Did Andrew Breitbart misrepresent Shirley Sherrod's comments?
I'm getting hit with some Breitbart-bashing this morning (of all times -- such is Progressive compassion these days), and could use the Ricochet community's help. The storyline is similar to this one from Yahoo! news:
In 2010, though, Breitbart's credibility had been burned after his website posted video excerpts of a 40-minute NAACP speech by U.S. Dept. of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod that appeared to show her making racist comments. Breitbart drew heat when the speech was published in full, showing that selectively edited video had taken the remarks out of context--and Sherrod had been fired for it. (The White House later apologized for dismissing Sherrod, a longtime USDA official, and Sherrod sued Breitbart for defamation, a suit that was ongoing when he died.)
I was under the impression that the material Breitbart published, while shortened, wasn't "selectively edited." In other words, that it showed enough of the speech to show that (a) Sherrod had abused her power to punish someone because of his race, (b) she regretted it afterward, and (c) members of the audience approved of her abuse of power.
So, it boils down to this:
- was Breitbart's July 19, 2010 post linked to above materially updated to give it more context?
- were excerpts of his videos posted on other news sources that removed the context and, if so, where was this?
- is there some other explanation I'm missing?
- Answer (4)
- · Comment (3)
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Answer by MJMack
Also, just check out the actual post itself.
http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/
And his follow up.
The Fat Man: I was unaware of Mr. Breitbart's second discussion, and he highlights his July 19 post's focus on the racism present at the NAACP meeting. If we want to talk context, then this is it: he was counterattacking against the charges of racism being leveled against the Tea Party. Thank you.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 11:19pm- #1
- · March 1, 2012 at 11:18pm
- · LikeUnlike (0)
Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.
Answer by George Savage
TFM, that the Obama administration cashiered Ms. Sherrod with such alacrity should give one pause before accepting the MSM narrative against the late, great Andrew Breitbart. For the briefest exposé I've found, check Ben Shapiro's column [still figuring out how to do this. Sorry about the double post].
Answer by flownover
Shirley Sherrod is up to her eyeballs in a large scam being foisted on the taxpayers. While reparations aren't approved officially, they are going on. Shirley and her friends had lawyers working to recruit black farmers, and once they were on the rolls, they would get their 30-40-50% of whatever settlement money came this way.
Who has less ethics ? That's a toss-up. Ms Sherrod deserves no quarter. She is a crook if she and her husband got a couple million ($13mm?) settlement for her farm co-op .
Holder is the top cop in the country right now and he says " pay it and pay it again, stop asking questions."
Answer by Keith Preston
another good summary here on Newsbusters.
MJMack: I meant to add an answer and it was posted as a comment. The way the response mechanism is designed needs to be rethought, BSA and the other powers that be.
Edited on March 1, 2012 at 8:52pmThe Fat Man: My thanks to all of you who responded so quickly and constructively. This was exactly what I needed.
The Logo: MJMack: It's a known design issue. The button placements were originally causing people to answer when a comment would have been better; now we've created the opposite problem. We think the solution is to move the post comment button over, and to collapse the comment box in a favor of co-equal buttons.
Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.