As Rachel Maddow put it:
This is not meant to excuse what ACORN has done wrong in the past but the huge tide of negative publicity that followed these video tapes and the coverage they got on Fox, wall to wall for months was bull pucky. It was a dishonest political stunt that bears no resemblance to journalism and no resemblance to the actual facts of what happened in those offices. But it worked. The organization has been shut down. Means be damned, it worked.
When she made this speech 25 years ago, Shirley Sherrod was talking about her personal journey from angry black person whose father was killed by Klansmen to someone with a higher understanding and appreciation of the plight of all human beings. This week, Breitbart cut the speech up to bites convenient to his point of view that black people are racists then presented them on his fake news sites. They were then in turn then trumpeted by Fox News’ Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly.
Real media is getting inured to this shit from FNS and Breitbart, (like the made-forTV New Black Panther Party hoopla), but this time, he “snookered” the NAACP, who came out with a quick condemnation of Sherrod which they quickly took back when the whole were known.
Worse is the White House and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack who asked Sherrod to resign from her job in the Agriculture Department without bothering to delve further than the scraps of the speech offered up by Breitbart.
When the whole speech is run, the substance in context shows Sherrod as she really is: a nice lady who’s been dedicated to helping poor people of whatever color for many years.
The white folks that Breitbart’s editing suggested she discriminated against, appeared on CNN later today to say she worked hard and saved their farm.Rachel:
What is not really interesting about this whole situation is that Fox News is doing this. This is what Fox News does. This is how they are different from other news organizations. This is why the White House argued months ago that Fox should be treated as a media organization, but not as a normal news organization because they don’t treat news the way a normal news organization treats news. Just like the fake ACORN controversy Fox News knows that it has a role in this game.
The White House needs to apologize and make this right with Shirley Sherrod. And quick. (And btw, is there any doubt whether Breitbart, Fox News, and tea baggers are racist?).
Roger
and Eloise Spooner, the farmers in question in the Shirley Sherrod
story.
CNN interview with Shirley Sherrrod. You
can hear how shocked she is.
NAACP
statement on the resignation of Shirley Sherrod
Breitbart's piece. Look at the commenters turn against him on about the 6th page of comments.
Fox
News lying headline# 1: Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of
Help to White Farmer
Fox
News luying headline #2: Government discrimination caught on tape
What does this have to do with Seattle radio?
Posted by: TomF | July 21, 2010 at 07:05 AM
Every bit of additional information that you have presented in this post was broadcast on FOX News yesterday and today.
Who knows how it is going to turn out, but so far Sherrod says she does not want to go back.
Sounds to me as if the Obama administration jumped to conclusions again, similarly to Obama's "racist police smack down" that led to the little garden party and cold beers. You would think that those people would learn to do at least a moderate amount of investigation before firing some old woman.
I will not judge this little bit, but Breitbart was claiming that he went with what he had, which was not the full, unedited tape that later became available.
Is this another dirty trick, perpetrated by some left wing lunatic as part of an ongoing conspiracy, another effort to discredit FNC and Andrew Breitbart by providing partial video, having the full vedio in hand to pounce with later?
You guys are getting pretty slick with that crap. It is like your sending in leftard bigoted ass-hats with racist signs to stand amongst us at TEA Party events in order to make good left wing propaganda in an effort to score political points for the Chicago machine side.
Posted by: chucks | July 21, 2010 at 07:27 AM
They just had the Sherrods on the phone on the Bob Rivers show.
What a couple, he was on the Yorktown at Midway in WW2, prostrate cancer survivor and still drives a truck. Married for 66 years.
Breibart is scum!
Posted by: ExPatBrit | July 21, 2010 at 07:49 AM
Oops that would be the Spooners not the Sherrods!
Posted by: ExPatBrit | July 21, 2010 at 07:59 AM
That rascal Breitbart took a page out of the leftwing sycophant media playbook and snookered the WH and the NAACP by only exposing part of the tape - when they had access to the full video all along - what a bunch of incompetent asshats ! Turnabout is fair play in this cutthroat game - hello Media Matters, Daily KOS, MSLSD.
Typical MO by Obumble - Shoot first, ask questions later. It's funny how the factions who outed her are now falling all over themselves to try and reinstate Ms. Sherrod after they realized they made a mistake. I just read that she is not sure if she wants to return.
