The Shirley Sherrod Situation

[halplm]

I don't believe I've ever said "no tea party supporter has ever been or could ever be a racist," but if you can point out where I did, I'd appreciate it.

You have, in the past, responded to accusations of racist actions by tea partiers as if such accusations were only attempts to paint the entire movement as racist. There are some rather vast double standards in how you treat claims of racism.

Please explain these double standards. I fully support the position that racist accusations without evidence are an attempt to paint the entire tea party movement as racist. I have not actually commented on any aspect of who said what about Sherrod... I have only stated that it is true that she is a racist, which I have determined independent of any edited video or stories about said video based on her statements and positions.

[halplm]

I apologize, Hal, you have not said that specific thing.

You have been pretty firm in denying any accusation of racism that's ever been leveled against a supporter of the tea party movement. And then quick to jump onto the accusations against Sherrod, who really was a victim of being taken out of context and having her words presented in carefully edited form by a hostile blogger.

Was she a victim? The edited video clearly makes the same point about her statements not being about race but about class (as if that's better), so the blame lies not with being taken out of context, but how people reacted to the perceived implications of that video. My statements about her obvious racism are unrelated.

As for denying accusation of racism leveled at the tea party as a WHOLE... yes, I deny them utterly and defy anyone to produce evidence that it is the case (and you can get a hundred grand if you want it). As for leveling such accusations at individual supporters of the tea party movement... I'm unaware of any except for the obvious ones like Limbaugh... which is of course utterly unfounded.

[samaranth]

Character assassination, tall poppies, call it what you will, it’s due in part to poor or deceitful journalism, part to time pressures to fill airtime, part to peer-pressure ... networks have to out-horrify each other to attract audiences and be ‘first with the news’ ... part to the over-reliance on the 30 second sound bite. I would also agree with the opinion of the writer of this article, that this kind of thing is symptomatic of the increasing use of online media such as Twitter as sources whose deliberate limitations on post size have meant most contextual material is stripped out, and often it’s the worst of the whole array of facts or statements that is picked up and pushed out.

(I can’t respond to some of the points in previous posts. I’m not familiar enough with the whole US political landscape to be confident I’ve got it right. However, I would agree with the point that Mahima made.)

[Inanna]

(I can’t respond to some of the points in previous posts. I’m not familiar enough with the whole US political landscape to be confident I’ve got it right. However, I would agree with the point that Mahima made.)

Thanks samaranth.

Peggy Noonan has a very good article today in WSJ on Sherrod. Worth a read. She calls it "the power of redemption"

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

[Primula Baggins]

That is a good article, Mahima. I'd be interested to hear what Hal thinks of it, as it comes from a conservative writer.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I would be more interested in Infidel's opinion of Noonan's article.

[halplm]

That is a good article, Mahima. I'd be interested to hear what Hal thinks of it, as it comes from a conservative writer.

That the rush to proclaim her as a saint is worse than the rush to condemn her as race baiting. I hear she has an hour long bio on CNN tonight... I'm sure that will be thorough...

Oh the point Noonan makes is great, that we can change as a nation ect... but it's giving far too much credit to Sherrod. Noonan glosses over Sherrod's divisiveness passing it off as humor...

Not the first time the media has rushed to such a judgment about the grand post-racial place we all want to be. The speech Obama made on race said all the right things (much much better than Sherrod), and he was elected president, a position with the power to actually provide change... However, he and his administration have done nothing but drive wedges between groups... divide and anger. By making everything about race, it makes it hard to move past race.

If this sainted Sherrod manages to do anything positive... more power to her, but every word she's uttered since this started has been devisive, vindictive, and saturated with victim-hood, which is the biggest racial problem we have.

[Primula Baggins]

A bigger problem than people actually being victims because of their race, I assume—being discriminated against on the job, or prejudged without knowledge, or hurt, or killed. Which still happens on a regular basis, as any number of people all over the world could testify. But people pointing out that racism exists is worse than people actually suffering from it?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Shirley Sherrod is a victim, but one who has shown how someone can rise above her victimization. She grew up in the segregated South. When she was 17, her father was murdered by a white man in a racially motivated incident. There were three eyewitnesses, but nonetheless the grand jury refused to indict the suspect. It was that backdrop that she brought with her that led her to the place where she was initially unwilling to give her full effort to the white farmers that came to her 24 years ago. But it was her realization that by allowing her own racial history to influence her own actions she was simply perpetuating racial disharmony, and it was her ability to rise above that history that makes her a valuable example.

[vison]

Thank you, Voronwë.

