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.
“Mr. Breitbart doesn’t know when to shut up because he retains an adolescent tendency to act on his feelings without regard for the consequences.”
Kinda like some of his trolls.
Mike Appleton wrote:
“If a libel action is brought, I believe that discovery will disclose the following….”
5. The identity of the person in the White HOuse who told Cheryl Cook to fire Sherrod.
My guess is that it was Rahm Emmanuel, who wants to run for Mayor of Chicago. Do you think she will ever be allowed to testify? The Mob has has her boot size. They are preparing the concrete now. It appears that she is already in the Witness Protection Program.
As an ace reporter for the Jesuit High School “Eagle Eye,” I was taught that the first rule of a journalist is to make certain that something is true before it is printed. That’s why sources are verified. That’s why there is a hierarchy of editors. That’s why most media companies have libel counsel.
It now appears that the former construction workers and substance abusers passing for journalists at Fox, with the able assistance of a hierarchy of editors and libel counsel, are doing a sort of dance combining features of the macarena with moon walking in an effort to distance the network from the Sherrod mess. It involves erasing and backtracking in equal measure, all the while avoiding any acknowledgment of responsibility. Mr. Andrew “Notso” Breitbart is of no particular assistance in the endeavor since he has been loudly impenitent, a characteristic which has likely been a part of his personality since his elementary school days when, I suspect, he was wont to pull down the window and stick out his tongue, but only after he was certain that his school bus was pulling safely away from the objects of his mockery.
If a libel action is brought, I believe that discovery will disclose the following:
1. Mr. Breitbart, like his hero Mr. Drudge, is considered a reliable source at Fox.
2. Mr. Breitbart received the tape from someone already known to him, and known by him to share his views on the need to destroy all forms of political and social sentiment associated with his definition of “socialism”; you know, stuff which promotes evil doctrines such as “social justice,” “equal rights” and “living wage.”
3. Mr. Breitbart viewed the edited tape and decided to run with it without the benefit of sitting through the entire Sherrod speech because (a.) he’s a busy guy and (b.) the excerpt provided what he needed to create the controversy.
4. The powers that be at Fox decided to run with it because Mr. Breitbart believes the right things and the ACORN fiasco was only a minor aberration, after all, which nevertheless produced an altogether laudable result.
Assuming that my scenario is generally accurate, the very best that can be said for Mr. Breitbart and for Fox is that each was at least negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to verify the truthfulness of their published conclusions. That is sufficient to establish libel under the common law in an action by a private person.
Should Mr. Breitbart and Fox successfully argue that Ms. Sherrod was a public official, the standard becomes proof of actual malice. However, that does not mean that Ms. Sherrod would have to prove Mr. Breitbart’s state of mind or that he knew that the edited tape would put her in a false light in the public’s eye. It would be sufficient to show that Mr. Breitbart acted without regard as to whether his publication was false. In this regard, his own statements subsequent to the incident are evidence that concern for the truth was not a factor in his decision to publish the edited tape. Mr. Breitbart doesn’t know when to shut up because he retains an adolescent tendency to act on his feelings without regard for the consequences.
“Maybe Fox News/Fox News Channel/Fox Nation should have gone to the “primary source” of the tape before it/they ran/broke any story about the Sherrod speech.”
They went to the NAACP. That was in the Fox.com article.
Gyges:
“Byron,
What do you think is meant by this?
“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. “”
I asked you first 🙂
To me it means what it says. I believe the author is not talking about the autonomous nervous system which controls our heart rate and other functions.
Got to go, more later.
TraderB–
I knew the answer. It was a rhetorical question. I’m not as misinformed as you seem to think I am!
Elaine wrote:
“BTW, who was the “primary source” for the original full-length Sherrod tape that was edited.”
The NAACP and/or the production company that made it.
Buddha wrote:
“But if you want to equivocate, knock yourself out. Or if you just want to say Breitbart didn’t edit it himself, knock yourself out there too as I’ve already covered it was posted by someone arguably an employee and that he as editor of his various outlets exercised editorial approval in posting it.”
“Breitbart” implicitly includes his employees and/or subcontractora, but I do not think it matters particularly. I assume when he said that he didn’t edit the tape, he means her speech. I assume he added the prologue and epilogue, but do not know for sure. I would think the person in GA would have know that the incident did not happen when she was employed by the USDA.
How would he even know about the tape if someone from GA did not send it to him? It almost certainly came from the GA production company, since only it and the NAACP had a copy of the full tape (as far as we know). The clip without the prologue and epilogue could have been edited at the request of the NAACP as a teaching tool. If fact, it could very well have aired down there or been posted on the internet.
Breitbart said the person sent him a copy of the full tape on DVD in April, but it was defective. He did not follow up then, but, when the NAACP started calling the Tea Party racist, he called him up and was sent the clip, presumably by email.
TraderB–
You wrote the following in an earlier comment:
Elaine wrote:
“Glenn Beck covers Shirley Sherrod story, denies Fox News played any role in the mess.”
**********
I didn’t actually write that. It was the headline of the post at Examiner.com that I provided a link to.