How could the Sherrods be married for 66 years if she is 62 ?
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 08:28 AM
when they had access to the full video all along...
They being the NAACP and the White House (WH).
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 08:29 AM
Breitbart admitted to Sean Hannity last night (7/20/10) that his whole purpose in releasing the Sherrod video was to get back at the NAACP for its attack on the Tea Party. Sick.
Nice job of Rivers getting that interview.
Posted by: LucasFoxx | July 21, 2010 at 08:29 AM
How could the Sherrods be married for 66 years if she is 62 ?
OK, it was the Spooners.
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 08:32 AM
I corrected that KS. It was the Spooners
Did sound like a wonderful couple though, pretty straight forward folks.
Salt of the earth types. Rare these days I think.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | July 21, 2010 at 08:49 AM
It's both amusing and depressing to see the latest media hoax perpetrated by Breibart and FNC defended as some sort of victim of a way-too-clever leftist conspiracy. Even if that were the case (which it isn't), Fox failed in its basic journalistic obligation to investigate a charge before airing it.
Meantime, the Wash. Post is running (in the dead of summer, natch, just like the series on Cheney two years ago) an excellent series on the massive, invasive, secret security bureaucracy that has sprung up in the wake of 9-11: created by Bush, perpetuated by Obama, controlled by nobody. It's the sort of stunning abuse of power anyone on the left or right on this site should be stirred up about. Instead, we're obsessing over some mid-level USDA bureaucrat in Georgia and what she did or didn't say or do 24 years ago. Bread and circuses.
Posted by: Pete | July 21, 2010 at 09:18 AM
"Even if that were the case (which it isn't), Fox failed in its basic journalistic obligation to investigate a charge before airing it."
If you don't beleive that the White House failed - which is the one people should notice, you are being disingenuous. It's convenient to place the blame on Fox News and Breitbart, but I'll bet that they have corrected the story since then. Why don't you watch them for a change and let us know ?
If it weren't for the NAACP's race baiting and a-hole attitude, this story would have never been in the first place.
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 09:29 AM
Shorter KS:
Breibart and Fox make shit up.
This is the NAACP and Obama's fault.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | July 21, 2010 at 10:17 AM
You don't believe that Obama, MSNBC, and the NAACP make shit up, ExPatBrit?
I suppose that you don't believe that the NAACP is a racist organisation?
They are all corrupt. Get real.
Posted by: chucks | July 21, 2010 at 10:29 AM
Shorter chucks:
It's OK to make stuff up if other people do it.
**************
By the way chucks , good news on the temp job. Hope it leads to something good.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | July 21, 2010 at 10:34 AM
Exactly.
It is immensely frustrating that the White House jumps everytime Fox/Breitbart farts.
Beyond that, it is pretty clear that the plan is to promote as much racial discord as possible between now and November, and the knee-jerking in Washington just perpetuates it.
I will go read the WAPO article, Pete..thanks for the tip.
Posted by: sparky | July 21, 2010 at 10:36 AM
As you, as well as the White House occupiers know, 99% of the time, FOX News and Breitbart get it right. If it were not so, we would not listen to them. Once again, the folks at the White House over-reacted to the situation. Now, for the second time in two weeks, they are having to back track on treatment for a protected class of people that the WH mistreated.
I think that it is better that we stand back and wait for guidance from Jesse and Al.
Get comfy sparky, it is a hell of a read.
Posted by: chucks | July 21, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Jesse and Al are idiots. The lefties that I know poke fun at their incessant need for TV time.
Chucks, you watch Fixed News because they say what you want to hear--you even admitted that.
Posted by: sparky | July 21, 2010 at 11:16 AM
Of course I do Sparky. You don't watch them because they don't say what you want to hear, or maybe you don't want to hear what they have to say.
Like all news organisations, you need to pay attention and question and verify what you hear or read.
The fixed news at FNC is much better than the broken and dishonest news on NBC and MSNBC. Just not quite perfect.
Posted by: chucks | July 21, 2010 at 11:29 AM
They put out a mixture of truth and blatant lies. That's the game. Plausible deniability. The reason it has to do with Seattle talk radio is that the idiots who 'work' there pluck this stuff down and use it for 'show topics'. That's a lot easier than working a job. Oh, by the way, she's black. (Please list the last 5 lies told by either NBC or MSNBC.. Thanks.)
