A Breitbart/Sherrod timeline

ZappasGuitar said:
Oh nonononono...you misunderstand.

It may have been a "disgruntled ex-NAACP employee", it may have been a conservative plant sent to gather incriminating info on the NAACP. Whichever, the fact remains that if the only copy of Ms Sherrod's speech is in the possession of the NAACP, then whoever leaked it to not-so-Breitbart must have had access to the entire tape at some point.

The fact that not-so-Breitbart received just the incriminating portion of the tape shows the leaker had an agenda and it wasn't the truth. Pluslet's not forget that not-so-Breitbart had a responsibility to DOUBLE CHECK HIS INFORMATION.
Click to expand...

Well, in all fairness Breitbart is one of many people who have a political website, and not a major news outlet like MSNBC. It seems that a major news outlet like MSNBC could have done their homework and double checked their information before they accused Fox of airing the story before Sherrod was forced to resign. Seems like Rachel Maddow would have double checked her information before she lied through her big assed horse teeth about Fox News, and it seems like Howard Dean could have double checked his facts before he had his stupid ass handed to him by Chris Wallace on Sunday! I mean, we're a WEEK into this thing, and he seemed clueless to the fact that Fox News didn't cover the story until AFTER she resigned! Furthermore, it seems the White House could have "double checked their information" before they forced the woman to resign! Hell, the NAACP had the entire video, seems they could have "double checked their information" before issuing a statement of condemnation over her remarks!

But you seem to only want to hold Breitbart accountable here, and all he had to go on was a part of the video that was given to him, which did indeed make the argument he was trying to make. What she said was racially-charged, and did imply she had racially discriminated against a white farmer in 1986. It doesn't matter that she later felt regret for her actions, that doesn't negate her racism! It also doesn't 'excuse' the NAACP audience who is heard approving of her racism at 17:23 of her speech.

If Trent Lott admitted he burned down a black man's house in 1955, because the man was black, but later realized what he did was wrong... what would The Story be? Would you be excusing his actions as "OK" because he admitted he was wrong? I hardly think so!
 
Dixie said:
Well, in all fairness Breitbart is one of many people who have a political website, and not a major news outlet like MSNBC. It seems that a major news outlet like MSNBC could have done their homework and double checked their information before they accused Fox of airing the story before Sherrod was forced to resign. Seems like Rachel Maddow would have double checked her information before she lied through her big assed horse teeth about Fox News, and it seems like Howard Dean could have double checked his facts before he had his stupid ass handed to him by Chris Wallace on Sunday! I mean, we're a WEEK into this thing, and he seemed clueless to the fact that Fox News didn't cover the story until AFTER she resigned! Furthermore, it seems the White House could have "double checked their information" before they forced the woman to resign! Hell, the NAACP had the entire video, seems they could have "double checked their information" before issuing a statement of condemnation over her remarks!

But you seem to only want to hold Breitbart accountable here, and all he had to go on was a part of the video that was given to him, which did indeed make the argument he was trying to make. What she said was racially-charged, and did imply she had racially discriminated against a white farmer in 1986. It doesn't matter that she later felt regret for her actions, that doesn't negate her racism! It also doesn't 'excuse' the NAACP audience who is heard approving of her racism at 17:23 of her speech.

If Trent Lott admitted he burned down a black man's house in 1955, because the man was black, but later realized what he did was wrong... what would The Story be? Would you be excusing his actions as "OK" because he admitted he was wrong? I hardly think so!
Click to expand...

You forgot: The USDA had knowledge of the brewing story 5 days before it ever broke on Breitbart's site....just sayin' :)
 
Breitbart is getting his ass sued.



SAN DIEGO — Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.

Sherrod was forced to resign last week as director of rural development in Georgia after Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video online.

In the full video, Sherrod, who is black, spoke to a local NAACP group about racial reconciliation and overcoming her initial reluctance to help a white farmer.

Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would definitely sue over the video that took her remarks out of context.

Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one. "He had to know that he was targeting me," she said.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38468936
 
Last edited:
I ain't no lawyer, but as I understand it libel is pretty hard to prove. And real damages have to be shown. I suppose Ms. Sherrod could easily make the case that the tool Breitbard intentionally edited a video with malicious intent to destroy her reputation and to slander her, resulting in the loss of employment.


On a whole other level, it's just freaking bad karma to engage in the internet smearing and slandering of completely innocent and obscure people who aren't public figures and who are just doing their jobs.

Climate Gate(!) and Shirley Sherrod certainly can be chalked up to another unsavory - yet strangely comical - episodes of whacked out rightwing internet vendettas.
 
