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.
Woosty’s still a Cat wrote:
“…the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to force Internet providers to grant equal treatment to all traffic traversing their networks.”
Comcast was trying to manage traffic by disconnecting certain heavy-bandwidth protocols at peak hours. They changed it to slowing down high-bandwidth users.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/060408-comcast-traffic-management.html
This is a far cry from favoring certain sites on a partisan or monetary basis, as gloom-and-doom Dean says. If they did and people found out, they would very likely change providers, especially if it were partisan. They could potentially lose half their customers. It would be very effective advertising for competitors.
Jill,
I did some research this weekend on teabaggers and want to report my findings to you … I’ll do so later, after I’ve accomplished some household chores.
Woosty’s still a Cat,
Buddha rolls around as a wrinkled green poly then morphs into the Jolly Green Giant then, out of nowhere the Incredible Hulk appears … but consistently green.
or could have been released early and it now stuck doing community service…..as a condition and release….
Bdaman must have had another assignment.
Bdaman is back…..what happened to him…or her?
Elaine M.
1, July 26, 2010 at 1:11 pm
TraderB–
“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.”
*****
I can’t give you a YES or NO answer unless I know the exact context in which the tape was presented on each and every network that played it. I’m aware that you’re trying to play word games with me. As I wrote in a previous comment–and I’ll repeat here: Why don’t you just spit out EXACTLY what it is that you want me to say?
==============================================================
I don’t know Elaine … sounds like “Do you still beat your dog? Yes or No …. as Buddha, ever the elegant, put it … a false dilemma.
I wonder if TraderB worked with the Pentagon on their latest survey for the troops concerning gays in the military?
Alright … time to weed for as Elaine said, the day is indeed a beautiful one.
TraderB 1, July 26, 2010 at 12:23 pm
“Speculating on what the Internet could morph into under the Republicans’ preferred lack of regulation, Franken asked the audience of bloggers how long it would take before the Fox News website loads significantly more quickly than the Daily Kos website.”
No sane person would believe this.
__________________________
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/04/06/court-fcc-cannot-stop-comcast-internet-throttling
‘…the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled that the FCC does not have the authority to force Internet providers to grant equal treatment to all traffic traversing their networks.’
this in no way suggests that I might be in the least bit ‘sane’….
Elaine,
I haven’t read the book, but I saw the author on ‘The Colbert Report’ and I think I would probably agree with what he wrote for the most part. I think we should be more aware of the hidden costs of civilization in order to make informed decisions about the risks and rewards implicit in our technological society. We really need to make more explicit decisions about things like if the pollution caused by items is acceptable, necessary and unavoidable, or too high a cost or we’re going to end up drowning in our own garbage.
TraderB,
You’re assuming that people can find viable alternate providers that voluntarily observe net neutrality. Oh well, what could possibly go wrong with an industry being allowed to regulate itself…
Okay, now I’m out to go do my science thing… See y’all later.
Slartibartfast
“Considering that BP ‘bought’ the top spot on oil spill searches on google, what makes you think that providers would charge sites for expedited loading?”
If people found they were doing this, they would probably change providers.
Search engines are different, since they depend on advertisers. Buying the top spot is not as obnoxious as slowing down the loading of a site.
Slarti–
“I’m with Blouise – will you people please be quiet (or stop saying interesting or asinine things) so I can get some work done?”
I know how you feel. We’ve got beautiful weather here–our first humidity free day in weeks. I’ve got to get some yard work done.
Before you go–let me ask you a question that is way off topic. I know you’re a scientist. (I’m a science buff.) Have you read “Pandora’s Seed: The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization” by Spencer Wells. It’s a fascinating book.
Maureen Dowd thinks the White House is too white:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25dowd.html?_r=1&ref=columnists
Byron–
From Winnipeg Free Press
Megyn Kelly takes centre stage for Fox in New Black Panther story
By: David Bauder, The Associated Press
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/breakingnews/megyn-kelly-takes-centre-stage-for-fox-in-new-black-panther-story-99231914.html
Excerpt:
NEW YORK, N.Y. – The aftermath of Megyn Kelly’s interview with a former Justice Department lawyer over a New Black Panther Party case has made her a hero and a villain.
The Fox News Channel host is a hero to fans who appreciate the time she has spent on a story about a nightstick-carrying New Black Panther Party member standing outside a 2008 polling place, wondering if it reflects an Obama administration inconsistency in pursuing civil rights cases.
But she’s a villain to critics who believe Kelly is promoting a dubious story given outsized attention because it could hurt a president unpopular with most of Fox’s viewers.
