Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    NY Times perpetuates myth of Andrew Breitbart’s misleading Shirley Sherrod video

    NY Times perpetuates myth of Andrew Breitbart’s misleading Shirley Sherrod video

    As we approach the second anniversary of Andrew Breitbart’s death, we need to keep fighting the smear against him regarding the Shirley Sherrod tape.

    http://youtu.be/t_xCeItxbQY

    We have examined several times the false claim that the original edited videotape released by Andrew Breitbart of Shirley Sherrod’s  speech to a local NAACP group was misleading in that it allegedly failed to reveal that Sherrod overcame her negative feelings towards a white farmer when she was a state agriculture official.

    In fact, the original edited tape revealed that Sherrod overcame those feelings, as I have demonstrated over and over again through a frame-by-frame analysis:

    Nonetheless, the media keeps claiming that Sherrod overcoming her racist feelings only was revealed when the unedited tape was released, after she was fired by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. She later was offerred her job back but refused, and settled with the government while pursuing legal claims against Breitbart (and his estate) and Larry O’Connor.

    It’s happened again, in a NY Times article about the expansion of Breitbart.com, Breitbart News Network Plans Global Expansion:

    It has been nearly two years since the conservative provocateur Andrew Breitbart died, but the online news organization that carries his name is not only continuing to wage his political battles, it is taking the war global.

    Breitbart News Network, a group of activist, conservative news sites — including Big Government, Big Hollywood and Big Journalism — said on Sunday evening that it was adding at least a dozen staff members as it opens operations based in Texas and London. Stephen K. Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News, said that those offices were the beginning of an expansion that would add a new regional site roughly every 90 days. California, Florida, Cairo and Jerusalem have already been chosen as expansion sites, he said.

    Here’s the part about the Sherrod video:

    At times Breitbart’s attack-the-enemy approach to journalism has landed the news operations in hot water. In 2010, for example, it was criticized for editing a video to make Shirley Sherrod, a former Agriculture Department official, appear to be making racist remarks about white people. The full video showed that she did not.

    Just. Not. Correct.

    Sherrod did make comments about the white farmer that could be construed as racist and also made comments about how she overcame those feelings, and all of that was on the original edited video:

    It’s also worth noting that the point of the video was to document the cheering by the NAACP crowd when Sherrod made her negative comments about the white farmer. That laughing approval still is troubling.

    I submitted the following request for correction:

    You state in your article as follows: “In 2010, for example, it was criticized for editing a video to make Shirley Sherrod, a former Agriculture Department official, appear to be making racist remarks about white people. The full video showed that she did not.”  That is not accurate.  The ORIGINAL video disclosed the full context of the remarks, as my frame-by-frame analysis showed, https://legalinsurrection.com/2011/02/dissecting-shirley-sherrods-complaint-against-andrew-breitbart/

    Will you make a correction in your article on this point?

    I will let you know if I hear back. Hah.

    As we approach the second anniversary of Andrew Breitbart’s death, we need to keep fighting against the smear made against him regarding the Shirley Sherrod tape.

    Andrew Breitbart - Big Loss

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Of course Breitbart’s article is misleading.

    Breitbart: this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

    Sherrod wasn’t working for the federal government at the time of the incident. She explains how and why she is *not* managing her duties through the prism of race, and she went out of her way to help the white farmer. (Sherrod’s father had been murdered under Jim Crow.) Furthermore, the intended narrative was amplified by the right-wing echochamber.

    Gateway: “More Racism at NAACP: Radical Obama Official Admits That She Openly Discriminates Against Whites”;

    HotAir: “Breitbart hits NAACP with promised video of racism”;

    Fox News: “Days after the NAACP clashed with Tea Party members over allegations of racism, a video has surfaced showing an Agriculture Department official regaling an NAACP audience with a story about how she withheld help to a white farmer facing bankruptcy.”

    And so on.


       
       0 
       
       1
      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | February 18, 2014 at 2:02 pm

      “Sherrod wasn’t working for the federal government at the time of the incident.”

      Dude, you really need to learn to read. Watch the very beginning of the video for the text box that says exactly that.

      You can believe what you want about Mrs. Sharrod’s complete exorcism of her racist tendencies, but I suggest you are applying a different template than you would for a person of another race. The bigotry of low expectations.

      And the is much SINCE all this that should give you pause.

    Ragspierre: Dude, you really need to learn to read. Watch the very beginning of the video for the text box that says exactly that.

    That wasn’t part of the initial release. In any case, it still left the impression she was managing her federal duties through the prism of race, and that simply wasn’t the case. It was misleading, and then amplified by the right-wing echochamber.


       
       0 
       
       1
      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | February 18, 2014 at 2:28 pm

      So it is hunky-dory that she manages FEDERAL funds as a state bureaucrat via a patently racist prism?

      Which she clearly DOES do. Did you get the references to “their kind”? She sees people as racial groups.

      But some of her best new friends are white people. Of the right kind.

      Sorry, you are just an apologist.

        Ragspierre: So it is hunky-dory that she manages FEDERAL funds as a state bureaucrat via a patently racist prism?

        She worked for a co-op. She went out of her way to help the white farmer. Meanwhile those who actually racially discriminated against blacks never lost their jobs.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | February 20, 2014 at 2:56 am

      So she began to substitute class for race; how did that make it any better?

      In any case, it wasn’t true; she cited another case that had happened recently, in which she had worked hard to prevent a black landowner from selling to a white customer. She was so proud of how she had “saved” the land from being owned by white people. Blatant racism.

      But Breitbart’s point was never her actions or her motivation, but the NAACP audience’s reaction. The whole story was that they cheered her racist actions.


     
     0 
     
     1
    Henry Hawkins | February 18, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    For libs, the Breitbart film has become their Zapruder film, lol. In 20 years they’ll be defending Obama/Clinton over Benghazi, another story becoming a liberal defensive touchstone and troll launcher.

    Why bother with argument? Just be honest, go with ‘because I said so.’

    It’s actually worse than the professor states in his post. The initial iteration of the lie was to suggest that Brietbart editted the video to exclude exculpatory evidence. Professor Jacobson has thoroughly debunked that line of attack. But as time goes on, the narrative shifts as distortion is piled upon distortion. Here the NY Times reporter is a step removed from the original distortion – she actually claims that the video showed Sherrod wasn’t racist at all. Note how that 1) is an even worse attack than the original distortion (now Brietbart is guilty of painting someone for racism who didn’t display it, while previously he was only guilty of not including the detail that Sherrod had reformed her racist behavior) and 2) it further deifies Sherrod. Sherrod admitted to racist behavior towards a white farmer. That is indisputable. But the NY Times reporter claims to the contrary. That’s even worse than the original smear. D.GOOCH

    Perhaps the Times burried the lede on this one, e.g. Breitbart’s organizations are growing; expanding into new markets, some international; adding staff; providing on-line access; waging the war they’ve been presented with by the likes of the Times. . . which is losing by all the same measures.

    Perhaps, also, dear Times, a page from the Alinsky rules here by dredging up the tired old Sherrod story, ‘it’s never about what it’s about.’ You’re losing so changed the subject. Problem is, you didn’t choose very well; you chose a subject where a competitor, Breitbart, simply reported the news more than two years ago. You folks made Breitbart the story. Good thinking. Worked then, why not do it again. Duh.

    Carlos Slim must wonder what the hell he was thinking. Us too.


    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