The firing of USDA official Shirley Sherrod has taken several turns since she was forced to resign after Andrew Breitbart released video clips of her telling a NAACP dinner audience how she had given less than her best effort to help a white farmer.
First, the NAACP endorsed Sherrod's firing. Sherrod is now describing how someone at USDA called her and demanded she immediately resign (per the White House) because she was "going to be on (Glenn) Beck tonight".
Now, however, the NAACP has changed its stance and has released a video of the entire speech, which implies that Ms Sherrod had eventually had a change of attitude toward her clients after that experience. Julian Bond, former head of the NAACP, is telling MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell tonight that they were "snookered" by Breitbart, who had released an edited tape.
Here is a 43 minute video of the speech released by the NAACP. I have not yet watched the entire video. I have cross-posted it from Hot Air.
Tonight, Breitbart told Sean Hannity on Fox that he had received two excerpts of the speech from an unidentified source who first contacted him in April. He also says he only became interested in using the tapes after the NAACP called the Tea Party racist.
So the question begs; has Ms Sherrod been given a raw deal? Should the government give her her job back? Before I can venture a definitive opinion, I have to sit through that entire 43 minute speech.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Ingrid,
Fired from what? he has his own blog. Here is the point and it is an important point. Breitbart says he was contacted by an unidentified source who sent him two excerpts from the speech. That means he himself did not edit them but used what he had. The naacp since they were the audience had the whole speech.
So unless Breitbart himself edited the speech, I can't blame him. If the undeedited speech is truly exculpatory, then the NAACP jumped the gun in condemning Sherrod and so did the WH and USDA in firing her.
As to who is practicing racism, I respectfully think you are observing from too far away in Germany for you to blame conservatives.
Wouldn't the responsible, journalistic thing for Breitbart to have done would have been to seek out the entire speech, to see the entire context of the remarks before jumping to conclusions and running with the story?
Breitbart should have done what Gary says he needs to do before venturing an opinon: watch the entire 43 minute speech. That would show some integrity, and does show considerable integrity on Gary's part. Breitbart apparently just used this woman to score points at the NAACP over their rather irrelevant resolution about racism in the Tea Party, whatever exactly that is. But he is posting on his own blog, and he does have freedom of speech. Let a hundred schools complete.
Why didn't the NAACP release the full tape and clear Sherrod's name? And why did the White House rush to judgment on firing her? Can it be that the White House is scared of being called racist?
Were I the NAACP, I would have immediately reviewed the entire tape before making their first statements.
Breitbart claims his target was the naacp rather than Sherrod. Publishing excerpts is obviously dangerous unless the words are so clear that no context is necessary (ie using racial slurs). It appears in this case that the whole video is necessary. Could Breitbart have obtained the whole video? I don't know.
Post a Comment