Media Still Getting It Wrong About Andrew Breitbart and Shirley Sherrod
As someone who was one of the best fighters against the left-wing media hegemony, Andrew Breitbart was also frequently victimized by lazy reporters who didn't bother to report correct information about him. This was a particular problem for Andrew because he was such a target for liberals making up lies which got repeated so often, they've become widely accepted as truth.
Unfortunately and unsurprisingly, the media haven't stopped repeating lies about Breitbart even after his untimely passing. Contrary to much of the reporting about him today, Breitbart did not falsely represent Shirley Sherrod, former U.S. Department of Agriculture director of Rural Development in Georgia in relaying a video of her discrimination against white applicants for a farm subsidy program in 2010.
Before listing the false reports against Breitbart on this issue today, let's look at the facts. While there were a couple of minor things he did incorrectly in reporting about Sherrod, on the balance, the charge, advanced by many liberals including former conservative David Frum, that he selectively edited her remarks to take her out of context is false:
Now that the dust is settling in the mess involving Shirley Sherrod, the former U.S. Department of Agriculture director of Rural Development in Georgia who made controversial comments regarding race and class in a speech before the NAACP, a few things stand out that are worth remarking on:
The first is that blogger Andrew Breitbart in his initial post about Sherrod was incorrect in stating that the actions she described in her story took place while Sherrod was an employee of the federal government. He also should have been more clear that it was the NAACP's cheering of her initial racist sentiments that was his primary target.
Breitbart also should have done better to put Sherrod's previous racist behavior in the past with his writing but to impute, as David Frum does, that the full clip told "exactly the opposite of the story Breitbart had wanted to tell," is patently false considering that Breitbart did in fact state that in the end Sherrod's "basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help."
That Breitbart has been blamed for people not reading his work is really one of the most absurd instances of liberal bias in recent memory, especially since no one has ever proven that Breitbart was the one who edited the clip in question to take out Sherrod's spoken account of realizing that discrimination was wrong. To my knowledge, no one ever asked Breitbart who edited the clip down, something which his critics ought to have done rather than spread baseless innuendo about him. The video segment which he posted of Sherrod actually includes her statement that she helped the white farmer.
Instead of doing some actual reporting on this, what liberals have done instead is blamed Breitbart for their own rash behavior. The NAACP, which hosted the event at which Sherrod spoke, had the opportunity to read his description of her recanting of racism and also had the actual full tape of her remarks, rushed to condemn Sherrod's initial racism. Later, it reversed course and began bashing Breitbart. Ditto the Obama Administration which forced her to resign without paying attention to her confession and reversal.
Unfortunately, even to this day, this unjust smear against Breitbart has been perpetuated in the press. Here's CNN host Howard Kurtz spreading misinformation as he was interviewed minutes ago during CNN's daytime coverage:
I interviewed him several times, and he was a passionate guy who was able to use the internet, mostly, to drive a very conservative message, to embarrass liberal targets, including Congressman Weiner, as you mentioned. And had he not had a tendency to go too far on occasion, I think he would be remembered more as a successful warrior on behalf of causes on the right.
But in the example of Shirley Sherrod, who your viewers may recall, he had posted an incomplete, edited video that made her appear to be saying racist things when her message exactly was the opposite. Not only did he do that, but he never really apologized for it. And that's the reason, I think, that he actually leaves behind a mixed legacy.
Of course, Breitbart did not need to apologize because it was not he who neglected to mention her recanting.
Video of Kurtz being interviewed by CNN anchor Suzanne Malveaux is below:
Kurtz's CNN colleague Kyra Phillips also repeated the smear, asking conservative blogger Erick Erickson about the false idea:
"The Shirley Sherrod story. He caught a lot of flack for that because of the way he edited that and it turned out he was editing it to take a certain angle, but when you had a chance to talk to Shirley Sherrod and see that entire speech that she gave, she was portrayed unfairly."
The Associated Press, most widely read news source in the world, also pushed the false storyline in its report on Breitbart's death:
Breitbart was at the center of two video controversies in recent years — one that led to the firing of an Agriculture Department employee over an edited video of what appeared to be a racist remark, and another that embarrassed the community group ACORN when workers were shown counseling actors posing as a prostitute and pimp.
