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.
Byron,
It’s always too bad when science disagrees with the little bare assertion in philosophy:
The subconscious has no purposes or values of its own, and it does not engage in diabolical manipulations behind the scenes. In that sense, it is certainly not “dynamic.”
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/abs/nn.2112.html
Alternately:
“There is nothing in the subconscious besides what you acquired by conscious means. The subconscious does perform automatically certain important integrations (sometimes these are correct, sometimes not), but the conscious mind is always able to know what these are (and to correct them, if necessary”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
Elaine wrote:
“Let me get this right. FOX News “ran” the Sherrod story BEFORE she resigned–but it didn’t “break” the story until AFTER she resigned.”
The networks use the term “break” to mean running the story on air, not their websites, for some reason.
“There is nothing in the subconscious besides what you acquired by conscious means.”
So much for the monomyth, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
Bob & Byron–
I wonder what Professor Irwin Corey would have to say on the subject???
😉
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHlLmYVCzKY&hl=en_US&fs=1]
[Objectivism rejects the Freudian] theory of a dynamic unconscious—i.e., the unconscious as a mystic entity, with a will and purpose of its own unknown to the conscious mind, like an inborn demon that continually raises Hell. Strictly speaking, Objectivism does not subscribe to the idea of an unconscious at all. We use the term “subconscious” instead—and that is simply a name for the content of your mind that you are not focused on at any given moment. It is simply a repository for past information or conclusions that you were once conscious of in some form, but that are now stored beneath the threshold of consciousness. There is nothing in the subconscious besides what you acquired by conscious means. The subconscious does perform automatically certain important integrations (sometimes these are correct, sometimes not), but the conscious mind is always able to know what these are (and to correct them, if necessary). The subconscious has no purposes or values of its own, and it does not engage in diabolical manipulations behind the scenes. In that sense, it is certainly not “dynamic.”
Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism”
lecture series (1976), question period, Lecture 12
Issues of media and government negligence aside, here’s the subtext screaming throughout this debate:
“I’m not the racist, you are.”
“No, I’m not the racist, you are!”
C.G. Jung: “Just as we tend to assume that the world is as we see it, we naïvely suppose that people are as we imagine them to be. . . . All the contents of our unconscious are constantly being projected into our surroundings, and it is only by recognizing certain properties of the objects as projections or imagos that we are able to distinguish them from the real properties of the objects. . . . Cum grano salis, we always see our own unavowed mistakes in our opponent. Excellent examples of this are to be found in all personal quarrels. Unless we are possessed of an unusual degree of self-awareness we shall never see through our projections but must always succumb to them, because the mind in its natural state presupposes the existence of such projections. It is the natural and given thing for unconscious contents to be projected.[“General Aspects of Dream Psychology,” ibid., par. 507.]”
Forest Gump: “And that’s all I have to say about that.”
Jill–
“In all the worry about the Tea Baggers, I wish to pose this question from a progressive website by a person identified as mcyote.”
**********
One thing I’d like to request of you in the future is that you include links to websites and/or to specific blog posts you reference in your comments.
When I refer to news articles or blog posts in my comments I include links to them so that people can check them out for themselves.
Thanks.
TraderB,
I agree with Jon Stewart when he pointed out that Breitbart was simply living up to his announced determination to do everything in his power to take down the institutional left. He hurt the NAACP a little bit though not, I suspect, in the manner he hoped.
Quite frankly, I’d never heard of Breitbart until the Sherrod tape broke. Now that I know who he is, his goal, and how he maneuvers to accomplish said goal … well, I’ll be cautious about any material flowing from him … or at least pay more attention to the sources.
I watched the version as first posted on this site and this is what I posted way back on July 20:
“As I listened to the speech, initially I was appalled but then, as the speech progressed, I realized the woman was explaining an “eye opening” experience … one that helped her, at least in her estimation, overcome her own racist tendencies. The conservative reaction is “business as usual” and her words will indeed inflame the fear so many whites hold dear … “our one time slaves are out to get us”. ”
So I could see clearly from the edited portion that was posted here what Sherrod was talking about … also having performed in many black churches I knew that the audience reaction was what we in the music business define as “call and response”.
I understood conservatives jumping up and down with glee about the racist tag line for it fit their perception of all blacks out to get all whites as revenge for slavery. What I could not fathom was Turley’s reaction or the reaction from the NAACP and the Obama Administration. I mean, for cryon’ out loud, I could easily see it wasn’t a racist piece and I could also easily see why conservatives wanted it to be a racist piece … why couldn’t the smart guys?
Oh well … there will be plenty more of this stuff coming down the pike as the election season heats up … it’ll be fun to see if the next brouhaha is as entertaining as this one was.
From Examiner.com (7/21/2010)
Andrew-Breitbart-contributor-uploaded-Shirley-Sherrod-video-to-YouTube-did-he-edit-it-too
http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m7d21-
Excerpt:
So who created the Shirley Sherrod edited video to begin with?