Posted by: Medved | July 21, 2010 at 01:05 PM
That's right, keep wearing your tinfoil hat for MSNBC.
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 01:45 PM
Breibart now says Eloise and Roger Spooner are not married and it's all an act.
I presume he needs to see the original marriage "certificate" (not a certified copy)and speak personally with the preacher who married them.
Posted by: ExPatBrit | July 21, 2010 at 02:14 PM
Is this what you want ? (From Sweetness & Light)
Liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News
By Jonathan Strong
July 21, 2010
If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz [sic], a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.” …
Mind you, National Public Radio is considered by many to be the epitome of an objective mainstream news outlet. (Despite it being controlled by the government.)
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 02:20 PM
more continued - same article;
The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” …
Some people even consider the UK’s Guardian to be a real newspaper. Of course, Great Britain does not enjoy a First Amendment.
“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”
Perhaps, Mr. Scherer is unaware that the US does have a First Amendment. Of course he and his colleagues would be only too happy to give up a free press if it meant that their side could decide what can or can’t be printed or uttered.
By the way, even Time Magazine used to be considered a mainstream publication. In fact, they used to be thought of as a news magazine.
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?” …
Thus sayeth “a law professor at UCLA.”
John Judis [sic], a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 02:24 PM
Hey KS - did you see anywhere that I defended the role of the White House, Vilsack, or NAACP in all this? I didn't. Their actions were abominable. (The whole mess reminds me a lot of the old Mort Sahl joke about a liberal being someone who'll lynch you from a lower branch.)
But responding to the lie inappropriately is qualitatively different from initiating the lie in the first place - and that's what FNC and Breibart did. Your reflexive attempts to shift blame in some, any way that it can fall on liberals tells me a lot more about you than about the situation.
I've never identified my politics on this site, but I will say that I'm totally capable of ripping Obama, Limbaugh, or anyone else when I think they're wrong. Or praising them when I think they're right. I used to think that was pretty normal. But any more, the default seems to be that people know one side or another is wrong, and then they go looking for the "facts" that will justify their opinion. And that approach makes a lot of talk radio unlistenable, too, though I still try. Dunno what that says about me.
Posted by: Pete | July 21, 2010 at 04:22 PM
Oh, and KS, as to your article on Fox and liberals in the media, yes, some of them don't like Fox, and yes, they're idiots if they think shutting down or muzzling Fox in any way is remotely desirable. But since that's never, ever going to happen, any more than the Bush people were ever going to go after Olbermann or Daily Kos, what's your point?
A lot of folks I know in legacy media resent Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, etc. not because of their ideology, but because of how they present it. It's the difference in how this site treats Carlson, Suits, etc. one hand, and Monson on the other. You can be conservative or liberal without being dishonest or crassly exploitative. At least, in theory...
The imperative of a media company is to entertain people, draw audiences, sell them to advertisers, and make money. News, real or fake, is a means to an end, not the end. Journalists who fancy themselves as above all that crassness may be better for the political discourse, but they're playing the same game.
Posted by: Pete | July 21, 2010 at 04:40 PM
Shorter KS: no one should ever point out that there are racist elements in the Tea Party, because it provokes people like Breitbart. Breitbart was a victim, you see - he was cornered by the NAACP, and like a threatened skunk, had no choice but to spray his stinky stuff all over the media.
This rightwing vicitmology makes me nauseous.
Posted by: tigsnort | July 21, 2010 at 04:51 PM
victimology, rather
Posted by: tigsnort | July 21, 2010 at 04:51 PM
Your smacks of Leftwing victimology which makes me nauseous. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
PS - I don't like victimology from the right either - like from Lindsey Graham or Newt Gingrich or the GOP whining about the Tea Party. Its not all black and white.
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 05:03 PM
The Factor is doing a thorough investigation and report on this subject right now.
Oh crap, O'Reilly just said he was sorry for mis reporting on the lady.
Tune in.
Posted by: chucks | July 21, 2010 at 05:04 PM
The (Fact)or is doing a "thorough" "investigation" That's more like it.
