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.
Elaine:
you calling him/her out? Bringing Buddha as your second? Or just want him around in case it is a small job and you don’t want to soil yourself with a trifling? 🙂
Blouise–
Send TraderB the restaurant’s address and a gift certificate. Tell him/her Buddha and I will meet him/her there at seven o’clock on Saturday night.
😉
Mike A.,
You’ve painted the picture of a presidential administration walking on eggshells. Do you see any connection between your observations above and the administration’s complete lack of integrity regarding the campaign objections to the former Chief’s overreaching constitutional powers?
To all,
Here’s a recommendation if you are traveling through Cleveland … Fahrenheit restaurant in the Tremont area is superb. Just returned, logged on and before I entered the fray, wanted to give everyone a heads up!
TraderB–
You wrote:
Elaine M. wrote:
““What states is he licensed in?”
Getting a little personal, aren’t we?”
I am afraid you are a bit naive.
**********
You claim I’m naive. Would you like to explain how you came to that conclusion? This isn’t Fox News or Breitbart’s Big Government site where you can throw out any crap you feel like and not be called to respond to the person you accuse of being simple and credulous, lacking in sophistication and analytical insight, not subtle or learned.
BTW, can one be “a bit naive?” Isn’t that like being a little pregnant?
Buddha Is Laughing
“Are you the same clown who tried to ham-fisted phish personal data off my e-mail blind on the day this all started, TraitorB?”
No. You can be assured that I am not into the adolescent hacker games.
From Media Matters for America
“Race war”: Right-wing race-baiting takes on a violent tone
July 28, 2010 6:08 pm
Excerpt:
Right-wing media routinely engage in race-baiting attacks against Obama
Media conservatives repeatedly attack Obama and his administration as “racist.” Since July 28, 2009, when Glenn Beck called President Obama a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture,” right-wing media figures have routinely called Obama and members of his administration “racist.” During the March 9 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity defended Beck’s statement, questioning whether Beck had said anything “over the top.” Rush Limbaugh echoed these remarks when, after citing a campaign video in which Obama discussed voter turnout, including among minorities and women, he said, “This is the regime at its racist best.” Discussing the phony New Black Panthers scandal, radio host Jay Severin said Obama is “demonstrably a racist.” Right-wing media figures have also labeled Obama administration officials — including Eric Holder and other members of the Department of Justice — “racist,” accusing them of blatant reverse discrimination and of having “allowed and even encouraged race-based enforcement as either tacit or open policy.”
Right-wing media level a wide variety of racially charged attacks against Obama. In addition to blatantly calling Obama a “racist,” conservative media figures have engaged in other race-baiting attacks and have fired off a litany of vituperative allegations against the president. On the July 6 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh said that “If Obama weren’t black he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu.” During the same edition of his show, Limbaugh claimed that Obama “wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren’t black.” Beck continued his race-based fearmongering by warning that Obama’s agenda is driven by “reparations” and a desire to “settle old racial scores.” On Fox News, radio host Laura Ingraham said the Obama administration has “set back race relations in this country perhaps a generation.”
Are you the same clown who tried to ham-fisted phish personal data off my e-mail blind on the day this all started, TraitorB?
Sucks to want, doesn’t it?
Desire is the root of all suffering.
Again, this isn’t about me. Or where I live. Or my licenses. Or my name. Or my favorite breakfast cereal.
This is about your boy, Andrew Breitbart.
He and his treatment of Shirley Sherrod.
That’s what this thread is about. Its substantive subject matter. That and apparently about your mission in life: defending poor ‘lil Andrew from the big bad media.
Your desire to lionize him here and the suffering your failure to do so brings you.
I’m just the delivery man from Karmic Express.
You really should have stuck to hanging out at the WSJ.
Elaine M. wrote:
““What states is he licensed in?”
Getting a little personal, aren’t we?”
I am afraid you are a bit naive.
TraderB–
Afraid to address the points Mike A. brought up in his comment at 7:37 pm?
TraderB–
“What states is he licensed in?”
Getting a little personal, aren’t we? Why does it matter to you in which states Buddha is licensed? What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Mike Appleton
“Buddha is indeed a lawyer. You just have to learn to distinguish his legal analysis from his polemical excursions. It takes a while, but it’s worth the effort.”
What states is he licensed in?
Mike Appleton wrote:
“You probably don’t recall the 1960 presidential election. I recall it very well.”
I recsll it very well. JFK was actually more conservative than Nixon. The Kennedys were Joe McCarthy’s biggest supporters against Eisenhower. Remember Old Joe Kennedy supported Hitler. JFK was in the hospital when the Senate voted to censure Joe McCarthy, but never said how he would have voted. JFK and Bobby actually worked to inhibit the civil rights movement begun under Eisenhower, the real hero of civil rights.
