Gotcha politics took center stage over the past couple of days in the case of Shirley Sherrod. A good run down of events can be found here. After that post was written, the full video of Sherrod’s statement was made available by the NAACP, who retracted their earlier condemnation of her.
This morning, there are reports that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is reconsidering her firing. That she was fired in the first place – without a full hearing of the facts – is troublesome.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
Yes, we live in a 24/7 information world. But that doesn’t mean we fail to do due diligence on the facts. The swift condemnation of Sherrod by those who should know better was an utter failure in the old adage “consider the source.” Because of the source, the very first thing that should have happened is that someone should have gotten hold of the full video.
But no. Folks were too busy tripping over themselves trying to prove how quickly they could disassociate from a “racist.”Except Shirley Sherrod is no racist.
Even the edited video, at the end, gave a hint that this was not a racist story. The support of the white farmer couple for Sherrod should have raised alarms.
Nope. It was easier – safer – to label this 62-year-old black woman a racist.
When the so-called “leadership” in this country is quick to condemn, without all the facts, it’s a sad state of affairs for our country.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Excellent points all around.
There are, I think, two villans in this story.
Andrew Breitbart who took an incomplete video and used it to smear an innocent person.
And, the USDA or whoever it was who decided that Sherrod needed to be fired before being able to defend herself because her story was going to be on Glenn Beck that night.
So you aren’t concerned at all about the reaction of the NAACP members in the audience laughing and applauding the racist comments before she finished with her happy ending of reconciliation?
The video was put forth as a response to the NAACP trying to smear Tea Party groups while practicing it’s own real racism on a regular basis by behaving like that audience did and not condemning groups like the New Black Panthers.
This had much more to do with the audience reaction than it did Sherrod,and it was the NAACP and the White House that decided to use her as a scapegoat without figuring out the whole story. Her being fired was never the point of the release, but rather the laughter and approval of a racist NAACP audience.
Why would anyone be concerned? Look at the context. You know, that thing that gives you the information you need to fairly assess a situation? The sort of thing thinking and thoughtful people do?
No, this heavily edited pack of lies was put forth to excite people like yourself, who are ready to latch upon victimhood in any way they can. Breitbart, who operates without a shred of honesty or moral decency, knew that media outlets would run with it. They know they’re lots of value in playing to aggrieved audiences filled with ignorant people. People like you.
Right. (I don’t suppose you’re going to let that get in the way of continuing to spread that lie . . .)
No, it’s about people like you. People who are so dedicated to their own myopic worldview that they’ll ignore a plainly presented truth. People who can be controlled with stories of imaginary threats. People who can be instantly ginned up with outrage over nothing, lest they bother to look into the actual effects of the policies and practices supported by the people they vote for.
This is precious, really. You’re essentially saying “Hey, blame the people who swallowed the lie, not the liar!”. Now yes, I’m happy to lay some blame at the feet of people who are all too concerned about the reaction of ignorant people. But that’s not the source of the problem – it’s Breitbart and his enablers, from Fox News on down to people like you.
I didn’t realize that not agreeing that Sherrod or the NAACP members are completely without fault would draw the disgust for “people like me” out of you so easily. I didn’t realize my tone was one of an aggrieved, outraged, myopic, excited wingnut looking for victimhood to latch onto. I asked a simple question and gave an alternate point of view that even the NAACP president pointed out:
“The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.” – Ben Jealous
You say, “Why would anyone be concerned? Look at the context”
Context applies to Ms. Sherrod’s case, but not audience approval of remarks such as “one of their own” or her history lesson to the youth about how 400 years later the whites still try to keep themselves above blacks, or that Republican’s as a whole are racist for not supporting Obama: reasoning that it’s because he’s black and not because they disagree with his agenda.
Ms. Sherrod got stuck in the middle of a rock throwing contest where both sides (including Breitbart)are more wrong than right, and the lack of context certainly was unfair to her, but you’re trying to blame one person for her firing when he had zero control over that. Much less than the NAACP or White House did. He didn’t force them to react so quickly.
The president of the NAACP and likely other officials were at that meeting, and still jumped all over her when this came out. It’s not Breitbart’s fault they did no due diligence (or even remembered the speech themselves or pulled from their own archives) and reacted negatively to the same kind of race baiting they do on a regular basis.