Posted by: Coiler | July 21, 2010 at 05:44 PM
tigsnort - you have it back-asswards. The NAACP/
White House was the victim for being "snookered" by Breitbart, which is actually their own damn fault for jumping to conclusions and not doing their own investigation. For Breitbart, he was more interested in painting the NAACP as the racist organization that it is by showing the reaction of the people who listened to Sherrod's speech, which seems plausible, but in the process - he didn't do Ms. Sherrod any favors.
The NAACP is a racist organization and they are truly the pot calling the kettle black if they are going to go around calling people racists. There are racist elements in the Tea Party, the ACLU, the White House and virtually any political organization. However, the left, orchestrated by Obama's minions (advised by
Al Sharpton, BTW) and liberal progressive surrogates are playing both the faux race and victim cards on the Tea Party because they are politically opposed to what they stand for and afraid of the end result in November.
As long as the leftwing has its own smear organizations like Media Matters, Daily KOS, Huffington Post (often) and MSNBC practicing their proctological journalism, they don't have room to whine and complain about the perceived injustice of this incident. Unfortunate for Shirley Sherrod that she was caught up in this, which speaks to the fact that two or more wrongs don't make a right.
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 07:02 PM
Was FOX "News" snookered?
Posted by: Coiler | July 21, 2010 at 07:17 PM
you'll have to ask them about that.
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 07:58 PM
That's not what I asked and you know it. Did Fox get snookered as you put it?
Posted by: Coiler | July 21, 2010 at 08:04 PM
Of course they didn't. They just report, we decide. Or it was a set up by the left. One of those, anyway.
Posted by: sparky | July 21, 2010 at 08:09 PM
Breitbart and FOX News did get "snookered". I have not heard from Breitbart, but Bill O'Reilly says it was his own fault that he did not do his do diligence on this story, that he fucked it up and is accepting that he is responsible for his part.
Somebody brought Andrew Breitbart a butchered video. Based on what he had and could see and hear, he went with it. Jesus Christ, he should have enough sense to know that if some moron that was able to get in to an NAACP meeting brings him something so blatantly racist, he should know he is being set up. That was idiotic on his part and of FNC to go with it.
Posted by: chucks | July 21, 2010 at 08:42 PM
I'm glad someone admitted to the fact that Bratbart has no credibility. I don't buy the fact he was snookered since any con-man who does the same kind of editing should of known.
Posted by: Coiler | July 21, 2010 at 09:43 PM
Coil -I did not watch O'Reilly tonight, so I didn't know what Fox's take was on being snookered. Breitbart was over the top here to not put a quality video on there that was out of context. They may want to preview Breitbart's videos better from now on.
Have to say it, but Andrew was down to the level of MSLSD, Media Matters or the other leftwing smear websites, as they habitually put up videos out of context to demonize their targeted victim. The main difference was that Shirley Sherrod was not a media figure or a politician - she was merely the means to get to the NAACP, unlike the targets of smears by the leftwing smear media. There are better ways he could have picked to convict the NAACP of racism.
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 09:49 PM
They may want to "preview"... c'mon KS, that is really chickenshit of you to still defend what's left of Bratbart's cred.
Posted by: Coiler | July 21, 2010 at 09:56 PM
When will you mention the incompetence of the White House and the NAACP and the dishonesty of the left wing media ? you think I am defending him after my last comment from what I said about Breitbart - "he was down to the level of MSLSD and Media Matters typically is" - WTF ? you think that is defending him - you are in denial and full of dog shit. (Oh yeah - you probably still see Media Matters and MSLSD as credible news organization - unfreakin-believable!)
The truth is that you and your ilk is mad because he was successful at blowing the cover of the left - in an ugly way. At least you kept Fox News out of it - unlike Maddow and Lauer on NBC didn't- they keep going after Fox like a bunch of petulant children. They are pathetic and have zero cred.
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 10:25 PM
In all fairness, the outbursts from Maddow and Lauer were before O'Reilly aired tonight. Still, I wonder if either of them will ever retract what they said.
The media wars rage on !!
Posted by: KS | July 21, 2010 at 10:31 PM
What should they retract?
Joe Conasan in Salon today:
"Even today, despite overwhelming proof that he posted a snippet of the Sherrod video without any pretense of due journalistic diligence, he replies with taunts and gibes rather than any honest answers. His latest smear is to claim that the white farmers who vouched for Sherrod are not who they claim to be. On CNN, he brazenly demanded that John King explain how the cable network had determined their authenticity. Coming from a self-styled journalist who has admitted that he never sought to fact-check the ACORN or Sherrod tapes, this is audacity verging on insanity.