Slarti–
“So what he said was technically true while still being designed to convey a maximum amount of misinformation (i.e. propaganda)?”
It’s all about plausible deniabilty. There are lies, damned lies, statistics—-and then there is the truth according to FOX!
TraderB–
Maybe Fox News/Fox News Channel/Fox Nation should have gone to the “primary source” of the tape before it/they ran/broke any story about the Sherrod speech. BTW, who was the “primary source” for the original full-length Sherrod tape that was edited and then posted by Breitbart? Hmmmmm??? Maybe FOX should get its facts straight!
TraderB said:
“If you would go to the primary source, instead of secondary sources, you could get your facts straight. Look at the Beck tape. It says “Fox News Channel” on his black board–nothing about Fox Nation or Fox.com.”
So what he said was technically true while still being designed to convey a maximum amount of misinformation (i.e. propaganda)?
Elaine wrote:
“Glenn Beck covers Shirley Sherrod story, denies Fox News played any role in the mess.”
If you would go to the primary source, instead of secondary sources, you could get your facts straight. Look at the Beck tape. It says “Fox News Channel” on his black board–nothing about Fox Nation or Fox.com.
Buddha,
The way I read it, the quote says that all decisions are made by conscious thought, which can have many meanings. However, if I can show that a process is involved in making a decision that doesn’t involve ANY of those definitions, I’ve falsified the claim.
I’d say a neurological process that “makes a decision” well before any awareness or mental justification is solidly aconscious.
This is also relevant.
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n1/abs/nn1160.html
Of course this discussion is mainly an exercise for “The Philosopher of the Gaps.”
Buddha wrote:
“No where in the definition of edit does the term “relative” come into play. It either is edited or it isn’t.”
Breitbart’s tape is an edited version of the original. The CNN version is an edited version of his.
From Examiner.com (7/23/2010)
Video: Glenn Beck covers Shirley Sherrod story, denies Fox News played any role in the mess
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d23-Video-Glenn-Beck-covers-Shirley-Sherrod-story-denies-Fox-News-played-any-role-in-the-mess
Excerpt:
Breitbart released the video and story at 11:18 a.m. on July 19th. Contrary to Beck’s claim, Breitbart did not simply post a neutral video. Breitbart explicitly accused Sherrod of racism in his post saying of her, “Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer.” Breitbart also accused her of performing her duties through the “prism of race.” Of course, the full video of Sherrod’s speech would reveal that the story was used to illustrate how she overcame seeing the world through racial distinctions. Beck makes no mention of Breitbart’s post in his version of events.
Fox News ran a story of the Sherrod story on their website soon after Breitbart released his story. The story was posted before Ms. Sherrod resigned. A copy of the story has now suspiciously been erased from the Fox News website, but a copy of article with the title “Video Shows USDA Official says She Didn’t Give ‘Full Force’ to help white farmer” can be seen here. The article quotes only the highly edited portion of Sherrod’s speech, and states Fox News is seeking comment from the USDA and the NAACP, but sadly not from Sherrod.
Then at 1:40 p.m., once again before Sherrod resigned, Fox Nation posted a story entitled “Caught on Tape, Obama Official Discriminates Against White Farmer.” The article never mentions that Sherrod was not an Obama official at the time of the incident, and that she of course never discriminated against the white farmer. Comments under the story immediately call for Sherrod to resign.
After this the story was also picked up by the Conservative website The Drudge Report. Andrew Breitbart tweeted that the people over at Media Matters were in for a “long day” (a prophecy that turned out to be true for much different reasons).
Then, of course, there was the promotion of the story on Fox News television that night. Beck is correct in his assertion that by this time Sherrod had resigned. However, what is clear is that Bill O’ Reilly did not know this at the time since he called for her resignation on his show after condemning her speech. Sean Hannity would also host guest Newt Gingrich to condemn Sherrod.
Buddha wrote:
“And you still haven’t addressed whether you work for him.”
That is two far-fetched to even bother with. Did it not occur to you that Trader might have something to do with my occupation?
Maybe this is where being a hermaphrodite comes in being handy…what ya think buddha?
I repeat:
Buddha Is Laughing 1, July 28, 2010 at 10:23 am
“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.
__________________
But if you want to equivocate, knock yourself out. Or if you just want to say Breitbart didn’t edit it himself, knock yourself out there too as I’ve already covered it was posted by someone arguably an employee and that he as editor of his various outlets exercised editorial approval in posting it.
edit \ˈe-dət\, t.v.,
1 a : to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation b : to assemble (as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging c : to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose (carefully edited the speech)
2 : to direct the publication of (edits the daily newspaper)
3 : delete —usually used with out
No where in the definition of edit does the term “relative” come into play. It either is edited or it isn’t. By whom is a process of pin the tail on the perp that I’m willing to leave up to the court, either Federal or public opinion. Because now the net result is Breitbart’s organization (if not him proper) will be discredited in the long run and ergo neutralized as propagandists.
You’re simply screwed. Deal with it, Troll.
Where is Bdaman when you think he is around?