Of course the context of the full speech reveals something much different from what Breitbart projected, but does only being partly racist as a group instead of blatantly racist as projected excuse anyone from asking the question: Shouldn’t we still be concerned with some of the things said and the reactions?
P.S. I was unaware of the Face the Nation interview with Ben Jealous, a few days ago, so I apologize for missing that point.
P.P.S. It does little good to make the majority of your reaction based on Breitbart and not the real issues brought up by him and the NAACP. Media Matters – which you link to so freely – is thought of just as lowly by most conservatives as you do of Breitbart, and making the discussion about Breitbart and linking to Media Matters so much makes you seem just as rabid as you try to paint me to be.
No, that’s not what I did, nor is it what I’m disgusted with. What draws out my disgust are dishonest and disingenuous claims of racism in the service of racism.
Well, now you know. You’re welcome.
It absolutely does. Well, you know, unless you’re less concerned with the facts and more concerned with pursuing an agenda that is completely countered by a full viewing and understanding of the speech.
Andrew Breitbart has zero control over the situation? You mean the one created by him when he promoted a dishonestly edited videotape for the express purpose of using her as an example of racists in government? Okay, sure. I’ll take that as seriously as I’d take an arsonist who complains about the way the firefighters responded.
No, he didn’t force that. But they were trying to respond to the (completely unfounded) complaints of people like you. So you don’t really get to complain about that, and expect to be taken seriously.
I don’t really care what you think of MediaMatters. The words of Ben Jealous don’t change depending on who hosts them (well, of course, unless they’ve been edited into lies). But then, as we’ve all had demonstrated time and time again, reality has a well known liberal bias.
Yes, there’s a problem with racist reactions here, and it’s not on the part of the audience in the tape. It’s yours.
I guess it’s one of those “fake but accurate” stories, right?
I have listened to that part three times now, and I didn’t hear that.
That’s interesting, Ben Jealous did:
“The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.”
Ben Jealous – NAACP President
A little nervous giggling when she said she was deciding how much help to give him, but that is all. And frankly, the situation was a little funny.
Both sides are seeing what they want to see. The left sees racism in the TEA Party where there is none, and the right sees racism in this video where there is none.
That BS. In Mr.Breitbart first sentence he states his reason for the posting which reads “In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient” This is clearly an attack on Ms. Sherrod and the current administration! What you quoted was Mr. Breitbart’s attempt to tap dance away from the shit storm he started.
Massive failure not just by the press (for giving platform to this crap) but by the Democratic power structure, for being so worried about coddling these professional whiners on the right that they’re willing to throw overboard someone who is *actually* doing some public good.
MB. Thank you for your spot on comments.
That was an absolutely excellent speech.
The audience reaction was indeed troubling during the racially edgy part of Ms. Sherrod’s address, and the hypocrisy on full display since the NAACP chose to accuse others of racism based on flimsy charges at their recent meeting. The real lesson here is the flippant way charges of racism are thrown around these days for political gain. When our leaders lead the charge to do away with these suspect charges and condemn the false accusers except in the case of obvious, real racism, maybe this stuff will cease. Right now charges of racism are all too easy for the politicians and the media that look down on us all.
If you think Ms Sherrod got screwed please contact the White House and you Congressman and demand she be reinstated.
I’ve got a better idea — we have her swap jobs with her Representative.
This was so wrong on so many levels. No excuse for politics at its very worst.
Let’s see…if a white Republican was talking about sending a black farmer to “his own kind,” what would the conversation be now?
I agree, it’s overblown. But if it was in reverse, it would be overblown at least as much.
But Brian, that misses the point, which Brietbart edited out, that Sherrod was pointing out that her attitude about that, 23 years a go, had been wrong and the incident was a turning point in her thinking about race.
So, if it was a white Republican, but then they said “This was backward thinking that I’ve since outgrown.” I’m not sure there would be any great uproar.
Yeah? Ask Trent Lott.
Yes, Trent Lott would tell you that when you express regret that a segregationist didn’t become president of the United States, even Republican Senators will think you’ve gone too far.
Brian: Better example than Lott, who never really repented.
When I used to work in Lynchburg, Jerry Falwell, who said some pretty hurtful racial things during Massive Resistance got a pass on it, from both the local and national media, because he had apologized and said he was wrong.
There were some folks in the local black community who held a grudge, but even there he was largely forgiven.