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


    Breitbart was highly misleading, and the misinformation was amplified by the right-wing echochamber.
    http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/22/timeline-of-breitbarts-sherrod-smear/168090


       
       0 
       
       6
      Ragspierre in reply to Zachriel. | February 17, 2014 at 7:04 pm

      Wait…

      You’re using MediaMutters (to itself in a cold, dank, basement) as your source-authority for a item about an echo-chamber…???

      BWWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHA…!!!

        Fallacy of diversion.


           
           4 
           
           0
          Rational in reply to Zachriel. | February 17, 2014 at 8:15 pm

          Why did the video get so much attention; first in the right-wing media and then in the MSM. Why?

          There is no fallacy of diversion. You are doing the diverting. It makes no sense that a right-wing provocateur published a heart warming story about a government official and it went viral. There was some slight of hand there.


           
           1 
           
           0
          Rational in reply to Zachriel. | February 17, 2014 at 8:34 pm

          Please disregard 8:15 PM post. I misunderstood you. They are doing the diverting; not you. But that is the only arrow in Ragspierre’s quiver.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | February 17, 2014 at 10:35 pm

            How FUN!

            You demonstrate ad hominem, based on a lie, coupled with pathological projection. EXCELLENT!

            It is you who deflect, divert, and dissemble. All troll crap, BTW.

            Now, justify your stupid assertion that Breitbart is the equivalent of Sharpton.

            We’re all waiting….


         
         0 
         
         5
        William A. Jacobson in reply to Ragspierre. | February 17, 2014 at 8:14 pm

        MMFA’s timeline shows nothing about the video itself. Sherrod admitted she didn’t give the white farmer her all, made derogatory comments about him because he was white, but then said she had a revelation that it’s not about race, it’s about rich v. poor. It’s all in the “edited” video. All George Soros’ money can’t change that. Nor can a commenter who links to MMFA.

        Interesting thing is that it was Democrat Tom Vilsack who jumped to conclusions and fired her.


         
         3 
         
         0
        Rational in reply to Ragspierre. | February 17, 2014 at 8:21 pm

        You need a new name. Why don’t you call yourself Ad Hominem. That is all you ever do.


       
       0 
       
       3
      raven in reply to Zachriel. | February 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm

      Scroll up and watch the video. It’s not hard. You don’t trust your own senses? You need a third party to interpret it for you? The need for a false Narrative is so intense you would abdicate control of your own interpretive powers?

        We have. The Breitbart post was misleading.


           
           0 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | February 19, 2014 at 7:44 pm

          In what way was it misleading? What did it say that was 1) not true; 2) not supported by the video clip; 3) refuted by the full video?

            Milhouse: In what way was it misleading?

            Breitbart falsely said “her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions”. She wasn’t working for the federal government at the time of the incident. Her story makes clear that she went out of her way to help the white farmer, which is supported by statements by the white farmer and his wife. The present tense of the statement is especially misleading.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 19, 2014 at 8:55 pm

            Her entire story showed that she still saw the whole world through the prism of race and class distinctions. The present tense was very much justified. But she was not the point of the story; the whole point of the story was the NAACP audience reaction to her initial account of her racial discrimination against the farmer. To suppose otherwise one would need to ignore the entire context in which the story came, that of the NAACP’s vicious attack on the TEA Party movement, and Breitbart’s promise of a bombshell that would discredit the NAACP.

            Milhouse: Her entire story showed that she still saw the whole world through the prism of race and class distinctions.

            Her entire story showed how she rose above the bitterness of racism.

            Milhouse: But she was not the point of the story; the whole point of the story was the NAACP audience reaction to her initial account of her racial discrimination against the farmer.

            The entire story revealed that they were just urging her on in her story of redemption. Even the Anchoress got that saying “it seemed like Sherrod was heading somewhere with that story, and the edit does not let us get there. I want the rest of the story before I start passing judgment on it.”


       
       0 
       
       1
      platypus in reply to Zachriel. | February 17, 2014 at 9:48 pm

      Seriously? Media Matters is your source for objectivity?

      Well, it is possible you’re being sarcastic.


     
     2 
     
     0
    Rational | February 17, 2014 at 8:10 pm

    Why did Breitbart want to publish the video? Eh? Was he celebrating the heartwarming story of a government official doing the right thing?


       
       0 
       
       4
      murkyv in reply to Rational. | February 17, 2014 at 8:13 pm

      He was exposing the racism of the NAACP when they applauded the discrimination of a white man by a black government official.

      You seem stuck on the absurd idea that the video was about Sherrod.


         
         2 
         
         0
        Rational in reply to murkyv. | February 17, 2014 at 8:30 pm

        But that is not the only applause. By the end they were applauding her compassion. That is not the story Breitbart wanted to tell.

        I can understand a moment of schadenfreude. Blacks have been getting the short end of the stick for centuries. But that was not the true lesson of the speech. The true lesson was to do the right thing. The true lesson is that it isn’t black against white, but rich against poor. Do you claim that is what Breitbart was selling?


           
           0 
           
           2
          WasteNot in reply to Rational. | February 17, 2014 at 9:45 pm

          Please explain the favorable interpretation of the applause in the first instance? What proof do you have that the same people who applauded her first revelation – that she acted out of racial retribution – applauded her second one?


           
           0 
           
           0
          platypus in reply to Rational. | February 17, 2014 at 9:55 pm

          A side point – blacks have been getting the short end of the stick UNTIL the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments were enacted. From that point on, there was constitutional equality (which of course needed to be enforced for many years before it ‘took’). Today’s racism whining is almost always a private one-on-one matter, if it is real. A lot of time it’s about affirmative action hires getting caught up with their own lack of ability.


