Shirley Sherrod

I'm curious about who you think is to blame for the situation surrounding Shirley Sherrod. If you missed the story, Sherrod is an employee of the Agriculture Department (director of rural development for Georgia) and spoke at the NAACP convention. Blogger Andrew Breitbart posted a clip of her speech, which was very badly taken out of context, and Fox News picked it up right away. The clip showed this African American woman talking about how she was asked to help a white farmer save his land, so she didn't give him all of what she could do and sent him to one of "his own people" to help him. Soon, the NAACP's president, Benjamin Jealous, denounced her, and she was fired from her job with the Agriculture Department by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

And then, someone watched the entire speech and discovered just how badly it was taken out of context. The story took place 24 years ago, and she related how, through working with this white couple who were going to lose their land, she came to realize that it is not about race, but about who has and who doesn't have, and she came to be full-on supportive of this couple. So she was saying how she learned to overcome her own racism against these whites.

If you're interested, I saw a clip interviewing the couple whose farm she saved, and they were really anxious to speak out on her behalf, saying that without a doubt, she was responsible for saving their farm and that the next time they see her, they want to give her a hug.

You can see that and other clips, as well as an article, at http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/20/agriculture.employee.naacp/index.html?hpt=T2 .

Since this incident, Vilsack and even Obama have called to apologize to her. I heard that she was offered a higher position dealing with civil rights within the USDA, but I'm not certain whether she accepted it.

The clip was just 2 1/2 minutes out of a 45 minute speech. The video from CNN on this link is of someone from the NAACP claiming they were "snookered" by the conservative bloggers and had no access to the video of the entire speech, which seems questionable to me.

So where do you think blame should be placed? My dad thought that Andrew Breitbart was only doing what his job is: to target anyone on the liberal side. But I question whether that is good enough. He clearly took things out of context to try to show that the NAACP tolerates racism, which was a response to the NAACP's claim that the Tea Party movement has tolerated racist statements and images against Obama. So should he be accepted as merely doing his own job? What about Fox News, who claim to be "fair and balanced," but is recognized by all as the voice of the Republicans. It pushed the issue hard enough that the administration took notice. I was actually surprised to see that Bill O'Reilly, who bothered me even when I was a registered Republican, even apologized.

You can see an interview with Sherrod at http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/07/22/ac.sherrod.apology.cnn . I wasn't sure how to embed that here, so I will just link it for you.

I'm curious about people's thoughts on this matter.

Well, I don't know the story, but the way you said it, it sounds to me like there is quite a few equally guilty participants.

First and foremost the person who posted it out contest, second who took it at a face value and made false accusations and finally the third that took it all to "court" and prosecuted her based on all those false accusations.

They all should be held accountable, and punished.

Risa

I saw her name in the news but I didn't read the story. But Fox news was never "fair and balanced" They have some crazily line drawn somewhere in the sand but occasionally even cross their own line.
Republicans seem a bit desperate to regain power.

I stopped listening to the news as it is so biased. So much is taken out of context that it is rather sickening. Here is a perfect example and instead of the Powers That Be looking at the whole story and ALL the facts, we get a knee jerk reaction which just causes a bigger mess. Shameful all around.

Shameful on all accounts - except Ms Sherrod's account - she acted with dignity and grace throughou her ordeal.

The blogger was not at fault - he was putting propoganda out there to discredit the NAACP who had discredited the Tea Party - politics as usual and quite part of the game the way some play it.

But the media acted shamefully - good reporting appears to be a thing of the past. To run a story in this 24/7 news cycle world without fully investigating the story seems real irresponsible. And it wasn't just Fox - fair and balanced propoganda. Other media outlets got on this bandwagon BEFORE investigating the facts.

But the Obama Administration acted the most shamefully. EVERY worker, even government workers, has a right for the boss to fully investigate an incident AND to hear the worker's side of the story BEFORE taking disciplinary action. the Administration COULD have placed Ms. Sherrod on administrative leave with full pay while an investigation insued. Instead, the Administration ACTED and then investigated. Shameful behavior for any boss.

The blogger-political operative got the tape from a guy in Georgia USA. It was the anonymous guy in Georgia who editted the tape for "relevant portion" before he sent it to the blogger to be used. THAT guy in Georgia is a stranger to truth. As is the blogger.

Enough shame to go around on this one - even enough to slop over on all of us who initially believed what the media told us.

I agree that the Obama administration came out looking bad! That they fired her before they even saw the full video was bad. I saw an interview on PBS' News Hour with Jealous, the head of the NAACP, and he fully thought that he was not to be blamed because he didn't even have access to the full tape. But if this was the NAACP convention, why DIDN'T he have access to the full tape? And why didn't he try to get it before repudiating Sherrod in the first place?

This whole situation is a mess, but although I understand that the blogger was just doing what he was out to do, I have a hard time seeing him as not having egg all over his face too. My dad argues that his whole purpose is to rub the NAACP's face in the dirt, and that is what he did, so he did his job. But to do so by clearly misrepresenting the truth (which, in my book, is a lie) is not, in my mind, a legitimate treatment of the NAACP.

I am not so down on the NAACP about the tape because the incident occured 24 years ago ... that would be in 1986 - I doubtg if I could lay my hands on anything I did in 1986 (best forgotten as I recall!) Still, when one does not know all the facts, it is best to give neutral comments.

Anyone in any profession knows how bad all the news media can be at getting facts straight and using double checked info. When they run a story about a topic that we have specific extensive knowledge about they almost always get it wrong.

They do with stories about my profession and my wife's. So I can rightfully be suspicious of any story they run.

Our news media is nothing more then just reality entertainment. The more shocking the story the higher the ratings and subsequent ad revenue. And they should never, ever use internet blogs as news sources. All of the cable news outlets are pathetic and it comes down just to in which direction today are they going to pursue their tripe.

It's degraded terribly since the days of Edward R. Murrow.

I am not an Obama fan but I have to come to the administration's defense here. In the high speed info era damage control must be fast or it gets worse literally in minutes if left un-addressed. So they jumped the gun and it will continue to happen from here on out even with future administrations.

Cooler heads need to prevail and that seems to be absent far too much these days.

Just for further clarification, Richard, the tape wasn't from 24 years ago. The tape was from a week or so ago, as Sherrod was talking about an event that happened 24 years ago that made her change her mind about race relations and how she came to believe that it isn't just about race, but it's about the haves and the have-nots.

The doctored part said that when she met a white man, she didn't help him as much as she would have helped a black man. That's the clip that got her fired. But once someone showed the whole clip, it showed that she said that she learned from this experience and actually went back to make an effort to help the white people save their farm, which they have come forward to say she actually did.

So I have a hard time believing that the NAACP, whom I usually support, didn't have any way to gain access to this video, which is what their leader, Jealous, claimed.

The tape looked to me like it was made by an amateur, not by the NAACP. So I don't believe they had access to it.

Breitbart is an instigator. He was behind the O'Keefe ACORN prostitute pimp tapes, too. FOX was very happy to promote the story at first but now is astounded, absolutely astounded that the White House was so quick in reacting and not looking into things beforehand, LOL.

The NAACP and the White House spoke too soon but I agree with Brent, they were between a rock and a hard place.