[halplm]

Shirley Sherrod is a victim, but one who has shown how someone can rise above her victimization. She grew up in the segregated South. When she was 17, her father was murdered by a white man in a racially motivated incident. There were three eyewitnesses, but nonetheless the grand jury refused to indict the suspect. It was that backdrop that she brought with her that led her to the place where she was initially unwilling to give her full effort to the white farmers that came to her 24 years ago. But it was her realization that by allowing her own racial history to influence her own actions she was simply perpetuating racial disharmony, and it was her ability to rise above that history that makes her a valuable example.

Except she hasn't risen above that history. She has only decided that in addition to that racial history, she feels there are rich conservatives who hate poor people.

It does not help to substitute one perceived prejudice with another perceived one. The result is still divisive rhetoric used to divide people for the purposes of political ideology. If you're racist against non-poor white people, it's still racism... no matter how much you try to twist your words to be "politically correct."

Shirley Sherrod is NOT a victim. She has been given every opportunity to succeed, and has been massively helped entirely because of her race, and has and is trading on that so called victim-hood for her own personal enrichment and ideology.

You want to say her father was a victim... sure, that was a long time ago. To say that is still an issue with anyone today is not only wrong, it is inciting racial divides.

The only way you can profit from alleged racism, is to maintain it still exists, regardless of reality.

Shirley Sherrod is an example... but only one in a LONG string of those shouting about their supposed victim-hood to try to convince everyone that they deserve to be handed what they have not earned.

[halplm]

A bigger problem than people actually being victims because of their race, I assume—being discriminated against on the job, or prejudged without knowledge, or hurt, or killed. Which still happens on a regular basis, as any number of people all over the world could testify. But people pointing out that racism exists is worse than people actually suffering from it?

So what's a white person discriminated against on the job, or prejudged without knowledge, or hurt, or killed... which still happens on a regular basis, as any number of people right HERE could testify... supposed to do?

What victim-hood should they shout about? What should their suffering be attributed to? Who should pay for that? OR should we just acknowledge that the world is a sucky place, and we have to work through it the best we can, without regards to our race, social status, ideology, religion or whatever.

But wait wait wait... I'm sorry, I sound like I'm talking about people living with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Why should anyone ever be burdened with such a heavy weight. Clearly, we should all be able to just have whatever we WANT handed to us by whoever can provide it...

[Primula Baggins]

Well, I thought it was worth trying to discuss this, but you can't really discuss racism with someone who denies that it exists—or believes that it only exists against white people. And that a black woman who has achieved anything could only have done so because of her race—that she can't possibly be competent—this is not racism?

Next time you accuse someone of claiming victimization out of a sense of entitlement, you might want to study the mirror first.

Oh, and passing off the uninvestigated, unpunished murder of someone's father as having happened "a long time ago," as if his daughter has no right still to be hurt by it and is promoting racism by mentioning it, is pretty darn callous, Hal.

[Infidel]

Is this sort of thing not libelous and thus actionable? Fox News may have deep enough pockets to deal with it, but Breitbart's another story.

What does FNC have to do with it?

They pushed the story heavily on O'Reilly and Hannity, as I understand it. Distributing and promoting a story that later proves defamatory makes one accessory to the defamation if one has been negligent about checking the story out.

The story did not even air on FNC until after she had been forced to resign.
O'Reilly's 'heavy pushing' of it was some short bit saying it was unnacceptable and she should resign, after she already had (and he has since apologized). I have no idea what Hannity did with it.
The word from Fox to the news division was:

Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right.

Sherrod had agreed to go on Kelly's show and give her side of the story but then she cancelled.

Was Fox the only station to cover the story? Should she also sue CNN and MSNBC?

And what about the Administration? Per Sherrod the administration was demanding she resign immediately because Beck was going to blast them with it. Beck did not cover the story until the next day and he defended Sherrod. And of course they were not going to tolerate any of her discrimination.

They did this with out any coverage from FNC and the man who strikes terror into their hearts - Glen Beck.

Should Sherrod sue the Obama administration as well?

And next there is the NAACP:

Since our founding in 1909, the NAACP has been a multi-racial, multi-faith organization that-- while generally rooted in African American communities-- fights to end racial discrimination against all Americans.

We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.

Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race.

We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.

We thank those who brought this to our national office's attention, as there are hundreds of local fundraising dinners each year.

Sherrod's behavior is even more intolerable in light of the US Department of Agriculture's well documented history of denying opportunities to African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American farmers, as well as female farmers of all races. Currently, justice for many of these farmers is being held up by Congress. We would hope all who share our outrage at Sherrod's statements would join us in pushing for these cases to be remedied.

The NAACP will continue to advance the ideals of America and fight for freedom, justice and fairness for all Americans.