           
           0 
           
           3
          Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | February 17, 2014 at 10:21 pm

          Well, to be faithful to history, your Progressive fellow Collectivists were some of the worst racial bigots in history, what with their Jim Crow laws and eugenic efforts.

          So (inadvertently) you stumbled into something approaching a true statement.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to Rational. | February 19, 2014 at 8:01 pm

      There is nothing heart-warming about Sherrod’s conversion from racism to Marxism. Bigotry against the rich is no more laudable than bigotry against the white. But that was not the point of the story. The point, the entire point, was the audience reaction to Sherrod’s story of the wrong she did to the farmer. The point was that you would never find a video of a TEA Party meeting cheering such a story. TEA Partiers would be appalled at it, regardless of the races involved; and they wouldn’t be much impressed by the second part either.

      That was Breitbart’s story. It was always and only about defending the TEA Party movement from the scurrilous attacks of the hustlers at the NAACP, by contrasting the two groups. The biggest proof for this is that Breitbart announced this before he released the story in the first place. He said for several days that he was sitting on a bombshell that would discredit the NAACP, and then he published this story. Are you really claiming there was no connection between the announcement and the story?!

        Milhouse: The point, the entire point, was the audience reaction to Sherrod’s story of the wrong she did to the farmer.

        It was a story of redemption. They were urging her on. It was very apparent from the entire video.


           
           0 
           
           0
          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | February 19, 2014 at 9:00 pm

          Excuse me? They were urging her on before they heard that she had converted from racism to Marxism? (Not that that is anything to cheer, but they didn’t know about it yet.) They were cheering her racist acts. Because they’re a vicious gang of racists, just as Breitbart said.


     
     3 
     
     2
    Rational | February 17, 2014 at 8:14 pm

    Why did the video get so much attention; first in the right-wing media and then in the MSM. Why?

    There is no fallacy of diversion. You are doing the diverting. It makes no sense that a right-wing provocateur published a heart warming story about a government official and it went viral. There was some slight of hand there.


       
       0 
       
       5
      Ragspierre in reply to Rational. | February 17, 2014 at 10:24 pm

      Indeed, the slight of hand is your implicit lie in framing your questions as you do.

      The NAACP long ago became a mere organelle of the Collective, as many past members would attest.

      And many find the racism of their former fellows appalling.

      You give it a hand-wave. A common trollish tactic.


     
     0 
     
     3
    Ragspierre | February 18, 2014 at 3:03 am

    Irrational, your question has been repeatedly asked, and repeatedly answered.

    You, in your narcissism, thought it a killer question, so you ignored the answers and kept insisting on the same false premise, and hand-waved the answers.

    “It makes no sense that a right-wing provocateur published a heart warming story about a government official and it went viral.”

    Let us deal with your “killer question” on its own terms. Let us apply the razor of “the turn-around test”.

    A white bureaucrat addresses an organization whose purpose is explicitly the advancement of white people. He relates a story about a rich black supplicant for the bureaucratic largess the functionary has power to dispense, and indeed for which dispensing he is paid as a “public servant”.

    He tells his audience in candor that his own racist filters make it difficult to help the citizen he is paid to help; that, indeed, he finds dealing with this black applicant so odious and difficult that he considers sending him to a black bureaucrat in the office.

    To this revelation, his white audience warmly applauds.

    But…no…the better angels of his nature intercede, and he condescends to help the person it is his job to help, regardless of his racist aversions.

    Now, instead of the bigotry of racism, in this paroxysm of “heartwarming” humanity, he applies the bigotry of class in doling out the largess that is his job to administer, seeing his supplicant as a rich man instead of a black man.

    Or, as you approvingly related, “The true lesson is that it isn’t black against white, but rich against poor.”

    Now. Assume ANY media outlet obtains a tape of that speech, and airs the parts we know are at issue. (With the entire tape…unusually…made available, too.) Note that the tape is not “edited” one jot in the sense it distorts the matters it relates when it is aired. It is contiguous and whole through the segment.

    Is that story going to be reported as a “heart warming story about a government official”?

    Or is the bureaucrat and his audience prone to be execrated for days as the racial bigots they ARE.

    How many commentators are going to say, “Oh, NO! That bureaucrat later eschewed his racism entirely”?

    How many are going to drone on for days about “white privilege”?

    And what will the meme be concerning the racist members of the all white gathering, and their cheering on of the discrimination described?

    No need to lie or dissemble. We all know the truth. And I can predict you will deny the truth.

    And what of the bigotry of class? The bureaucrat admits he helped the supplicant because he was rich, and not poor.

    We know you approve of that bigotry. Well, and others…

    Now, let us examine your question under the hood, shall we?

    “It makes no sense that a right-wing provocateur published…”.

    You have claimed you were “not an ideologue”. You have claimed “objectivity”, and that you are “intellectually honest”.

    That short sentence fragment belies you. Powerfully. Completely.

    Breitbart did what a good journalist SHOULD be doing: he faithfully and accurately opened a window on the conduct of people. He, of course, told a story. That is what one does as a journalist.

    And you are so completely enthralled by your Collective you come here and throw up moonbat talking points that have been packed up your butt by your punk meisters. Trite ones, at that.

    Which, in the main, is all you do here with very few exceptions.

    And you do it as a troll.

    See?


     
     0 
     
     0
    cbenoistd | February 18, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Sherrod is suing a widow. The content of her character!


    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