Breitbart is known for disseminating an edited video that showed an Agriculture Department employee making what appeared to be racist remarks.
Sherrod, who is black, was fired from her job as Georgia state rural development director in July 2010 after the video surfaced. She is seen telling a local NAACP group that she was initially reluctant to help a white farmer save his farm more than two decades ago, long before she worked for USDA.
Missing from the clip was the rest of the speech, which was meant as a lesson in racial healing. Sherrod told the crowd she eventually realized her mistake and helped the farmer save his farm. She has since filed a lawsuit against Breitbart.
Yahoo News reporter Dylan Stableford is also pushing the false Sherrod story:
In 2010, though, Breitbart's credibility was burned after his website posted video excerpts of a 40-minute NAACP speech by U.S. Dept. of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod that appeared to show her making racist comments. However, Breitbart drew fire when the speech was published in full, showing that selectively edited video had taken the remarks out of context--but not before Sherrod was fired. (The White House later apologized for dismissing Sherrod, a longtime USDA official, and Sherrod sued Breitbart for defamation.)
Thanks to Matthew Balan and Matt Hadro for transcripts and video of the above CNN segments.
Ironically, one of the few members of the press to get the story straight regarding Breitbart and Sherrod was MSNBC's Chris Matthews, normally, a notorious conservative hater.
- Matthew Sheffield's blog
- Login to post comments
I DON'T BELIEVE THE ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS
NYT/ADN "Breitbart relentlessly attacked what he called liberal bias in the media, though he frequently consented to interview requests from the news outlets that he labeled that way...'
Let the leftist blamefest begin...
Breitbart will be connected, in the usual conspiratorial paranoiac fantasy world of liberals, to anything and everything. He will be blamed for the loss of the Panama Canal, the disappearance of Judge Crater and then someone will say there is a statue of him on Mars.
Breitbart didn't fire Sherrod
Obama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack did.
It was my understanding that the video Breitbart received from his source had already been edited, and that he was unaware of the content in the remainder of the video.
But it was Vilsack who fired her without investigating the facts.
Thanks, Matt
I'd encourage the NB community to use Matt's link as our ammo.....and when we see the continued media lies concerning Andrew Breitbart, to leave a comment linking back to this excellent take down of the media smear of a great conservative.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Matt Sheffield is correct about the mishandling of the Sherrod
matter--the knee jerk reaction and her hasty firing--on the part of the NAACP and Obama administration. But the assessment of Breitbart by Kurtz is right on the money:
I interviewed him several times, and he was a passionate guy who was able to use the internet, mostly, to drive a very conservative message, to embarrass liberal targets, including Congressman Weiner, as you mentioned. And had he not had a tendency to go too far on occasion, I think he would be remembered more as a successful warrior on behalf of causes on the right.
But in the example of Shirley Sherrod, who your viewers may recall, he had posted an incomplete, edited video that made her appear to be saying racist things when her message exactly was the opposite. Not only did he do that, but he never really apologized for it. And that's the reason, I think, that he actually leaves behind a mixed legacy.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/03/01/liberal-report...
From reading page after page of comments--at FoxNation after the videos were first put up there--overflowing with charges in the general category of Shirley Sherrod: racist pig (which sentiments came to a screeching halt when the full story came out), the initial extremely negative [and misguided] impression of Sherrod by viewers of the clips is inescapable.
Jer
Shirley Sherrod DID do racists things.
She admitted she denied help to a white farmer because he was white. She later realized her mistake and took efforts to amend her wrongful actions. Still, she acted upon her racist beliefs.
That is the difference between Shirley Sherrod and me and Andrew Breitbart and hopefully Uncle Jer. We have never taken a racist action therefore have nothing to amend.
And that is the problem right there. He actions were racist. She may have reformed. We may have forgiven her. But her actions WERE racist. Something a lot of us have never ever ever ever done because we had it pounded into us it is wrong.
And the whole point of the Breitbart clip
And the whole point of the Breitbart clip was to show the NAACP reaction to her racist statement. She had to stop speaking to allow the cheering to subside befor going on to her "moment of insight". The point was NOT to show HER as racist, but to show that the NAACP is a racist organization at it's C.O.R.E. This was totaly ignored but the LSM.
Haha!
Have you watched the clip? You saw "cheering" in there?!? Even AB never described it as cheering!
Breitbart mishandled the video
because viewers assessed it incorrectly? How is that not blaming the messenger?
Washington Post did it as well today
Even Chris Matthews defended Breitbart on this issue saying the whole video was there and he heard Sherrod speak of coming around at the end. The whole point of the video was to show how the audience of the NAACP was cheering for her bigoted thoughts, not to get Sherrod fired.
I don't really buy that-if
I don't really buy that-if the "whole point of the video" was to show the audience "cheering" then he would have spent a bit more than a measly 2 sentences commenting on their reaction:
"Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance."
First off, he says "murmurs of recognition and agreement". Far from the "cheering" that people are claiming the video is about. And the rest of the post is about her racist remarks and racism in the NAACP in general.
So this attempt to re-contextualize his original posting is pretty weak at best. He didn't post the videos to show how excited the audience was by her "racist tale".
Granted, I know he didn't edit the film himself to make her look bad-but everyone is charging the resulting reports of being lazy for not looking into the source material to find the context... but why didn't Breitbart do that himself? In fact, it's their reporting that eventually (too slowly) uncovered the full tale.
Whatever troll.
The troll pulls the entire quote from the original post that shows it was all about the NAACP audience then tells us the reason behind the original post was not about the NAACP audience.
Twist. Twist Twist and Pop! Hey, you did it, you got your head all the way around there and inserted it right up your own rear. Good job troll.
HAHA!
Sure! And Moby Dick is about Scrimshaw because Melville spends a few paragraphs talking about it!
It's clear you haven't read Breitbart's original post. Take the time and do so. Those 2 sentences aren't what it was "all about".
Go play with the other troll, braindamage2000
You popped off on another user and wasted his time. I popped off on you. You were never serious so why should I be serious and continue this conversation.
What Andrew Said
Breitbart said the POINT of the tape was the REACTION of the NAACP audience.
When they heard the first part of Sherrod's talk -- about how she used the white farmer's race to decide to withhold assistance to him -- the Black NAACP audience was most approving of that action. ..... ......
Breitbart was castigating the racial bigotry of the NAACP members. He was very specific on that point. .... ....
Comparisons of Breitbart's treatment to say, Gov. Brewer
Comparisons here seem to be in order; of Breitbart's overly harsh treatment by the national MSM for his coverage of Sherrod, to say . . the MNS's universal yawn to how NBC Nighty News Anchor Brian Williams lied in his coverage of the Gov. Jan Brewer greeting with President Obama, and CNN's Piers Morgan's insulting and false attack on her, this week.
Noel Sheppard covered the first one here: Flashback 2006: NBC's Brian Williams Points Finger At President Bush, which includes this all so telling shot of Brian Williams jabbing his finger into the chest of President Bush in 2006.
And NB's Matt Hadro covered this yesterday : Jan Brewer Smacks Down Piers Morgan: 'You Don't Know What I Was Saying' to Obama on the Tarmac , with Morgan falsely accusing the Governor:
PIERS MORGAN: I mean if your man Mitt does win the nomination, he takes on Barack Obama. We've already seen you in spectacular fashion on the tarmac jabbing him in the chest and threatening all sorts of things.
To which I add the following:
She did not jab her finger into the President's thin chest. Piers Morgan lied.
There is no evidence that she threatened anything whatsoever. In fact, the President made that clear, himself. Piers Morgan lied, again.
So, where is this national MSM of media watch dogs -- those would slander Andrew Breitbart, and continue to do so on the day of his passing, without any want to understand and properly report on all of the facts -- when it comes to to leading media anchors, who so willingly go out and attack a sitting governor by lying about what actually occurred? Will Howie Kurtz take them to task? LOL
Should not now any mention of Brian Williams and/or Piers Morgan in the national media be accompanied by the usual standard sort of character assassinations that conservatives are forced to deal with on a daily basis? For example, how would that now work out if the LA Times was to quote Brian Williams on a subject matter?
Surely now, when the LA Times does a piece on Brian Williams the photo of him (linked just above) will be the one, correct?