Though we aren’t sure who originally edited the video, we do know who uploaded it to YouTube as it remains there still.
Larry O’Connor from The Stage Right Show uploaded the edited video to his account. According to his YouTube account, he is a regular contributor to Big Hollywood, Big Government and Big Journalism. In other words, Larry O’Connor is a frequent contributor to Andrew Breitbart’s website.
TraderB–
Let me get this right. FOX News “ran” the Sherrod story BEFORE she resigned–but it didn’t “break” the story until AFTER she resigned. Sounds like some typical right-wing logic to me. I think Not-So-Brightbart would probably award you an A+ for verbal gymnastics in the Propaganda Olympics.
You wrote: “It also said they were checking with USDA and the NAACP, which should have been enough of a caveat.”
So why didn’t FOX check with USDA and NAACP before posting the story. Then it might NOT have needed a “caveat.”
Buddha,
I listened to the whole speech last week. It adds detail to the story, but does not change the gist of the story on Breitbart’s tape. The main thing is that it clears up the timing of events. I could not really figure out why she would say the Dept. of Ag sent him, when she worked for it.
Buddha wrote:
“Made the comparison to the full context of the speech before claiming the tape was edited to take comments out of context?”
All I can tell you is that I watched the tape Mon 19 Jul 2010 and recognized it as a tale of redemption. I was a little confused by his text which referred to her “racist tale” since it clearly was not. It was about the third time I read that I figured out that he meant the racist portion.
Blouise wrote:
“Hey TraderB … where were you yesterday?
“Why is Breitbart so worried about edited tapes? It no longer matters… anyone who is interested can watch the full version. The edited versions will only come into play if this matter goes to court, so why worry about it?”
Actually, the only reason I came here was to correct Professor Turley’s statement, because he is so well respected. I missed the fact that he had a corrections page. We discussed the matter ad nauseum at WSJ last week and had all the info then. I don’t have time to post here too.
I don’t know if Breitbart is worried about. I don’t post at his site, so have not read what is over there. However, people are still disparaging his work, so I would think that he would want to notify those still doing it.
Elaine wrote:
“Breitbart blogger agrees: Fox News DID peddle Sherrod story before she resigned.”
This is well known and is also in the Media Matters time line. Fox’s claim is that they did not break the story on TV until after she had resigned. Fox.com simply reported the posting as news. It also said they were checking with USDA and the NAACP, which should have been enough of a caveat. There is a screen shot in the time line.
According to the L.A. Times, Fox’s News Division sat on the story all day and was very skeptical. O’Reilly has his own staff and was the first to break the story on cable. He had not watched the entire Breitbart tape. Fox ran it with a banner saying she had resigned. Hannity apparently picked it up from him, but prefaced his opinion by “if true”.
Her resignation is what gave the story its credibility. It did not occur to anyone that she would have resigned if the story was not true.
Buddha,
The test is time-stamped Mon 19 Jul 2010, but the video is from the next morning. The Breitbart clip has 00:01:40 from her speech. The two clips shown in the foreground contain (00:00:30) of his clip and were re-edited. They appear to be looping it in the background, but I cannot read part of it.
Pretty much this (or slightly different versions) are still being run on the networks as the Breitbart type.
Elaine M.,
Maybe he was afraid of a Lynching….and not figuratively…unless you consider that that may swing the vote….nah, thats even to good for him….
TraderB–
Breitbart blogger agrees: Fox News DID peddle Sherrod story before she resigned
July 27, 2010 4:42 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007270047
From Media Matters for America:
Sherrod To Speak At Black Journalists Convention; Breitbart Backs Out
July 28, 2010 9:00 am ET by Joe Strupp
http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007280011
Excerpt:
Former Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod, whose forced resignation after an edited video attempt to portray her as racist caught national attention, will speak before the National Association of Black Journalists on Thursday.
A notice on the NABJ website states: “The former director of rural development in Georgia is set to speak at a session titled ‘Context and Consequences: A Conversation with Shirley Sherrod’ at 8 a.m.”
The organizaiton also revealed that conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who set off the criticism against Sherrod after posting the edited video clip that appeared to show Sherrod making racist comments, was also invited to the conference. But after initially accepting the invitation, he later declined.
**********
I wonder why Not-So-Brightbart declined the invitation after initially accepting it. Maybe because he couldn’t control “the context” of the conversation?????
Hey TraderB … where were you yesterday?
Why is Breitbart so worried about edited tapes? It no longer matters… anyone who is interested can watch the full version. The edited versions will only come into play if this matter goes to court, so why worry about it?
BTW, that does not mean I think Breitbart is a journalist either, but just in case he thinks he is since you made the comparison.
He’s still a propagandist just like he was yesterday.