Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Repeat after me again and again: “The Shirley Sherrod tape was not misleading”

    Repeat after me again and again: “The Shirley Sherrod tape was not misleading”

    I just saw a movie review in The Washington Post from last fall regarding Hating Breitbart.

    I haven’t seen the film (but Anne did, her review is here), so I can’t comment on the review itself, although it does bear an unmistakably snide tone to it, as expected.

    But one part  jumped out at me:

    A Breitbart-posted video of Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod seemed to contain an admission of anti-white bigotry, so she was forced out of her job.   With added context, however, Sherrod’s reputation was restored.

    I’ve dealt with this many times, Repeat after me: “The Shirley Sherrod tape was not misleading”:

    With Andrew Breitbart’s death this week, one of the most persistent falsehoods has resurfaced, the claim that the original tape released of Shirley Sherrod’s speech to an NAACP Chapter was misleading or defamatory in that it did not reveal that Sherrod’s discrimination against a white farmer was long ago, that she ended up helping him, and that she had since changed her view….

    Whether innocent or malicious, the narrative is wrong.

    I originally analyzed the alleged falsehoods when the controversy first broke in July 2010, The Original Sherrod Clip Was Not “False”.

    Read those posts where I completely and thoroughly take apart the claim that the clip was false or misleading, frame by frame.

    Getting rid of this malicious myth about Andrew Breitbart is like trying to get all the soap out of a sponge.

    Update: I saw that Tommy Chrisopher of Mediaite is haranging people for posting an allegedly misleading clip of Joe Biden, so I went back to see what Christpher said about the Sherrod tape, and it looks like he need a correction. We’ll see.

    Oh well:

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    “It’s not about 2014,” Obama told Organizing for Action this evening, per the pool report. “I actually wanna govern, at least for a couple of years.”


     
     0 
     
     0
    bawatkins | March 14, 2013 at 11:05 am

    A number of points need to be made:
    1. Sherrod was offered her job back and declined.
    2. The video is much more about the audience’s response than Sherrod’s comments anyway.
    3. Sherrod’s role in the Pigford 2 settlement (and Pigford 2 in general) never made it to the MSM.
    4. What about the context of Romney’s 47% comment. The whole tape of that conversation has never been released.

    Bill O’Reilly keeps saying he was hoodwinked by the Sherrod tape. I’ve written to him over and over but he keeps saying it. Maybe the Professor should make an appearance on his show and set him straight?


       
       0 
       
       0
      casualobserver in reply to JoAnne. | March 14, 2013 at 2:50 pm

      I’ve always viewed Breitbart’s intent on posting the clip (followed up by the full recording, as I recall) was different than O’Reilly’s intent in using it on his program. Breitbart focused on her words and the immediate reaction of agreement (excitement?) by the audience. O’Reilly used it to demonstrate Sherrod’s reverse prejudice, perhaps without ever looking for the full context. In that sense, he was perhaps hoodwinked, but clearly not by Breitbart. His staff? Himself?

    William A. Jacobson: Repeat after me: “The Shirley Sherrod tape was not misleading”

    Of course it was misleading, purposefully so, and the mislead was propagated throughout the right wing echochamber. Breitbart called it a “racist tale”, when it was anything but, saying “her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.”


       
       0 
       
       0
      casualobserver in reply to Zachriel. | March 14, 2013 at 2:54 pm

      You can disagree with Breitbart’s conclusion about her duties, but disputing that it was a ‘racist tale’ is at best spin, and at worst a deliberate deceit. If the point of a story hinges on the color of skin, and the actions as a result, it can only be a ‘racist tale.’ That you can also conclude she redeemed herself with her final words/actions changes nothing about the point of her story.

      No doubt you only see racism as it relates to political affiliation or ideology, I suspect.

        casualobserver: If the point of a story hinges on the color of skin, and the actions as a result, it can only be a ‘racist tale.’

        No. It’s not a racist tale, though it is a tale about race. It was a story of redemption, and was completely distorted by Breitbart.

    As I read the tweets posted here, I once again ask “Why?” Why is this new social media gimmick so loved? How can anyone adequately communicate with only 140 characters to work with?

    Christopher certainly demonstrated how easy it is to blow away any inquiry on twitter – just deny! And the Professor’s blog post is suddenly sour grapes . . .


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend