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.
I have something that needs to be attended to here on the ground and requires I be out of communication for a bit.
I trust the regulars will keep the trolls neutralized until I return later this evening.
I think the best way to describe this,is to see your self driving down a road at 60 mph and all of a sudden you throw your car into reverse.
READY?
Aretha and Rice make music for inner-city youth
By theGrio
11:01 AM on 07/27/2010
Aretha Franklin and Condoleeza Rice to perform with Philadelphia orchestra
Monday, July 26, 2010.
MATT MOORE, Associated Press
NANCY C. ALBRITTON, Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Condoleezza Rice is no stranger to the whims of royalty. So when the Queen of Soul herself, Aretha Franklin, decided the two should get together to play a song or two for charity, it was decreed.
The former U.S. secretary of state and Franklin take the stage Tuesday evening at Philadelphia’s Mann Music Center in a rare duet for Rice, the classically trained pianist, and Franklin, the divalicious voice of a generation. Their aim is to raise money for urban children and awareness for music and the arts.
“It is a joint effort for the inner-city youth of Philadelphia and Detroit,” Franklin told The Associated Press the night before their concert with the Philadelphia Orchestra. Their appearance will brim not only with Franklin’s catalog of hits, but arias from the world of opera and classical music.
“We decided to give it a try,” Franklin said. “So here we are, in the city of Brotherly — and Sisterly — Love.”
Rice, better known as a diplomat and national security adviser, will accompany Franklin singing her hits “(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman” and “I Say a Little Prayer.” Rice said she’s been practicing furiously for her performance of Mozart’s piano concerto in D Minor with the orchestra.
Franklin’s repertoire will include songs from her new album “A Woman Falling Out of Love,” to be released later this year.
Rice’s given name is derived from the Italian opera stage instruction con dolcezza, meaning “with sweetness.” Long a musician of note, she played from elementary school through college and beyond, in quartets and performing chamber music.
She has even played with cellist Yo-Yo Ma but “this will be the first time I’ve played with an orchestra since I was 18,” she said.
When she learned that Rice played classical music, Franklin sent for one of her recordings “to hear what she sounded like.”
Previously, she said, “All I had seen of Dr. Rice was in a political atmosphere. It just seemed foreign that she would be a classical pianist.”
Franklin was surprised.
“She really does play,” Franklin said. “She’s formidable.”
The two met at a White House function, Rice recalled. “We were just talking and chatting and she said ‘You play, don’t you?’ And I said, ‘Yes.’ And she said we should do something together.”
Rice told the AP their plan to play together was borne of their mutual appreciation for music and determination to keep it near and accessible to children.
Franklin, relaxing in her hotel suite and holding a single long-stemmed peach-hued rose, deplored school budget cuts of music and arts programs as “a travesty” that cannot be allowed.
“Imagine what all of this would be without music. If you have to cut, cut something else. Not the music. We need the music. It soothes the savage beast. We need the music.”
Rice, in a separate interview, agreed.
“Nothing makes me more unhappy than when I hear people talk about music education in the schools as extracurricular,” Rice said.
Both women lauded each other’s talents, and abilities, but Rice made it clear she’ll leave the singing to Franklin.
“You do not want to hear me sing!” Rice said. “I’m a good choir musician, but I think I will stick to playing the piano.”
Buddha,
(Andy B.
1, July 27, 2010 at 3:17 pm
wrapping yourself in the flag? isn’t patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel?)
The other guy, lord I’ve forgotten his name already, called me a scoundrel too … something about a straw dog … anyway, these dudes must like the word …
lol
AY,
You know I have preachers in the family. It’s a genetic ability.
Buddha,
Did you finally get your mail order preacher certificate? If so, you may start taking donations and not report them as well. You can probably get a 501 nonprofit ticket too. With the 501 don’t by that by mail order…..
Wuzzat?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg&hl=en_US&fs=1]
I can’t hear you over the sound of crickets and truthfulness.
Your castle is made of sand.
You should learn when to walk away.
