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.
Webb is getting ready for George Allen. Apparently Mr. “macaca” is running against him in 2012.
eniobob
1, July 27, 2010 at 2:07 pm
What makes webb so strange to me,was his strong suit was suppose to be the military.
Go figure.
=============================================================
Exactly! Now I wonder if that strong suit (boots and all) was just a gimmick … perhaps he’s just another rudderless politician with no real fiber except the over whelming need to feel important.
The anti-Mexican sentiment is heating up in the Southwest. I had a call from my republican state rep’s campaign yesterday. The woman said the democratic opponent was from the “valley” and the caller keep talking about illegal immigrants. It was sickening. The democratic opponent is of Mexican descent and I don’t know if she is from the “valley” but the woman was using it as a racial stereotype. Those of you not from Texas probably would not know that the “valley” means the Rio Grande Valley which translates into Mexican. It looks like the republicans are making the 2010 campaign about race not issues. I have experienced it firsthand now just as I experienced the anger of the tea party over proposed changes to health care.
What makes webb so strange to me,was his strong suit was suppose to be the military.
Go figure.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, July 27, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Blouise,
Yep.
…It’s much harder to argue with passion from a side you know is a loser is the moral of that story. I’d think that applies to propagandists as well.
===============================================================
Yes, I see … so my impression wasn’t off the mark. He came on like gang busters and just kind of shriveled … as if his heart wasn’t really in it. I almost felt sorry for him.
Imagine spending 4 or 5 years getting a degree in Political Science or whatever and ending up being a “Troll” … I wonder if that job, like positions in so many other fields, typecasts one forever. The only way out is literally out … changing fields.
Swarthmore mom
1, July 27, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Blouise My son is active in Colorado politics. Tancredo opens the door for the democratic candidate, John Hickenlooper. He was the very progressive mayor of Denver.
============================================================
From what I’ve read in the Denver papers (read them right after your first post), John Hickenlooper was looking good for the win even before TT did his switch-a-roo. The egos of these old farts (excuse the crudeness)blinds them to everything outside of their sense of self-importance … they just can’t seem to come to terms with the fact that their careers are finished. A failing shared by all political players.
Blouise,
Yep.
It’s hard to argue a losing position. For example, my moot court experience in law school. I was set against a friend who was just as bad a bulldog as I am when arguing. That was a large part of why we were friends. Well, most moot court exercises are about a well established case, you do the research, you build your arguments and present them. Our case? Our old friend in keeping the government secular, Lemon v. Kurtzman. Unfortunately for my friend, I was assigned the winning side. And at moot court, I saw a side of him I didn’t know existed prior to that. He was subdued and in some cases waffling. At the time, I was more than a bit shocked. It’s much harder to argue with passion from a side you know is a loser is the moral of that story. I’d think that applies to propagandists as well.
Blouise My son is active in Colorado politics. Tancredo opens the door for the democratic candidate, John Hickenlooper. He was the very progressive mayor of Denver.
Buddha,
Did you get the sense that TraderB wasn’t as fully committed to his cause as he should have been … he waffled a lot … or was that just my impression?
Swarthmore mom,
Here’s the latest on Tancredo:
Goss clears way for Tancredo, resigns as gubernatorial candidate
July 27, 2010 10:44 AM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DENVER — Benjamin Goss has submitted his resignation letter Tuesday as the American Constitution Party’s candidate for governor.
Goss is stepping down to make way for former GOP congressman Tom Tancredo, who plans to run on the party’s ticket. Tancredo switched his party affiliation Monday. (American Constitution Party)
****************************************************
He’s Colorado’s problem … I feel sorry for them
eniobob,
What Blouise said. Good catch.
eniobob,
Thank you for the info on Webb … I guess he’s just another “I’ll say whatever it takes to get my important self elected.” Once that happens, he can never be trusted again … by anyone.
“Verbal force is as bad as physical force.”
Bullshit. Words hurt a lot less than sticks. It’s much better to get your ass kicked in an argument than by thugs wearing brown shirts. That’s a fact.
Debate, an essential component of a democracy, is by its nature an adversarial process. You don’t have people debating when there is unanimous agreement but rather only when there are positions in opposition.
If someone brings propaganda – by definition and modern application containing lies and distortion – to a public forum that encourages factual and logical discussion and debate? Then they are going to loose and loose badly.
If they are made to look like fools by people with a factual basis for their arguments and superior skills in logic and presentation? Then that is the price they pay for being propagandists and building their foundations for argument on sand instead of stone.
“I feel sorry for Professor Turley. It looks like he attracts only about 10-15 very lightweight posters and only a couple that actually have anything worthwhile to say. I wonder why he even bothers.” is not a statement of totalitarian oppression. It’s simple (pathetic) dismissive invective – a form of rationalization just as surely as the fox’s thoughts on grapes. Words of a sore loser walking away with his tail between his legs.
http://www.openleft.com/diary/19580/encouraging-signs-from-the-frontlines-of-the-conservative-civil-war For those that are encouraging people to vote third party, you might want to be a cautious about recommending Tancredo. He is running as a third party candidate.
TraderB:
“I feel sorry for Professor Turley. It looks like he attracts only about 10-15 very lightweight posters and only a couple that actually have anything worthwhile to say. I wonder why he even bothers.”
if someone doesn’t agree they get nasty and people just say forget it. Verbal force is as bad as physical force. But a common tactic of those with a totalitarian mindset.
TraderB–
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/
**********
Timeline of Breitbart’s Sherrod smear
July 22, 2010 7:38 am ET
http://mediamatters.org/research/201007220004
Holy Bat Guano!
eniobob–
“Michael Steele, Andrew Breitbart To Reportedly Appear Side-By-Side At RNC Event ”
The dynumbic duo?
forum\ˈfȯr-əm\, n.,
1 a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business b : a public meeting place for open discussion c : a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas
2 : a judicial body or assembly : court
3 a : a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities
It’s a package deal.
eniobob Never have liked Jim Webb. Virginia voted for Obama but has been sliding backwards ever since. They even elected a republican christian fundamentalist, Bob McDonnell, as governor. Remember this is the state that brought you George Allen.