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.
obfuscate\ˈäb-fə-ˌskāt; äb-ˈfəs-ˌkāt, əb-\, v. (int.v.)
transitive verb 1 a : darken b : to make obscure (obfuscate the issue)
2 : confuse (obfuscate the reader)
intransitive verb : to be evasive, unclear, or confusing
There is no confusion here:
There should be no law suit against Breitbart. The best way to deal with a propagandist is every time he attacks someone in the court of public opinion, use his previous bad acts against him in the court of public opinion. As bad acts accretion over time gives more ammunition, over time the counter attacks will only become more effective until they reach a point that the propagandist is totally discredited in they eyes of all but the most fanatical of followers.
… they’re just trying to annoy 😉
Open heartedness!
Anonymously Yours
1, July 26, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Slarti,
Trolls as I understand it try and diffuse the topic of the thread(s) so that nothing substantive can be discussed. You will notice an increase in activity when either the professor is going to be on a tv program or Obama is going to be on tv or the Democrats actually do something.
===============================================================
That makes sense
In game theory, there are only three outcomes.
1, 0, and -1.
Here, the trolls have run into a zero sum game which is in truth the only outcome they hate other than the -1’s which prove fatal. For you see, here is the sad truth: if today Breitbart were say caught with something totally damning in the eyes of the public – say for the sake of argument he was found out as a child molester – his public life would be over instantly and there would be no chance of recovery. His reputation ruined, he’d soon be relegated to the “Where Are They Now?” columns if he appeared in the press at all. But in his absence, the GOP and the Neocons would hire some other schmuck to take his place tomorrow.
And tomorrow we’d have to start shredding them again.
For now, as it ever was, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance against the tyranny of the hateful, the small minded and selfish people.
Jill,
I take your point and agree that should I run into a teabagger who doesn’t turn my stomach with racism, then yes, depending on his/her views on other issues important to me, the wars, healthcare, taxes (I believe in taxes and don’t think they’re a bad thing)… then sure, I would work with them. But our political philosophies, myself and the teabagger, probably wouldn’t mesh well over the long haul … but I shouldn’t just assume that without giving my fellow human being the chance.
I don’t think your making a radical suggestion … open mindedness is what you are advocating … am I right?
Trolls? Let me say this about trolls . . .
“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”
But in this case, “nothing” should read “unlimited greed and lust for power.”
What they cannot destroy they will obfuscate, like a dog fouling his own house.
Here’s some facts. Facts about conservatives.
How conservative greed and corruption destroyed American politics
Slartibartfast
1, July 26, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Blouise,
Your poll may have been unscientific, but your experiment was very much in the spirit of science (and you were upfront about the anecdotal nature of your study). Thank you. And if you ever figure out what trolls are trying to accomplish, please tell the rest of us…
================================================================
I was rather shocked at some of the comments coming from a few of my acquaintances … I never suspected the depth of dislike for blacks some of them harbor … it has changed my view of them considerably. Strangely enough, especially for republicans, they don’t like the cops much either. One comment rather summed it up, “Cops now-a-days, they think they can do anything they want!”
As to trolls … the more they write, the more they reveal the true nature of their motivations … it just seems, from a troll’s standpoint, counter productive. That’s why I don’t get it.
So one of them calls Buddha a bunch of names … come on, stuff like that rolls of the green guy’s back like holy water. Then, after he’s challenged them on the merits of their argument and basically, factually disproved every point they’ve raised, their only response is to keep repeating the disproved point as if writing it over and over is going to somehow change the facts. That’s when it just gets boring. There’s no more challenge.
So what, in the end, did they accomplish? It’s a mystery to me.
See, unlike you? I understand the difference between battles and war.
Awwww. It’s that special! So you want to argue she’s a public figure? Fine. Go ahead.
I’ll even stipulate she’s a public figure. You know why?
It doesn’t change a damn thing about the rest of the analysis of what she should do to best disable your racist pigswill of a boss.
Blouise,
I give you a lot of credit for actually talking to people and it was interesting to hear of your experience. I know non-racist tea party members who live in my neighborhood or close by. These particular people are not ones I could easily work with politically because their economic views are horrible, but some of them are antiwar, and that’s a common cause. I can also work with them as my fellow human beings. And that is simply my point. I am not asking anyone here to like people in the tea party, believe in anything they believe in etc. I am saying, and I provided statistical evidence, that not everyone in the tea party movement is a racist. I also advised to look for allies where you can find them and don’t waste your time otherwise. For example, I wouldn’t go to GS looking for allies, but if I met one, I would work with her or him. I advised humanizing oneself to others. As the guy who wrote “Three Cups of Tea” said in an interview today, some of their best teachers at the schools for girls are ex-Taliban. You just never know in this world. And the only way they became ex-Taliban was because someone who didn’t think like them reached out to them anyone, one person to another. Hard times are here for many of us and I think it would reflect well on us to be kind to our neighbors and be helpful to one another. That doesn’t mean don’t criticize or to say nothing about horrible beliefs. It means just reaching out anyway when that is possible for you to do. If you want to get an ex-Taliban, you have to talk to a Taliban first.
Liberal + Facts = Conservative
AY,
You are a boon of troll jokes, so here’s one for you:
How many trolls does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Two, but they’ve both got to be real small.
pardon: three words
I’ve still got chicken on my fingers.
Wow! You’ve pointed out that I disagree with the Prof.! Here’s there words for you:
Big fucking deal.
I’ve disagreed with him before.
But what everyone but you is in agreement on is that you are a paid troll working for a known propagandist.
One last one,
Did you hear about the Troll walking down the street with a pig under her arm?
A guy hollers out where did you get that. The pig says, I won her in a raffle…..
So let me repeat this in case you missed it the first time:
I don’t think your boss Andrew Brietbart should be sued by Sherrod.
I think she has other better options to discredit him.
Buddha Is Laughing
“I was talking about Breitbart being a public figure in your speculation about him having a suit, you hard of reading troll.”
What are those three words in parentheses next to Sherrod?
Buddha,
They are Blind in One Eye and can’t see out of the other.
What happens when a Troll gets Alzheimer’s? There IQ goes up.
How do you sink a submarine of Troll’s?
Knock on the door…..
How did the troll break its leg?
They fell out of the tree raking leaves….
What do you see when you look in a Troll’s eyes?
The back of there heads.
How do you make a Troll’s eyes shine?
Put a flashlight in there ear…..