 11:10 am
Republicans want you to vote third party so they can win. Al Gore was not considered “pure” enough so people voted for Nader and we got Bush and now here we are. So you vote third party and the “tan man” takes over the House and Mitch McConnell takes over the Senate. It is the republican strategy. One independent is doing well. He is Charlie Christ. He will probably caucus republican and he is very much a corporatist. Franken is right.
==================================================================
You are right … I’m not happy with some of the things Obama has failed to do but I will not vote for a third party in the Presidential election until that party has run some local and state candidates and proven itself to be built on principle and not on personality.
The republican strategy for the last hundred years has been:
Demoralize the Democratic base with phony press releases and whisper campaigns. (Sherrod)
Attack oponents strength with character assassination.(Sherrod)
Suppress the vote in every possible way.(Acorn)
Buy some people off with tax cuts.(Bush Tax Cuts)
Scare the rest into voting against their own interests.(Healthcare)
Trader B:
I don’t think Buddha is childish, he just defends his position to the best of his abilities and passion.
Even I as a non-progressive think Brietbart went a little over the top by playing a video of a private citizen giving a talk. It is one thing going into Acorns offices and doing undercover “reporting” but quite another to throw out this woman as an example of racism condoned by the NAACP. If the NAACP is a racist organization then they will eventually pay the price. I don’t think Shirley Sherrod should be used as a pawn. I dont know how that can be condoned by either side.
Conservatives … they like the old ways … it’s quaint
Come on! Is that the best you’ve got, ol’ Barking Spider?
Attack me some more. When you attack me, you do not damage me, only yourself. But . . . as you wish. The harder you attack, the harder you’ll hit the pavement. I can watch the true enemies of We the People make asses of themselves all day and still think it’s funny. I know. I’ve seen me do it.
Now how about addressing that huge lie of omission that the Breitbart edited Sherrod tape is? Hmmm? You care to address that, Racist Sock Puppet? Or do you want to get slammed into the pavement again?
Doh! Bad news! Either way, you’re going to get smacked!
Life is full of choices.
You choose poorly in choosing to bring your little show here.
Republicans want you to vote third party so they can win. Al Gore was not considered “pure” enough so people voted for Nader and we got Bush and now here we are. So you vote third party and the “tan man” takes over the House and Mitch McConnell takes over the Senate. It is the republican strategy. One independent is doing well. He is Charlie Christ. He will probably caucus republican and he is very much a corporatist. Franken is right.
Elaine,
The following is the sentence that Turley quoted for Sherrod’s speech:
“That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have.”
Do you agree that it changes changes the meaning of the previous racist portion?
Fox ran that “New Black Panther” story for weeks.
Elaine:
From what I have heard it wasn’t about Sherrod but the perceived double standard of the NAACP. The right was pretty p.oed. about the dropping of the charges against the New Black Panthers. And the failure of the NAACP to speak out against black racism.
Sherrod is an unfortunate pawn in a wider war from what I can tell. It looks like she will land on her feet and rightly so, she was ill-treated by both sides.
Buddha Is Laughing wrote
“Awwww. I throw in the Pryor quote and look who barked! It’s Andy’s Pet Spider! Hooray!” and on and on and on…….
Fantasies of power are a sure sign of an adolescent mind.
TraderB
1, July 26, 2010 at 10:48 am
Blouise
…. That is a straw-man argument, the refuge of scoundrels. No one has ever suggested a theocracy for America.
==============================================================
Frightening … isn’t it … hell, I wouldn’t admit to it either!
Jill,
I believe the point raised by Dixon (endless circling of wagons around the president) is valid. Much is being ignored, or not enough energy left to address, due to the force field that many feel must be maintained around Obama at all times. However, it is also true that there are constant “incomings” from the sources mentioned that must be dealt with.
I believe, and agree with Rachel Maddow on this, that the DNC needs to assume a greater role in organizing against these attacks so that others may get back to doing what they do best. The DNC nominated Obama and he is their leader … it is their responsibility to handle these political attacks against him.
I watched Sherrod on John King shortly after her telephone conversation with Obama … I certainly don’t want to heap any more “spin” on her but my impression was that she was not “wholeheartedly” impressed … she’d vote for him again …. but … I think she considers him to be a bit naive … maybe more than “a bit”. I want to state, once again, that was just my impression … and I could very well be transferring my own disappointment with Obama onto her.
Blouise–
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2qsEu5UKA0&hl=en_US&fs=1]
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/07/republican-national-committee-event-featuring-andrew-breitbart.php?page=1 Republicans and Breitbart are joined at the hip.
To which quoted sentence are you referring?
If you’re asking me if I think Breitbart used the edited video to besmirch Shirley Sherrod’s reputation–my answer is “Hell, yes!” He wasn’t making a mountain out of a molehill–he was making a mountain out of vapor.
TraitorB,
You mistake that we’ll address the points of your divisionist plans in the order that you wish. You don’t control the conversation here.
We do. You stepped into our playground. We define the games.
Your dream of a white Judeo-Christian America with a permanent underclass of the poor and the non-white will be attacked in toto.
I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again . . .
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEQ1E8XPp4&hl=en_US&fs=1]
The only one wasting their time here is the Propagandist and his minions (pictured above – actual size).
If calling me adolescent is the best shot you’ve got, you are really out of your depth. You see I have a long established reputation in these parts: I speak truth to power and I’m both consistent and relentless in doing so. Don’t get the idea I think you’re powerful though because you and your boss are just tools in every sense of the word. Oh, and I’m funny too but that’s just the gravy. But you can keep trying to goad me in your amateurish manner TraitorB and I’ll be glad to keep making you look like what you exactly are: Neocon right wing theocratic racist propaganda promoting hacks. Nazis without the natty uniforms or the balls to go for the Final Solution option so instead you’ll try to kill the America Dream defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution one cheap lie at a time. Your lot aren’t just liars and racists trying to keep the country divided so We the People won’t rise up and eat your corporatist masters.
You’re cowards.
And I’ll take being an adolescent truth teller to being a grown lying coward any day of the week.
What am I?
I’m a propagandists worst nightmare: someone who knows all your tricks and won’t “play ball”. I’m an anti-propagandist, age irrelevant. You’ve wandered into a den of troll killers and while I’m one of the meanest of the lot, I’m far from the only one. A bad choice on your part that will result in enormous entertainment on our part. Our usual trolls are simply your duped minor minions – the unfortunate consumer of your poison product. But if you want to step into this arena, you too can meet the same fate they do.
You cannot hide from the light that We shine.
Blouise
“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”
That is a straw-man argument, the refuge of scoundrels. No one has ever suggested a theocracy for America.
Jill I am glad you are no longer promoting the Tea Party, and that you realized that was not the best means to turn people against President Obama. It creates the opposite effect as you seem to have realized.