Cypress said:
I ain't no lawyer, but as I understand it libel is pretty hard to prove. And real damages have to be shown. I suppose Ms. Sherrod could easily make the case that the tool Breitbard intentionally edited a video with malicious intent to destroy her reputation and to slander her, resulting in the loss of employment.


On a whole other level, it's just freaking bad karma to engage in the internet smearing and slandering of completely innocent and obscure people who aren't public figures and who are just doing their jobs.

Climate Gate(!) and Shirley Sherrod certainly can be chalked up to another unsavory - yet strangely comical - episodes of whacked out rightwing internet vendettas.
Click to expand...


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Your posts have the ability to always make me laugh, no matter what else is occuring.
Thanks
 
Southern Man said:
Look at the video again: she expresses racism, and the audience seems to approve; she then talks about her redemption in the next sentence, and the audience is silent. This is exactly the same on both the full length video and Breitbart's shortened version.

Here is the full video:

The story in question begins at time 17:00, and the approval of her racism comes about 30 seconds later.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. They laugh at her comment... [What he didn't know was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.]

They did not laugh or applaud any discriminatory ACTION. They understood her thoughts and feelings. A person wouldn't laugh at that unless they understood the folly of it.

They do show approval at her redemption as you can see heads nodding and hear "uhh-huhhhs" as she describes her realization that her job was to help the poor.
 
Cypress said:
I ain't no lawyer, but as I understand it libel is pretty hard to prove. And real damages have to be shown. I suppose Ms. Sherrod could easily make the case that the tool Breitbard intentionally edited a video with malicious intent to destroy her reputation and to slander her, resulting in the loss of employment.


On a whole other level, it's just freaking bad karma to engage in the internet smearing and slandering of completely innocent and obscure people who aren't public figures and who are just doing their jobs.

Climate Gate(!) and Shirley Sherrod certainly can be chalked up to another unsavory - yet strangely comical - episodes of whacked out rightwing internet vendettas.
Click to expand...


How are the right wingers going to spin her now? First she was a racist, but once they lost on that they had to spin her as a victim to make it look like it was all Obama's fault. Now that the victim is blaming her true attacker, Breitbart, the right wing can't leave her as a victim. They will either have to claim she is a pawn, just hope everyone forgets about her, or allow Breitbart to take the fall.

It's like watching the Keystone Cops, watching these idiots stumble over themselves.
 
Dixie said:
Well, in all fairness Breitbart is one of many people who have a political website, and not a major news outlet like MSNBC. It seems that a major news outlet like MSNBC could have done their homework and double checked their information before they accused Fox of airing the story before Sherrod was forced to resign. Seems like Rachel Maddow would have double checked her information before she lied through her big assed horse teeth about Fox News, and it seems like Howard Dean could have double checked his facts before he had his stupid ass handed to him by Chris Wallace on Sunday! I mean, we're a WEEK into this thing, and he seemed clueless to the fact that Fox News didn't cover the story until AFTER she resigned! Furthermore, it seems the White House could have "double checked their information" before they forced the woman to resign! Hell, the NAACP had the entire video, seems they could have "double checked their information" before issuing a statement of condemnation over her remarks!

But you seem to only want to hold Breitbart accountable here, and all he had to go on was a part of the video that was given to him, which did indeed make the argument he was trying to make. What she said was racially-charged, and did imply she had racially discriminated against a white farmer in 1986. It doesn't matter that she later felt regret for her actions, that doesn't negate her racism! It also doesn't 'excuse' the NAACP audience who is heard approving of her racism at 17:23 of her speech.

If Trent Lott admitted he burned down a black man's house in 1955, because the man was black, but later realized what he did was wrong... what would The Story be? Would you be excusing his actions as "OK" because he admitted he was wrong? I hardly think so!
Click to expand...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007290006


Fox News exec confirms it did peddle Sherrod story before she was fired

July 29, 2010 9:09 am ET by Eric Boehlert

It's always helpful when people inside Fox News confirm what Media Matters has reported as fact, even if the channel's outside defenders prefer to toil in conspiracy as they flail around desperately trying to make up excuses for Rupert Murdoch's channel. Not that I think this confirmation from inside Fox News will quiet the online boo birds, but it's worth noting now that they're claiming both Media Matters and Fox News are lying about the facts in the case.

Good luck with that one guys.