TraderB, Buddha is indeed a lawyer. You just have to learn to distinguish his legal analysis from his polemical excursions. It takes a while, but it’s worth the effort.
Listen up, troll.
You can try to make this about me all you want. Really. I don’t mind. Trolls try to do that all the time after I’ve gone all gorilla on them. It just shows your frustration. Which I find simply amusing. It’s one of the reasons I sport argue. I grew up on Bugs Bunny and Groucho Marx so there’s nothing I love better than seeing a confused and pissed off opponent.
But this isn’t about me.
Bottom line is this is about your fearful leader Andrew Breitbart.
Gyges,
Interesting. Perhaps.
Personally I tend to think the subconscious tends to be a blend of functions.
One – something along the lines of an aconscious co-processor that aids higher thinking/conscious thought like you are saying and two = something like an immune system/slash safety system for conscious thought.
I say this second part based upon the roll the subconscious plays in dreaming. REM sleep seems to be related to to several subconscious functions. Most relevant to this topic, it has a noted impact on declarative memory (the recall/filing system), but not procedural memory (long term memory/storage). In that way, it’s acting like a co-processor, almost like a “fast boot loader”, in the way you are talking about. This plays into the “the Sentinel” theory of REM sleep where brain activity is almost at conscious levels to allow mammals to “check out the area” without fully waking. Combine this with the documented effects of REM sleep deprivation which can lead to severe psychological problems as well as death in lab animals when it has been completely repressed. I’ve told the story here many times about the audio and visual hallucinations I experienced once after going for a week without sleep. The physical manifestations and death could be related to changes in monoamine and other neurotransmitters that go on during sleep. Along with this, it is widely thought that dreaming is a manifestation of the subconscious working to process information in a background manner. This would be consistent with the neurotransmitter changes being a form of “chemically taking out the garbage” as being a concurrent process with the subconsciously directed dreaming being a form of “emptying your brains recycle bin/pending item queue”.
It’s an interesting subject. I wish I knew more about it.
TraderB, I don’t believe that you’re nearly as obtuse as your comments suggest. So let’s cut to the chase.
You probably don’t recall the 1960 presidential election. I recall it very well. There was a small but noisy segment of the population who believed that if John F. Kennedy became president, he would immediately install a direct phone line to the Vatican so that he would be instantly available to receive instructions from the pope. I was a freshman in a Catholic high school that fall and discovered to my astonishment that there was a great deal of anti-Catholic sentiment among the electorate. It was a disappointing surprise.
When Barack Obama was nominated, the fear machines were oiled and running within hours. I can list a lot of it by chapter and verse because I wrote much of it down, but I think you know what I mean. Almost overnight we heard expressions of concern about the rights of white people as though there was some actual and imminent threat. Then he became a Kenyan and then an Indonesian Muslim. Indeed, he became almost everything except a legitimate American presidential candidate in the eyes of many. Sarah Palin started pledging to “take back our country” before blacks even had the opportunity to seize it.
By the time of his inauguration, the climate of fear had become so entrenched that the president and his advisers, wrongly in my opinion, determined that they needed to be ultra-sensitive to the issue of race, fearing to do or say anything that might suggest favoritism toward, or even identification with, black voters. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and their fear-mongering brethren have been consistently playing the whites-as-oppressed song.
It is precisely that theme that Mr. Breitbart sought to promote with his edited tape. The White House reaction was predictably swift and paranoid. After all, the last thing in the world the president needs is a black agency official with a sour attitude toward white people. Fox and almost everyone else bought it hook, line and sinker. It confirmed what the right-wing had been screaming about for months. It confirmed the accuracy of Palin’s charge that we need to take our country back. It confirmed that sense that government was being used as a tool to exact retribution for hundreds of years of wrong done to an entire race.
So, make no mistake about it. Mr. Breitbart is not an honorable person. Indeed, he doesn’t pretend to be. He will have to account for that at some point. Hope it’s soon.
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.”
They went to the NAACP. That was in the Fox.com article.
**********
Which Fox.com news article? Did Fox get a response from the NAACP before it ran its article? Can you please be more specific?
To: Mike Appleton,
I hate to put you on the spot, but do you think Buddha is really a lawyer? You seem to think like one. Please read his post at July 28, 2010 at 2:08 pm. I can follow the legal arguments of most judges, lawyers and legal scholars, like Jonathan Truley, pretty well, but cannot follow what Buddha’s reasoning.
You do realize that while you’re thinking you’re some kind of media avenger, we’re all just laughing at you. Right, TraitorB?
I suppose next his source is going to be the Tooth Fairy.
*snicker*