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.
And for what its worth:
“Michael Steele, Andrew Breitbart To Reportedly Appear Side-By-Side At RNC Event ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/michael-steele-andrew-bre_n_659484.html
Is this what “blindsided”looks and feels like?
“OpinionDem senator calls ‘white privilege’ a myth and gets away with it
By Sophia A. Nelson
9:22 AM on 07/26/2010
Democratic senator calls for ending diversity programs Virginia Sen. Jim Webb speaks during a press conference at the Japan National Press Club in Tokyo. (AP Photo/Koji Sasahara, File)
I have to tell you when I first read my own U.S. Senator Jim Webb’s (D-VA) opinion column last week in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege” my jaw dropped.
This must be a misprint I thought–no sitting Democratic U.S. Senator (from the south no less) with a black population of almost 20 percent would be so openly divisive. Then I read it again, and again, and I finally grasped the point: Jim Webb is up for re-election in 2012 in a state that has turned “red” once again and he needs to bring home conservative white voters and independents that apparently feel discriminated against since Barack Obama became president of the United States. His op-ed is simply a preview I fear of what we can expect in the 2010 midterms and the 2012 presidential election.
Let’s face it folks–race and race baiting are here to stay. Pitting black against white and white against black still works in America and we had all better buckle up as I like to say because when a sitting U.S. Senator makes declarations such as this: “Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.”
What alternate reality is Jim Webb living in? Does he really believe that affirmative action and diversity programs have truly harmed white Americans? I simply don’t live in that America when we can all plainly see that black unemployment is double the national average, and that black men in some cities are experiencing Great Depression level unemployment in excess of 35 percent. Black infant mortality rates, incarceration rates, wealth gap, home ownership, marriage rates, education rates are all disproportionately at the bottom of the barrel (facts Webb reluctantly admits as he is talking out of both sides of his mouth).
But here is the point: I guess what incenses and alarms me most is that had a conservative written this column, or God forbid a Republican politician all hell would have broken loose and this story would have been carried by many news outlets. But since Webb is a Democrat, like the late Senator Robert Byrd (who once as a member of the KKK), he gets a pass. That is most unfortunate, because once again African-Americans are the losers in the “race-baiting” gamut. And I’d bet my house that despite this op-ed Webb will feel entitled to garner a large share of the black vote come the fall 2012 election. And worse, he will likely get it.
If any of us ever doubted the specter of race-baiting works well, we just have to reflect on the past week’s events with the NAACP, Tea Party, Shirley Sherrod, USDA, and Andrew Breitbart. For a United States Senator to author this kind of divisive op-ed, in the nation’s premiere conservative economic newspaper in such racially charged times as these is simply shocking.
This is exactly the kind of nonsense that Rush Limbaugh spews on airways day after day as he calls it in “Barack Obama’s America”: “[In] Obama’s America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety but in Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, “Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,” and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he’s white. Newsweek magazine told us this. We know that white students are destroying civility on buses, white students destroying civility in classrooms all over America, white congressmen destroying civility in the House of Representatives.”
To my fellow Americans I would ask is this the kind of U.S. Senator we want: one that would divide us on issues of race and class beyond what we already are. Words penned by a statesman matter. Words penned by a United States Senator carry great weight. Words written that suggest one group is suffering because of the advancement of another are dangerous.
Sophia A. Nelson is a contributor to theGrio.com she is a political pundit and communications strategist. Her forthcoming book, Black.Female.Accomplished.Redefined. will be out in 2011.
I should add that I was talking about the comments, not Professor Turley’s blog, which I find worthwhile reading. I image there are many who read it, but ignore the comments. I found only 3 out out of 578 that added any insights to his comments in this blog. Too much chaff, too little wheat.
Either way? I’ll dismantle your garbage again tomorrow, because if I hadn’t gotten a phone call? I’d be asleep right now.
So nighty night, ‘lil TrollB.
Be sure to tell your boss he’s a douche bag for me.
Enjoy your sour grapes.
Or are you going to wait half an hour again and declare your victory as you run away with your pants pulled up over your head?
The only thing you’ve demonstrated you can play with is yourself, troll.
Now either leave or bring it.
Buddha,
It has been amusing playing you like a fiddle. I write one sentence and you write a page of nonsense. You did all the trollwork. I am sure those seriously interested in the topic, if there are any left, will appreciate finding nothing but crap here.
However, I cannot waste my time on a blog with so few readers and so little substance.
Oh, come to think of it … over the weekend I ran into a few people who read this blog … they don’t post, or at least they claim they don’t … they were talking about one of the threads as I approached and clued me in to their conversation … even went so far as to recommend that I read the blog … too funny
I think I’ll call it a night as well. Enjoy your night cap!
I’m going to enjoy a mid-nightcap with my spouse and then go to bed … bid our troll goodnight and offer him some thoughtful words … it’s tough to be unemployed and reduced to the status of troll … I don’t imagine one would list it on a resume ….
So much for his hopes of a more learned audience! I do wonder how many subscribers the WSJ lost when Rupert took over. Shame really. They used to be a real newspaper.
I went to that site he mentioned … too funny … everybody (all 2 of them)are in a snit over the wiki thing … things like “our brave troops deserve better” etc.
He’ll run over to the conservative pit that used to be the Wall Street Journal and lick his wounds while their editors protect him.
I could insert the Chicken video again, but that’s kinda like kicking a lame dog at this point.
Personally?
I think the Fear finally got him.
I am a most intractable opponent. 😀
Oh I doubt he’s left yet, Blouise.
Unless he was ordered to quit making a fool of himself by Andy.
Probably lurking a bit longer and trying to come up with some snappy retort.
Oh shoot … is he gone?
What’s the going rate? Hourly or per post
He wasn’t engaging enough, I guess
We need better trolls!
And please, insult my intelligence on the way out.
I do so value your assessment of my finer qualities. (That was sarcasm.)
Sure.
Go on over to the Murdoch owned WSJ and find a friendlier tamer more edited audience.
Run away.
That is what cowards do.
Sorry Buddha. The audience is too small here to bother with. Over to the WSJ, where they have knowledgeable posters.
Or has the Fear got you in its icy grip?