Because the more you fight me? The more it plays into my hands. So please. Continue to rationalize being a propagandist. I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, let’s look at the words propaganda and liar.
propaganda\ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\, n.,
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
liar \ˈlī(-ə)r\, n.,
: a person who tells lies
When examined in the context of the word rumor
rumor\ˈrü-mər\, n.,
1 : talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source
2 : a statement or report current without known authority for its truth
That makes propagandists liars. Liars with an agenda, but liars none the less.
But please, talk about how bad I am again instead of addressing your race baiting and fear mongering.
It’s just hilarious.
As one who uses flooding as a tactic in every media he touches? Don’t bitch when it’s turned on you propagandist.
It makes you look like a whiny child.
But please, try to smear me with your sins again, Karl.
It’s funny in that same pathetic way all of your bullshit is.
Oh, not the flag, half-wit. That’s for jingoists like you.
I have but one set of loyalties and it’s not to a piece of cloth or a political party.
My loyalty is to the Declaration and the Constitution, two documents that form the basis of our legal system and which you seek to undermine with your duplicity.
Promotion of race baiting nonsense like the statements of a Tea Party Express spokesman: NAACP makes “more money off of race than any slave trader ever” and being willing corporate puppets who pander to corporations like FOXNews and the WSJ and trick the easily misled into campaigning against their own best interests on health care reform?
Wow. How un-American is that!
Thomas Jefferson would be proud of your little endeavor.
And by “proud” I mean “appalled”.
wrapping yourself in the flag? isn’t patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel?
3 sentences and I am on a tirade? My my.
And for the record?
I don’t care that a known liar (and bully himself by the way, just ask Sherrod) thinks I’m a bully any more than I care that a known homophobe and theocrat thinks I’m a bully.
If you didn’t back manifestly unjust and un-American causes, you wouldn’t get beaten.
One is not a bully because one defends the Declaration and the Constitution.
One merely has a just cause.
And there is nothing more American than fighting injustice.
Injustice like racism. Like lying. Like spreading fear. Like being a corporatist first and a citizen second.
See? Still sucks to be you.
See Andy, unlike you, I have a well established track record of endorsing non-violent, non-divisive reform in government while seeking to hold criminals acting under the color of authority responsible for their crimes. No fear mongering about “the other”, no divisionist tactics, and most importantly, no deceit.
Whereas you have a history of playing off people’s fear of “the other”, prodding 2nd Amendment extremists, race baiting and lying.
Sucks to be you.
But please, continue your “I’m the victim” tirade.
I’ll stomp down that argument just like all the others you’ve floated.
If you lost in this forum? You have no one to blame but yourself and your sub-standard lackeys. And self-victimization doesn’t count as being an actual victim.
Really? Awwww. Did schnookem’s get his widdle feelings hurt over losing an argument?
That’s rich coming from the race baiting propagandist who backs these clowns:
Tea Party Caucus members endorse Israeli attack on Iran
a bully is a bully pure and simple. Some use words some use physical force. Most all try verbal force before they proceed to physical force. Now that is a fact as well.
“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.”
what do you think the brownshirts did before they started using force?
Swarthmore mom,
George Allen!!?? These egomaniacs never give up. I wonder if they all stand in front of the same mirror chanting the same verse:
“Mirror, mirror on the wall
Without my amazingly splendid self
My country’s sure to fall!”
Okay, okay … Elaine is probably cringing but too kind to say so … anyway, you get the drift. Their opinions of themselves are fairy tales.
Swarthmore mom
1, July 27, 2010 at 2:08 pm
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.
==============================================================
I’m sure you are right … it’s a well-coordinated plan of attack of which the Breitbart vid was just a small piece.
Many “knowing” democratic strategists predicted this plan of attack almost immediately after Obama was nominated. This is part of the reason I was disappointed in the initial reaction to the Sherrod thing (though I think your suggestion concerning Wright and perhaps Jones explains it). I hope the DNC has developed a counter to this republican strategy for they are going to need it now and again in 2012.