Like the late Joe McCarthy, Breitbart smears both reflexively and with premeditation. And like McCarthy, he badly needs someone to show the public how he does his dirty work.
So here at last is an opportunity for the Times and all the other media outlets that aided and abetted the ACORN fraud to restore a minimum level of standards and honor. Investigate Breitbart, O’Keefe, Giles and the making and editing of the ACORN tapes without fear or favor -- then report the findings on page one."
Posted by: sparky | July 21, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Breitbart "fucked up" the James O'Keefe ACORN video when proof came out it was edited and now he "fucked up" this Sherrod tape. What else has he "fucked up?"
Sounds like a pattern to me. And yet you all watch and listen and believe this guys.
Some people never learn.
BTW, y'all let me know when Breitbart posts his retraction. His big sorry.
Posted by: joanie | July 22, 2010 at 12:50 AM
What's funny is that the conservative smear angle is a much much bigger news story than the notion that someone at the NAACP said something racist.
I'm upset that media people are accusing Dems of not coming to Sherrod's rescue only weeks after they had seen Rand Paul suffer for opposing civil rights. It not reasonable to expect them to act as human shields for someone who appeared to be racist.
Sadly, our system doesn't reward politicians who "do the right thing." There good deed is made to look bad and they lose the election. Voters aren't swayed by morality and quality of character, they're swayed by 30 second attack ads.
Posted by: Andrew | July 22, 2010 at 01:14 AM
Dweb on Daily Kos gets to the heart of the matter with this question: who is giving these fake tapes to Breitbart in the first place?
To which I'll add: why is he accepting and running them without fact checking? and where's the "rest of the story" when the facts do emerge?
And my question for the rest of you: why do you still believe this guy?
Posted by: joanie | July 22, 2010 at 02:07 AM
Maybe no one is 'giving' the tapes to Brat, we have it on Brat's word that it is....
Posted by: Coiler | July 22, 2010 at 08:40 AM
Conversely, why would you still believe the talking dweebs on MSNBC and the Mr. Bohlert from Media Matters (Stephanopolous had he and Breitbart on to debate the incident) ?
A conservative talk host said that he didn't think that Breitbart was being honest when he claimed that he put up the video to show the NAACP to be racist; it was more about him trying to bring down this Administration.
I'm going to sit back and let this clusterschtook play out. Suits says his money is on Sherrod accepting a job with the guvmint by tomorrow.
Posted by: KS | July 22, 2010 at 09:00 AM
It sounds like after 3 or 4 well publicized ponzi schemes by Brat, you're done with him, KS. Who else do you have in mind to continue running confidence games with the media? Ben Stein? John Voight?
Posted by: Coiler | July 22, 2010 at 09:15 AM
That's the problem with you'all. It's all about games and gotcha, which seeks to divide. As long as the prevailing attitude is that way, everyone will lose.
Breitbart has assumed his role for better or worse in this media war and it has escalated to that level - he seems to have thrown his dignity out the window, but in order to level the playing field - someone needs to do it. THERE IS NO MORE OBJECTIVE REPORTING...
The so-called liberally-biased mainstream media brought it on themselves and is a friggin joke and they are irresponsible petulant brats. Most of these bastards should be behind bars after they are indicted for purgury on a regular basis. There is no difference between their lack of integrity and that displayed in the National Enquirer, the Globe, the Star. As. Frank Sinatra once said; the reporters are whores and with that he didn't mean to insult the prostitutes of the world.
Posted by: KS | July 22, 2010 at 09:50 AM
You're claiming Breitbart was driven to this? Is he weak and has no self-control?
I maintain he has syphilis, the kind right wingers get when they start fooling around with the wrong people. He poked Ann Coulter who is mad dog, syphilis crazy and probably Malkin too. Pretty soon it's Night of the Living Conservative, judging by his slovenly appearance on TV lately.
Breitbart hates black America. It's in his assassination attempts to discredit anything with groups or individuals who are active in African American politics. I wouldn't be surprised if he is behind the death threats the NAACP received recently.
Posted by: Coiler | July 22, 2010 at 10:26 AM