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.
W=c,
I’ve been known to enter the ring from time to time. Thanks for noticing. 😀
Watch as Chris Wallace uses facts to make the lying Howard Dean squirm.
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/07/25/chris-wallace-shows-how-to-deal-with-a-bully-named-howard-dean/
Not much in the logic department, are you TraitorB?
What you keep doing is framing a question to Elaine that is in the form of the logical fallacy of presumption known as the false dilemma or the bifurcation fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurcation_fallacy
And lest we forget basic defintions:
fallacy \ˈfa-lə-sē\, n.,
1 a obsolete : guile, trickery b : deceptive appearance : deception
2 a : a false or mistaken idea (popular fallacies) b : erroneous character : erroneousness
3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
Byron–
“I actually don’t think it was right to sully her reputation. I am just saying that was a possible motivation.”
I don’t care what his motivation was. If the story on the NBP was mostly hype then maybe the NAACP’s “perceived” double standard is just that–perceived…perceived in the minds of right wing smear merchants like Not-So-Brightbart.
Blouise 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:12 am
TraderB,
Buddha scares you … it’s obvious from your posts
_____________________
BiL is scarey. Methinks verbal pugilistics is his ‘thang’
Elaine,
I will try again. Do you agree that adding Sherrod’s statement, “That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have.” to the tape shown on the networks would have made it a fair presentation? Just a yes or no will suffice.
‘DBT Online advised the Division of Elections …….. Mr. Bruder testified that the company recommended, for example, that it develop criteria requiring an exact match on the first and middle names. Thus, a Floridian named Deborah Ann would not match with the name Ann Deborah.[64] But the Division of Elections favored more inclusive criteria and chose to “make it go both ways,” as Mr. Bruder recalls it.[65] In addition, he pointed out that state officials set parameters that required a 90 percent match in the last name, rather than an exact match.[66] Mr. Bruder insisted that “the state dictated to us that they wanted to go broader, and we did it in the fashion that they requested.”[67]’
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch5.htm
Bdaman:
How are you? How is the little one? Did you ever find out why the big fish kill down there?
Elaine:
I actually don’t think it was right to sully her reputation. I am just saying that was a possible motivation.
Thanks for the info on the NBP, I just saw a couple of thugs dressed in paramilitary gear and armed with billy clubs and I guess I jumped to a conclusion.
TraderB–
I think I have made my feelings about the Breitbart/Sherrod incident perfectly clear. What is it that you don’t understand about the comments that I have made? Why don’t you just spit out EXACTLY what it is that you want me to say?
But most aren’t. I see your platitude and raise you an “opposites attract” don’t you know.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-dean/no-more-apologies—-its_b_659043.html I choose to stand with Howard Dean and fight the republican right wing not to join with Erik Erickson of Red State as someone here has suggested.
Some married people are just like two pea’s in a pod.
Byron–
You wrote the following to me:
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.
**********
Much of that Black Panther story was hyped by Faux News.
From Media Matters for America
REPORT: Fox News has hyped phony New Black Panthers scandal at least 95 times
July 16, 2010
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007160038
Six Fox News shows have discussed the phony New Black Panthers scandal during a total of 95 segments since Megyn Kelly’s June 30 interview hyping the unsubstantiated allegations of right-wing activist J. Christian Adams. In all, these Fox shows have devoted more than eight hours of airtime to discussing the New Black Panthers.
Excerpt:
Adams’ accusations don’t stand up to the facts
• Adams is a longtime right-wing activist who is known for filing an ethics complaint against Hugh Rodham that was subsequently dismissed. Adams served as a poll watcher for George W. Bush in Florida in 2004, and he reportedly volunteered for a Republican group that trains lawyers to fight “racially tinged battles over voting rights.”
• Adams was hired at the Justice Department in 2005 by Bradley Schlozman, who was found by the Justice Department’s inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility to have improperly considered political affiliation when hiring career attorneys — the former head of the DOJ voting rights section reportedly said that Adams was “exhibit A of the type of people hired by Schlozman.”
• Adams has admitted that he does not have firsthand knowledge of the events, conversations, and decisions that he is citing to advance his accusations.
• No voters have come forward to claim that they were intimidated and did not vote because of the New Black Panthers’ presence outside the polling center.
• The Republican vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is currently investigating the Justice Department’s decision, has said that the case is “very small potatoes” and that it has been surrounded by “overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges.” She has further stated that the investigation has not “served the interests of the Commission” and that the DOJ has given a “plausible argument” for not pursuing additional charges in the case.
**********
Let me get this right–and correct me if I’m wrong. The right was upset about a the panther story…so it was okay for Not-So-Brightbart to sully Shirley Sherrod’s reputation by using an edited video to call her character and motives into question–as well as the character and motives of members of the NAACP.
Too many right wingers are drinking the Koolaid providing to them by Faux News and right wing hatemongers like Not-So-Brightbart. As with this Sherrod story–too many of their charges are either trumped up or grossly exaggerated.
Faux and right wing hatemongers don’t report news so much as make up stories that they hope other networks and news organizations will pick up on and report.
Byron it’s the part where he says we must not be afraid to turn a black out who votes against our interest.
P.S. how you doin? Getting ready to take the little one to the pool. I’m still here everyday but just haven’t felt like commenting.
Byron
1, July 26, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Bdaman:
That seems pretty benign to me. But racism is a form of tribalism and it effects all people. It takes a certain level of intellectual development to understand that racism/tribalism is nothing but an affront to the individual. And since all men are individuals racism/tribalism strikes at the very core of our society which is founded on individual rights. Ergo a racist is actually against the American ideal and no friend of liberty.
=================================================================
Very well put!
Now … everybody, stop being interesting so I can get out of here!
Here’s something to make the racists sweat:
America’s Growing ‘Cultural Generation Gap’
And what Byron and Jill said.
Bdaman is back? Boy, the phone lines must be hot! Where’s Tootie … one of them has to be available.
Shoot, I have to leave to run some errands …
Apparently not.
Married people disagree on lots of things all the time. Being married doesn’t make one a clone of the other.