And how does the Los Angeles Times' (one of numerous examples, available today) describe Breitbart, other than the pat misrepresentation of the Sherrod incident (he didn't edit the tape, he posted an excerpt - folks)?
Conservative writer . . Breitbart, 43, a star of the tea party movement, was a Hollywood-hating, mainstream-media-loathing conservative, according to a Times profile.
And when they do their piece on Brian Williams, surely it will note:
Always true to form, the liberal agenda driven anchor . . never stopped trying to get folks to call President Bush a racist . . who couldn't bring himself to conduct a pleasant interview of discovery with any conservative . . never missed a chance to support any politician's cause who had a D by their name.
Fairness that we will not witness, unfortunately.
(;~/ gary
Breitbart and the media
Liberal Minions just hated the truth and always had some type of media coronary when he spoke. The media world will sorely miss him especially the readers. He was one of the few avenues by which readers could get the truth and I am sure the liberals are laughing, drinking and giving each other High Fives behind closed doors.
.. and they get it wrong
.. and they get it wrong intentionally.
Can't be true of course...
Blacks can't be racist. That audience was merely demonstrating their solidarity with the 'hood. Sarcasm off! A terrible loss for decent Americans as we watch the leftist rabble dance on his grave. Can't wait for Pelosi and Reid to kick off. Pissing on their graves will be a pleasure!
It might be a pleasure, Bball.
But, I promised myself that I'd never stand in line again, after I got out of the Army.
Greta Van Susteren
So you {Greta} see Sherrod *admit* to being a racist, get applause for being a racist, then admit she {Sherrod} was wrong to BE a racist and you accuse AB of "heavily editing" when that did NOT happen?
See Greta, I tolerated your tabloid leanings when you'd talk Whitney instead of the debt, but when you are purposely obtuse to further a bogus narrative?
Well, Greta Van Susteren, you just lost a viewer for pulling this bs on your show last night. Get it straight. Tell the truth, don't follow the msm narrative - use that brain to be an honest broker!
Ronald Reagan
Sorry Matt
Andrew Breitbart received an editied clip and claimed it proved racism on the part of Sherrod. When the clip was found to be doctored and out of context, he claimed it really showed racism on the NAACP, which NEVER HAPPENED!. The NAACP did not applaud racism in the video. Breitbart is wrong again.
No one bothered to ask Breitbart where he got the clip from? Was he incapable of using the media he created to inform people where he got the clip from? He presented a grossly inaccurate story, and he was rightly skewered in the press. Thats how it works.
Sorry Vandamage2000.
Too bad you brought a truckload of liberal website propaganda and dumped it right in the middle of the Newsbusters server room.
Even Matt Sheffield
agrees that Breitbart made some mistakes. But whatever, Breitbart reinforces my worldview that black people are the real racists in this country, so he was allowed to be a shoddy journalist.
Breitbart did not have the power to fire Sherrod from her position. But because everyone took him at his word, thinking that he was a real journalist, it was assumed that his reporting was valid and actions were taken. He initially said she was acting a federal agent, which was false. He claimed that the audience applauded when she said she wouldnt help a white farmer, which is false.
The rest of the media should have investigated further. But to insist that Breitbart should get a pass on his sloppy work, and be commended for it, shows why Conservative Journalism is a sham..
Not like shoddy posts by shoddy posters, huh?
Vandamage2000: Andrew Breitbart received an editied clip and claimed it proved racism on the part of Sherrod.
Whatever. You might have tried watching the clip. It is gone now. No. No. Wait a minute. IT IS STILL ON THE WEB. And what does it show? Mrs. Sherrod. say, do you have a last name because I want to disrespectfully call you by your last name when I refer to you. Mrs. Sherrod CONFESSED TO A RACIST ACT.
Vandamage2000: Andrew Breitbart received an editied clip and claimed it proved racism on the part of Sherrod.
Mrs. Sherrod CONFESSED TO A RACIST ACT in the posted video. Mr. Breitbart did not have to claim anything.
Now. I am going to ask you nicely. Stop while you are only one point behind.
Right...
