Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
with the ongoing controversy surrounding the issue, that seems highly unlikely.
You mean the fake controversy generated by an anti-white media?
That really doesn't reflect most of america, though many may think it does.
with the ongoing controversy surrounding the issue, that seems highly unlikely.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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!
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.
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?
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!
C'MON LAWSUIT!!
Wanta bet that the suit gets dropped, before it gets to trial??
Like maybe someone, somewhere in the USDA or NAACP doesn't want something coming to light!!![]()