This by-now tiresome debate centers around whether or not Fox News jumped on Andrew Breitbart's bogus Shirley Sherrod smear campaign. We all know that on the day it broke online, Bill O'Reilly hyped the story on his primetime show, presented Sherrod as a racist, and demanded she "resign immediately." Of course, at the time O'Reilly didn't have the slightest clue what the whole story of the Sherrod tape was. But that didn't stop him from maligning a black women in the Obama administration. (O'Reilly later apologized to Sherrod.)

So if O'Reilly was demanding Sherrod's ouster, that meant Fox News covered the story before she was forced out, right? Not quite. While his show tapes at 5 p.m., it doesn't air until 8 p.m., and Sherrod resigned shortly before 8 p.m. and July 19. So technically Fox News, or so the claim goes, didn't cover the story before she resigned and so all those people who claim Fox peddled the Sherrod attack are smearing Fox News!

But of course, Fox News did peddle the story before Sherrod resigned. Fox News peddled the story online. And Fox News peddled it in two different online forums prior to Sherrod's resignation on July 19.

And in a new report from Politico, Fox News Senior Vice President of News Michael Clemente confirms that fact [emphasis added]:



But FoxNews.com did run a story about the existence of the video, titled "Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer" at 5:58 p.m. on Monday, an hour before the Agriculture Department announced Sherrod’s resignation. And Wednesday, Clemente told POLITICO that was a mistake.

"There was a breakdown in the system, and it is being addressed," he said. "But it must say something about the power of Fox, that a week after she resigned, we're still talking about this."

The breakdown occurred following Fox's afternoon news meeting that day, when Clemente, according to The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz offered the following advice: "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."

Clemente said he gave the advice in the meeting, not in a memo to staff, and his guidance clearly did not make it down to the reporter and producers who put the story on FoxNews.com.

And note this:

Earlier in the day, Fox Nation, a news and opinion website run by Fox News, posted a YouTube version of the video under the headline," Obama Official Discriminates Against White Farmer," with a link to Breitbart's post.

The first comment on the Fox Nation articles is at 1:43 p.m., about five hours after Breitbart posted the video to his site.

And keep in mind a subsequent Foxnews.com article seemed to take credit for ousting Sherrod:

The Agriculture Department announced Monday, shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video, that Sherrod had resigned.

So yes Fox News defenders, please keep telling us how nobody connected with Fox News peddled the Sherrod story before she resigned. But just don't tell it to the SVP of Fox News, because even he's not buying it.
 
Like I said earlier, Stringy... The allegations that Fox News "snookered" the White House, are false. That is why this is an argumentative point now. This is the ONLY reason anyone is even talking about it. As your own article points out, they did not air the video or report on it, until after 8 pm., which was after she resigned. So how did Fox News snooker the White House into forcing her to resign?

What you all are attempting to do, is claim that the story itself is false, and that Fox was unethical in reporting it without all the facts. But the reports on the website, and the earliest reports of the incident, are not false. Sherrod most certainly did say what she said, and what was reported that she said. The video was not doctored or altered to make her say, "I didn't do all I could to help." Regardless of her context, regardless of the fact it was setting up a story of contrition, those were her words. She didn't deserve to be forced to pull over to the side of the road and resign, because there was more to the story, but her admission of her actions in 1986, were racially discriminatory.

Again, the ONLY reason Fox News is being called into question, is because the White House and the NAACP claimed that Fox News was responsible for their irresponsible actions. Actions they took BEFORE Fox News even reported the story.
 
Dixie said:
Like I said earlier, Stringy... The allegations that Fox News "snookered" the White House, are false. That is why this is an argumentative point now. This is the ONLY reason anyone is even talking about it. As your own article points out, they did not air the video or report on it, until after 8 pm., which was after she resigned. So how did Fox News snooker the White House into forcing her to resign?

What you all are attempting to do, is claim that the story itself is false, and that Fox was unethical in reporting it without all the facts. But the reports on the website, and the earliest reports of the incident, are not false. Sherrod most certainly did say what she said, and what was reported that she said. The video was not doctored or altered to make her say, "I didn't do all I could to help." Regardless of her context, regardless of the fact it was setting up a story of contrition, those were her words. She didn't deserve to be forced to pull over to the side of the road and resign, because there was more to the story, but her admission of her actions in 1986, were racially discriminatory.

Again, the ONLY reason Fox News is being called into question, is because the White House and the NAACP claimed that Fox News was responsible for their irresponsible actions. Actions they took BEFORE Fox News even reported the story.
Click to expand...

