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 love an angry opponent.
They taste just like . . . chicken.
Oooo. Again with the ad hominem! That means a lot coming from you, Breitbart. Come on. Attack me some more and avoid the issues.
It shows exactly how weak you really are.
But please, if you’re going to try to insult me? You should really learn to bring the heat. I once endured a six-month long tirade and invective laced meltdown by a gal much better at insults than you. AY knows who I’m talking about. You aren’t even in the same ballpark as her, TrollB. Your projection of your power fantasies won’t work here. These people know me well and they know that power is not one of my motivators (ergo it’s not going to be one of my fantasies, which usually involve actress Rachael Weisz). Your fantasies however? Breitbart is clearly the one with power fantasies, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
“I just read an interesting Slate profile on Brietbartand I’m more convinced than ever that the way to truly punish him is to neutralize his voice.
You can’t hurt this guy by taking his money. Money is a side-effect of what he desires. What he desires is influence.
You can destroy him by limiting and/or destroying his influence. Why? He’s nothing but pure ego. It just shines through in the profile that he’s a narcissist and megalomaniac.”
So in summary, your projection of your Breitbart’s power fantasy as a Rovian smear will not work against me. But please, keep running that flag up the poll. One of the secrets of comedy is repetition.
And while we are at playing psychologist, what people don’t say is as important as what they do say. You regulars will all note that not once has TrollB here denied being in the employ of the known propagandist Andrew Breitbart but has instead taken extreme offense to my attack on their fearful leader? Just like a dutiful lackey.
Slartibartfast
1, July 26, 2010 at 11:40 am
Slartibartfast
1, July 26, 2010 at 11:40 am
Byron said:
‘It is one thing going into Acorns offices and doing undercover “reporting”‘
You mean illegally taping people and misleadingly editing the tapes in order to demonize an organization dedicated to helping to empower poor people? I suppose ACORN deserved what they got – after all, they did get many urban poor people to register to vote (and urban poor people are known to vote mostly Democratic). The Republicans are obviously justified in using any dishonest, immoral or illegal tactics that they can think of in order to win elections. Hopefully the electorate will eventually wise up and realized that the ends don’t justify the means – the means shape the ends you can achieve and throw the Republicans on the dust heap of history. Then maybe we can get a new conservative party of people like you who are willing to actually engage in reasoned debate on the issues instead of trying every dirty trick they can think of to win….Hopefully the electorate will eventually wise up and realized that the ends don’t justify the means – the means shape the ends you can achieve and throw the Republicans on the dust heap of history. Then maybe we can get a new conservative party of people like you who are willing to actually engage in reasoned debate on the issues instead of trying every dirty trick they can think of to win.
================================================================
Excellent … bears repeating!
Trader B:
“I was talking about his power fantasies, not his beliefs. It is a common adolescent syndrome.”
Are you a mental health professional? If not I dont know how you would be qualified to comment.
You might do well to read these:
“Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive.
Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence.”
“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing,’” The Objectivist, March 1971,
“While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation.”
“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing,’” The Objectivist, March 1971, 4.
“Armed with a smattering, not of knowledge, but of undigested slogans, they rush, unsolicited, to diagnose the problems of their friends and acquaintances. Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials. Since he is dealing with the great “unknowable”—which used to be life after death or extrasensory perception, but is now man’s subconscious—all rules of evidence, logic and proof are suspended, and anything goes (which is what attracts him to his racket).
While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation.”
“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing,’” The Objectivist, March 1971, 2.
“A man’s moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements and his conscious convictions—not on the basis of inferences (usually, spurious) about his subconscious.
A man is not to be condemned or excused on the grounds of the state of his subconscious.
While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation.”
“The Psychology of ‘Psychologizing,’” The Objectivist, March 1971, 5.
