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.
Mike A. already addressed this:
“Mike Appleton 1, July 22, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Elaine, inasmuch as Ms. Sherrod has not sought advice from anyone on this blog to my knowledge, I don’t wish to cross that invisible line separating opinion from presumptuousness, but I would suggest that she retain a competent libel attorney and have him or her make written demand on all of the offending media outlets to broadcast, or publish as the case may be, formal retractions of their stories having the same prominence as the original publications. In a number of jurisdictions, that is a prerequisite to the right to file suit in any event. I understand that Bill O’Reilly has already apologized. I don’t know whether he is truly penitent or is being proactive on the advice of counsel.”
And you are so obviously not a lawyer but thanks for the admission.
As to what you think? That’s your opinion. Not a fact. Because Andy didn’t do his due diligence doesn’t mean real reporters don’t. They have to in order to keep from being sued. It’s called “their job”. It’s Journalism 101. So you think no reporter out there saying the tape was edited has seen the Breitbart versions? Made the comparison to the full context of the speech before claiming the tape was edited to take comments out of context?
That is ridiculous.
But you keep on thinking that if you want.
Delusions can be a coping mechanism in cases of catastrophic failures.
Buddha wrote on the corrections page:
“Considering every major media outlet (including CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, et al.), mediamatters.org and the NAACP are reporting that the tape has been edited, you expect a person versed in evaluating evidence to take the word of the ones accused of said editing to be proof of not editing?”
First of all, I am not a lawyer, so I am not interpreting the law. I am just looking at the facts.
I do not think any of their reporters have seen the Breitbart tape, because everyone of them claim that their re-edited tape is the Breitbart version. Of course, they are doing a cya thing.
Fox, however, has admitted as such. O’Reilly watched the Breitbart clip, but admitted that he did not watch the whole thing before he broke the story Monday night. He was very apologetic to Sherrod.
In all the worry about the Tea Baggers, I wish to pose this question from a progressive website by a person identified as mcyote. It goes to the essence of the matter. “You know I’m wondering about this.
We’ve seen that Obama is going to continue with the Imperial juggernaut unfettered by any pesky constituents who dreamt otherwise.
We’ve seen Obama will gladly hand over taxpayer dollar to the proven grand bandits of Wall St. and will do so in amounts that would leave even the Bush gang green with envy.
We’ve seen that the much rumored Changling has surrounded himself with a cesspool of reactionary troglodytes, the very same pariahs that have been swirling around DC for decades.
So I wonder, as we bear witness to the entire charade, the criminal enterprise known as “our government”, what are the responsibilities of those who approached Obama with nothing less than religious fervor?
Do these people who put him in office not have any responsibility to hold their man’s “feet to the fire?”
Do they not bear any responsibility for the criminal acts they have enabled with their tacit or vocal support for this guy?
So now they just walk away from the voting booth and lament that their guy has been “a disappointment so far” and do they bear no responsibility for his policies, policies which many of us described in detail long before they even became policies?
Is their no responsibility from these Obama supporters for every child who is bombed by US planes in Afghanistan?
Is their no responsibility from these Obama supporters as their savior continues with the corporate takeover of the commons and for this unending financial disaster?
What about for wiretapping and renditions (both of which Obama supports)?
How many of you are willing to stand behind Obama and the Democrats as they commit crime after crime?
But please . . . fight some more.
If three straight days of being pinned to the mat isn’t enough for your masochistic streak, I’ll be glad to keep giving a demonstration of how to destroy propagandists.
“TraderB 1, July 26, 2010 at 4:26 pm
This is the tape shown on CNN. Compare the two:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/19/agriculture.employee.naacp/index.html?iref=allsearch
Breitbart did not edit the tape. It was sent to him by someone from GA, who did not want to jump into the fray.”
Compare with:
“TraderB 1, July 28, 2010 at 10:14 am
Buddha:
Of course, we all knew that the Breitbart tape was edited. It was obviously not her entire speech. However, the question is whether it contains the gist of her story, as opposed to the network’s re-edited version. Professor Turely will have to decide for himself whether his blog correctly characterizes the clip.”
So which is it, TrollB? You using the networks earlier tape as an affirmation or a condemnation?
Methinks you contradict yourself.
I think you’ve made a mistake here.
That’s exactly what I’m counting on, Junior Propagandist.
Because a lie of omission (yes the includes omission of context), is still a lie.
Good luck trying to get the changes you want from the Prof. considering the evidence.
Buddha:
Of course, we all knew that the Breitbart tape was edited. It was obviously not her entire speech. However, the question is whether it contains the gist of her story, as opposed to the network’s re-edited version. Professor Turely will have to decide for himself whether his blog correctly characterizes the clip.
Wuzzat?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZGWQauQOAQ&hl=en_US&fs=1]
Elaine,
Oh Sweet Great White Gun-toting Racist Jesus! Not the context! Whatever will the Troll Patrol do!
(I hear the Vegas money is on “spontaneously combust”.)
Buddha–
Thanks–but we don’t need the full video of Sherrod’s speech. Andrew Breitbart already gave us HIS view of the speech and of how the NAACP rewards racism. What more do we need? Context? Hmmmmmmmmmm?????
How about addressing the full tape versus the edited version you’ve been pimping for Breitbart, TraitorB?
Hmm? Or are you going to waste more time trying to goad me? Because I just think it’s funny and you just keep making an ass out of yourself. Which I will stipulate is entertaining.
What’s the matter? Facts got your tongue?
lol This is better than donuts.
Amateur.
Buddha wrote:
“For example, my moot court experience in law school.”
Law school? Is that what they are calling civics classes now?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk&hl=en_US&fs=1]
There ya go! Now people can see for themselves that the tape was edited.
GOP’s Invitation to Breitbart Proves They Are Lying About Race
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIlKBr9Nr8A&hl=en_US&fs=1]
roflol ROFLMAO
Full troll melt down! No neutralization required.
Nice job there, Mr. Professional Propagandist. And by “nice” I mean “really extremely sad and pathetic”.
hehehe *sigh*
I love it when a meal cooks itself.
And thanks for the complement I’m no Übermensch, an accusation which is severely funny coming from a racist, because I’m an egalitarian. I truly believe in human equality in respect to social issues, politics, and economics. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of posts here to prove that has been my most constant stance. You know the whole Jeffersonian notion that “all men are created equal”? No?
No. Of course you don’t. You’re a racist.
But what I am? For your purposes, what I am is simply this: better than you. Because “created equal” doesn’t mean “equally created”.
Run along now, junior.
Unless you want to use the tactic of implied violence again in which case I’ll just have to laugh my ass off at both you and Uncle Ted. Oooo. Pink paint balls! Scary! muahahahaha! *snicker* Careful there! Some wolves wear sheep’s clothing!
But really, a “man” of your obvious “skills” would be better off playing in the ‘lil propagandist shallow end of the pool over at HuffPo.
This is the big person’s pool.
Ted and I hunt together all the time. We dress up conservatives like sheep and let them go. We then use pink paint balls to mark their candy ass hides.
AY,
Only with Mr. Nugent’s permission (otherwise he will hunt you).
free range trolls, can you shoot em on site? Can you hunt them at Ted Nugents place?
“I trust the regulars will keep the trolls neutralized until I return later this evening”
the only Troll you ever neutralized was the one in your pants. But keep dreaming your adolescent dreams of ubermenschiness. Isn’t that German?
Buddha said:
“I trust the regulars will keep the trolls neutralized until I return later this evening.”
Nah, we’re just going to let them run wild so you can have some free range troll when you get back… 😉