And I'll say it again because it's worth repeating: Shirley Sherrod told her superiors at the USDA on July 15th (5days before Breitnart posted the video) that she had been sent a snarky email alerting her to the video. Now think about this. The USDA was alerted 5 days before Breitbart posted the story; Shirley Sherrod who has close ties with the NAACP KNOWS what's about to happen and in 5 days time not her, the USDA, or the NAACP are motivated to reveiw the tapes???

Now the story line is "well yeah, but fox.com blogged the story...."

so it's FOX that's to blame?
 
Last edited:
Ice Dancer said:
And I'll say it again because it's worth repeating: Shirley Sherrod told her superiors at the USDA on July 15th (5days before Breitnart posted the video) that she had been a snarky email alerting her to the video. Now think about this. The USDA was alerted 5 days before Breitbart posted the story; Shirley Sherrod who has close ties with the NAACP KNOWS what's about to happen and in 5 days time not her, the USDA, or the NAACP are motivated to reveiw the tapes???

Now the story line is "well yeah, but fox.com blogged the story...."

so it's FOX that's to blame?
Click to expand...

It's a classic game of "Turn the Worm!" As you said, they all knew this was coming, but what they thought would happen, the way they thought it would play out, is a right-wing news outlet would accuse Sherrod of racism, so they jumped on it too quickly and forced her resignation. When Glenn Beck pointed out that the video revealed something different, they "turned the worm" and made "The Story" about Shirley Sherrod: Victim of Unfairness! This takes the focus off Breitbart's intentions and point of his story, which was the NAACP's hypocrisy. This was never about exposing Shirley Sherrod as a racist! The left ASSUMED that is what was going down, and thought they had a smart response to it, but they got caught up in their own ineptitude. Now they've had to try and convince an ignorant public, that Breitbart (and Fox News) engaged in some unethical journalistic practice, and poor Shirley was just the victim of that. It's really laughable.
 
Dixie said:
It's a classic game of "Turn the Worm!" As you said, they all knew this was coming, but what they thought would happen, the way they thought it would play out, is a right-wing news outlet would accuse Sherrod of racism, so they jumped on it too quickly and forced her resignation. When Glenn Beck pointed out that the video revealed something different, they "turned the worm" and made "The Story" about Shirley Sherrod: Victim of Unfairness! This takes the focus off Breitbart's intentions and point of his story, which was the NAACP's hypocrisy. This was never about exposing Shirley Sherrod as a racist! The left ASSUMED that is what was going down, and thought they had a smart response to it, but they got caught up in their own ineptitude. Now they've had to try and convince an ignorant public, that Breitbart (and Fox News) engaged in some unethical journalistic practice, and poor Shirley was just the victim of that. It's really laughable.
Click to expand...

The thing that makes me most curious is who sent Sherrod this "email"? Was it the same source who sent Breitbart the edited video??? I really hope that it comes to the light of day. Think about it; who could have known 5 days prior to the story breaking?
 
Ice Dancer said:
The thing that makes me most curious is who sent Sherrod this "email"? Was it the same source who sent Breitbart the edited video??? I really hope that it comes to the light of day. Think about it; who could have known 5 days prior to the story breaking?
Click to expand...

They've backed off of this comment of hers like the Black Plague.

Let's see the Dems come up with the excuses for why. Nothing better than to watch a Dem spin out of control!
 
RStringfield said:
How are the right wingers going to spin her now? First she was a racist, but once they lost on that they had to spin her as a victim to make it look like it was all Obama's fault. Now that the victim is blaming her true attacker, Breitbart, the right wing can't leave her as a victim. They will either have to claim she is a pawn, just hope everyone forgets about her, or allow Breitbart to take the fall.

It's like watching the Keystone Cops, watching these idiots stumble over themselves.
Click to expand...

She was a racist.
She was a racist, before she decided to give up her racism.

The only ones promoting the idea that she still might be a racist, are her defenders.
 
Ice Dancer said:
The thing that makes me most curious is who sent Sherrod this "email"? Was it the same source who sent Breitbart the edited video??? I really hope that it comes to the light of day. Think about it; who could have known 5 days prior to the story breaking?
Click to expand...

C'MON LAWSUIT!! :good4u:

Wanta bet that the suit gets dropped, before it gets to trial?? :palm:

Like maybe someone, somewhere in the USDA or NAACP doesn't want something coming to light!! :cof1:
 
usaloyal2theend said:
They've backed off of this comment of hers like the Black Plague.

Let's see the Dems come up with the excuses for why. Nothing better than to watch a Dem spin out of control!
Click to expand...

I've always said that while Politicians are known for committing political suicide, the Demorats are the only ones that do it collectively and with a hand gernade.

CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD ANYONE!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top