“
Byron,
Here’s a link to the article. It goes into details and should answer you question on voter suppression.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm
Byron,
The Rolling Stone magazine had a very good article on voter suppression and many other machinations during the 2004 election. I live in Ohio and saw these things as they occurred. On a personal level there was an attempt to keep my husband, a disabled Vietnam veteran, from voting. That made me really angry and disgusted, (as the attempt to keep anyone from voting would). Bush was not elected in either 2000 or 2004.
Slarti:
Acorn has been involved in some questionable activities. Anyway the major news networks have done it for years. Not that that makes it right.
Acorn is a target of the right as other organizations are a target of the left.
Elaine M wrote:
“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.”
Do you agree that, if the statement were in the clip, it would have been fine?
Slarti:
how do they do it? I haven’t read anything about voter suppression.
…hear hear Slartibartfast!
Voter Suppression in Ohio? Can’t be….Never could happen….Its called Electioneering Johnson Style. They are still finding Ballot boxes which were lost, well lost is really a term of art. Hidden is more the operative term…..After all Taft was the governor, the Grandson of the other useless Taft…that Wilson beat only because TRR got back into the election process because Taft was to loyal to the Corporate America…..even in the early 1900…go figure….
Swarthmore mom
1, July 26, 2010 at 11:31 am
The voter suppression in Ohio kept Kerry out of the white house.
===============================================================
Yes, and a great deal of it happened just east of me in Cleveland … Kucinich talked about it a lot.
Byron said:
‘It is one thing going into Acorns offices and doing undercover “reporting”‘
You mean illegally taping people and misleadingly editing the tapes in order to demonize an organization dedicated to helping to empower poor people? I suppose ACORN deserved what they got – after all, they did get many urban poor people to register to vote (and urban poor people are known to vote mostly Democratic). The Republicans are obviously justified in using any dishonest, immoral or illegal tactics that they can think of in order to win elections. Hopefully the electorate will eventually wise up and realized that the ends don’t justify the means – the means shape the ends you can achieve and throw the Republicans on the dust heap of history. Then maybe we can get a new conservative party of people like you who are willing to actually engage in reasoned debate on the issues instead of trying every dirty trick they can think of to win.
Byron
“I don’t think Buddha is childish, he just defends his position to the best of his abilities and passion.”
I was talking about his power fantasies, not his beliefs. It is a common adolescent syndrome.
AY The agenda has become clear.
Swarthmore mom,
I don’t agree that everyone in the Tea Party is racist. Mr. Ford does. My real point is, that it’s always a good idea to read people who disagree with you and give an honest consideration to their ideas. For you, I know that anyone who doesn’t think everyone in the Tea Party is a racist, rules out anything else they may have to say. Since I won’t agree to your premise, everything I say is immediately dismissed. Therefore, I included a person who does believe the same as you on the Tea Party but doesn’t agree with you on Obama.
The article by Cynthia McKinney at the website goes to the heart of Ms. Sherrod’s revelation, that the govt. fears black and white working together on the basis of class. This is a very good website. I don’t agree with everything on it and I know you’ll agree with very little of it, but it’s not an evil right wing website. These are people who are for social justice, who have given a great deal of thought to what they say. I hope you will check it out. Here’s a position I do advocate in common with Ms. McKinney: “The former Georgia Congresswoman and Green Party presidential candidate was last weekend awarded the Munich American Peace Committee Peace Prize. “Those of us who have stepped outside of the ‘acceptable’ political paradigm,” she said, “must be willing to break bread with one another and find common ground on which we can operate.”
Swarthmore mom
“He [Crist] will probably caucus republican and he is very much a corporatist.”
What do you mean by corporatist? The literal meaning is someone who wants to organize everyone into corporations for political, economic and social purposes. Is that what he is for?
The voter suppression in Ohio kept Kerry out of the white house.
Buddha,
Someone but first have the ability to turn the electricity on before the light will shine. But then again too many mollys can cause burn out.
SWmom,
Some people you can talk with all the time and yet they say really nothing, except to take your words, make you think that they are agreeing with you and then utilize those same words against you. Beware….The Ides of July are upon us today……
TraderB is more fun than Tootie 😉
(Boy, this thread just never quits!)