This was released just after Sherrod's resignation was announced.

Should Sherrod sue the NAACP?

(Following the trend (or leading it), the NAACP claims they were 'snookered' by Fox in their retraction. The relentless zero mentions of Sherrod on FNC until after she resigned, just got to be to much for the NAACP.)

In the NAACP statement they mention her change of heart. Just like the original clip posted by Brietbart does. Strange that.

To continue with the theme, Sherrod is out there saying Breitbart is a racist and wants to bring back slavery for blacks.
"Is this sort of thing not libelous and thus actionable?"
Should she be sued?

ETA:
In their press release the NAACP said they were going to look into the "disturbing" audience reaction to Sherrod's initial admission. Have they or has that fallen by the way?

[JewelSong]

Sue everybody and their brother! Sue 'em ALL for everything they've got! It's the American way!

Seriously folks...tempest in a teapot - the entire shoddy episode.

[axordil]

Should she also sue CNN and MSNBC?

Possibly. Although CNN, I believe, found the Spooners, the white farmers in question in Sherrod's speech, so they were at least poking around, journalism-wise.

The story did not even air on FNC until after she had been forced to resign.

It appears FoxNews.com had it up before, on Monday. When she resigned they referred back to their "original story."

Should Sherrod sue the NAACP?

No, as they are not a news organization and do not have the same duty of due diligence for checking out stories.

Sherrod is out there saying Breitbart is a racist and wants to bring back slavery for blacks.
"Is this sort of thing not libelous and thus actionable?"
Should she be sued?

No, because she is not a purveyor of news, and Breitbart is a public figure. I could accuse, say, President Barack Obama of wanting to sell us all to the Chinese to appease his socialist masters, and nothing would or could be done to me, or the number of people who say equally squalid things every day.

Edited to add fun facts.

[Infidel]

Should she also sue CNN and MSNBC?

Possibly.

Should Sherrod sue the NAACP?

No, as they are not a news organization and do not have the same duty of due diligence for checking out stories.

So they get a pass for smearing her? Despite having the full tape?

Sherrod is out there saying Breitbart is a racist and wants to bring back slavery for blacks.
"Is this sort of thing not libelous and thus actionable?"
Should she be sued?

No, because she is not a purveyor of news, and Breitbart is a public figure. I could accuse, say, President Barack Obama of wanting to sell us all to the Chinese to appease his socialist masters, and nothing would or could be done to me, or the number of people who say equally squalid things every day.

Sherrod, a political appointee to a public office, is not a public figure?

ETA:

It appears FoxNews.com had it up before, on Monday. When she resigned they referred back to their "original story."

Mediaite says:

FoxNews.com had a story up before anything aired on the network (after she had resigned – Update: An emailer points out this line from the story: “The Agriculture Department announced Monday, shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video, that Sherrod had resigned.” Clearly this means there was a previous FoxNews.com story up just based on the video, before the resignation.), but so did other mainstream outlets, like the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/examinin ... to-resign/

[vison]

Who had heard of her before this incident? Was she in a position of power and influence, commanding audiences of millions?

[axordil]

Who had heard of her before this incident? Was she in a position of power and influence, commanding audiences of millions?

This. Not all public employees, even appointees, are public figures. If you have to look someone up on Wikipedia to figure out who they are (before a smearing) that's not public.

As far as the NAACP goes, I think they look silly for not checking out their own material. I think they panicked, like USDA, because of hypersensitivity to charges of racism. I don't think that's actionable, merely a regrettable reaction to the long-term narrative pushed by certain factors in this country since Nixon: that the left in general and the Democratic party in particular wants to give favors to blacks for their votes at the expense of whites.

That's the core of the "Southern strategy" and it's still going strong today, although as time goes by its core target group (older white voters) is becoming less and less important as a demographic. I hope in my lifetime to see it finally crash and burn.

BTW, whether Fox or any other particular media outlet factored into Sherrod's resignation is irrelevant to whether they defamed her. The defamation is in making her out to be a racist when she isn't. Everything else is icing on the cake.

[Infidel]

Not all public employees, even appointees, are public figures. If you have to look someone up on Wikipedia to figure out who they are (before a smearing) that's not public.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Who is a public figure?

A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures—a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate—someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure—for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.

Examples of public figures:

•A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
•A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
•A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
•Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events
Corporations are not always public figures. They are judged by the same standards as individuals.

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/lega ... defamation

As far as the NAACP goes, I think they look silly for not checking out their own material.

Yet they noted in their own press release, that she had her story was one of change from her racist attitude (just like the clip Breitbart posted did).