Kelly, host of her own daytime show at Fox, had the first media interview with J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer angry about the Obama administration’s handling of the case. Adams alleged his bosses have no interest in civil rights cases unless minorities are adversely affected, a charge the administration denies.
A criminal investigation into the Philadelphia episode was dropped by the Bush administration, but the Obama administration obtained a narrower civil court order against the conduct than Bush officials had sought.
Kelly followed the story so relentlessly that she perhaps goaded the Obama administration into its bungling of the Shirley Sherrod case, much like a baserunner dancing off third base who distracts a pitcher into a balk. (The administration pressured agriculture department official Sherrod into resigning over remarks that seemed racially biased, only to apologize later when it was discovered that the opposite was true.)
Most Fox News Channel shows have followed the Black Panther case, but Kelly’s “America Live” midday show has spent the most time on it.
None were more electric than the July 13 confrontation between Kelly and a Fox News contributor, Kirsten Powers.
Kelly set up the segment with Powers by showing footage of a congressman in a town hall meeting dismissing concerns about racial bias in the Justice Department. “No one seems to give a darn,” Kelly opened her discussion.
“You can certainly put me in the category of people who don’t give a darn,” replied Powers, a New York Post columnist.
Then they were off. Seemingly personally offended, Kelly repeatedly accused Powers of not knowing what she was talking about and even threatened to turn off her microphone.
“The minute I challenge you, you tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about?” Powers asked.
“Because you don’t,” Kelly responded crisply.
Kelly, a former corporate lawyer who left law to become a local news reporter in Washington before joining Fox in 2004, rattled off details of the case from court documents and testimony with confidence.
“I cannot believe that this one case, after all of the cases that were dismissed during the Bush administration, is getting the amount of attention that it is getting,” Powers said. “I find it absolutely shocking.”
“Let me tell you why,” Kelly shot back. “Because the voting place is sacrosanct.”
Powers accused Kelly of playing the “scary black man” card, a remark the host regarded with openmouthed shock and apparent anger. Kelly was not made available for an interview for this story.
Byron,
Voter suppression is a typically Republican tactic because of the demographics (it works best on the urban poor). As you pointed out, Democrats would be more likely to use a tactic like fraudulently registering people to vote (I’m not talking Mickey Mouse here, but multiple registrations (with multiple identities so they can vote multiple times) or registering people who are ineligible).
I don’t buy your GW Bush – Al Franken equivalence. In one case the state election law was abrogated by what may be the most political SCOTUS decision in our history and in the other state election law was followed down the line including Norm Coleman exploring all of the legal avenues available. Minnesota is a great example of how the system should work (a close election triggered an automatic recount followed by a careful examination of all of the contested ballots in a process which included representatives from both campaigns and was totally (and boringly) transparent). If Florida had as well-designed election law as Minnesota does (and it were followed), we would have had President Gore in 2000.
And Kennedy? It takes a truely incompetent Democrat to lose a statewide election in Massachusetts (see Senator Brown’s opponent) even WITHOUT the Kennedy name…
Until political parties are upfront about the agendas they wish to enact instead of giving the spin that they think will get them elected your ‘rectal towel’ comment will hold a lot of truth (with all of the shit).
TraderB posted:
Considering that BP ‘bought’ the top spot on oil spill searches on google, what makes you think that providers would charge sites for expedited loading?
I’m with Blouise – will you people please be quiet (or stop saying interesting or asinine things) so I can get some work done?
TraderB–
“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.”
*****
I can’t give you a YES or NO answer unless I know the exact context in which the tape was presented on each and every network that played it. I’m aware that you’re trying to play word games with me. As I wrote in a previous comment–and I’ll repeat here: Why don’t you just spit out EXACTLY what it is that you want me to say?
Algae bloom the most likely culprit. Caught a little ten inch flounder yesterday, really pretty, and a 27 inch Red last night.
Little one’s good, just finished her dance recital and ribbon day for gymnastics. Now she wants martial arts and is becoming quite good at sir yes sir in preparation.
Hope all is well, off to the pool.
I’ll hit your inbox soon, just been real tough lately and super busy. You know, fishin and everything, not to mention the pool.
🙂 🙂 🙂
I’m sorry, did I say pool. Comin El, C-ya B and who needs a raise, I certainly don’t, I rise on occasion, raise, I fold.
Flounder some more, TraitorB.
Fish goes good with chicken.
Why does Breitbart name all his sites “big” something?
I’m thinking it must be because of his small something.
Buddha
In your mind, what is a third alternative.
Chris Wallace and FAUXNews are hardly credible.
Here’s Rupert’s puppet trying to help Breitbart’s puppet James O’Keefe.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200909270010