Sherrod confessed that, after a white farmer talked down to her, she put him in touch with a white lawyer to help him, as she thought she couldn't do much. Then she realized that she indeed could help him, and that after all, its not a white/black thing, but her job in life was to help the poor, regardless of color. Did you happen to catch this was THIRTY YEARS AGO? Had NOTHING to do with her federal job or the NAACP?
So yes, you have someone on tape, a woman whose father was murdered by racists, explaining her personal story of working up close with race relations and what she has learned in the experience.
Breitbart claimed she was working in the Government when this all happened. Fox News carried the story and described it thus. But Breitbart isnt responsible for other networks covering the story that he wrote, of course not.
I'm sorry.
But it's pretty clear that very few people have either read AB's original post, or even watched the clip in a very long time!
Trying to rewrite history (especially when the actual original post is still there!) is ridiculous in this case! His post WAS NOT about how the NAACP audience "cheered" her racism. Even he never described it as "cheering!" Because it isn't! AB himself described it as "nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement". Far from cheering-and only damning if, at the end of her tale of racial redemption, the audience booed her change of attitude. But they actually applaud the end of her story-so even the nods and murmurs holds no water!
AB got this one wrong-its fine, you don't have to defend every last one of his posts-he's liable to make the same mistakes as the rest of us. I blame him no more than I blame the rest of our sensationalistic news organizations who pounce on a "sexy story" before doing their due diligence. He's had an extremely impressive career-no need to spend a ton of time trying to rationalize and explain away one minor misstep.
Thank you for telling the truth
And yes, he did get the scoop on Anthony Weiner. But what would you consider his other great triumphs (in journalism, not editing)?
Well, I'm not a huge fan of
Well, I'm not a huge fan of his work-clearly-but he helped run the drudge report for a long time; an impressive item on anyone's resume. And the acorn thing was a pretty big coup for him as well.
Though I disagree with most of his politics, he was a pretty relentless and tireless conservative journalist for many years-sometimes those qualities tripped him up, as in the Sherrod case-but other times it ended up really successfully damaging his targets, like Weiner and Acorn.
~Weiner wasn't his "target"
Weiner did something exceptionally newsworthy and Breitbart did what any honest journalist would do, he ran the story.
You're right, Sorry
I wasn't trying to imply otherwise-just listing his achievements.
~Snarky little biotch
Aren'tcha?
Why don't we list your achievements.
1. Second-rate internet troll
2. Paper-trained
Sensitive much?
Wow, I was not trying to be "snarky" or sarcastic or mean-spirited. Did I put "achievements" in quotes? I was not trying to malign AB in any way with my bringing up of the Wiener story.
Take it down a notch and quit looking for offenses in every small thing. Isn't that what people on this site usually complain about liberals doing?
~Which is why the accusation is so ironic, coming from you
.
accusation?
accusation?
~Balboa!
When did you change your sn?
If that was intended
to insult-it didn't work. Which accusation am I leveling against you? Being too sensitive? I didn't realize I had a history of being sensitive, myself. Is that why it should be ironic?
~My, it's easy to make you squirm
.
And here I thought you were
And here I thought you were squirming...
~This is awesome
I've reduced him to "I know you are, but what am I".
And I wasn't even half trying.
Oh right!
The Acorn story, where he paid a kid ( who lied about being dressed like a pimp) and told Acorn he wanted to smuggle sex slaves into the U.S., and Acorn called the cops on him. How was that a big coup? Other than the fact that Acorn was found to do nothing wrong but was still defunded and is now defunct.
Breitbart was a conservative that passionately wanted to take down Liberals. But he didn't do it through hard work. He did it by lying about his political opponents. Why he should be glorified in death is a mystery to me.
Acorn called the cops on him?
On what planet did that happen? Universally, or just one or two of the Acorn offices?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytime
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/acorn-broke-no-laws/
That link totally ignored my questions
But thank you for playing.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Listen-I'm completely with
Listen-I'm completely with you. I am no fan of his work. I just have no intention of smearing the man a day after his death. Doesn't mean I particularly appreciate his career.
Hey Dummy - story, as in singular? Ever hear of youtube?
Next thing you'll be telling us is that Planned Parenthood never broke any laws.
Your questions weren't serious
But heres this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-shea/despite-news-reports-acor_b_2902...