Andrew Breitbart Owes Shirley Sherrod and Us an Apology

The fiasco of the forced resignation of Shirley Sherrod has become one of the major stories of the day. It began when BigGovernment.com released a video given to Andrew Breitbart, which seemed to suggest, as Breitbart wrote, “video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.”

What irked Breitbart — correctly — was that the Tea Party was being branded as racist by the NAACP and other liberal media outlets. As we have now learned, the original video handed to Breitbart included only part of the Sherrod speech. It was best explained by Roger Mackey in a New York Times blog:

The NAACP then backed down, releasing a statement indicating that after reviewing her entire speech and listening to the testimony of white farmers whom Sherrod actually helped, “the fact is Ms. Sherrod did help the white farmers mentioned in her speech. They personally credit her with helping to save their family farm. Moreover, this incident and the lesson it prompted occurred more than 20 years before she went to work for U.S.D.A.”

Sherrod, in her full speech, made it clear that what she was trying to convey was a change in her perspective, from seeing things only through the prism of race, when it was a matter of poor people of all colors needing help that was being denied them. She learned when “it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those that have and not so much – it is about white and black but, it opened my eyes because I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hands and felt, O.K., I’ve done my job.” The white farmer then had his farm foreclosed.

The white lawyer Sherrod had sent him to did not help stop the foreclosure, but told the farmer to let the farm go. At that point, Sherrod sprung to his defense and went on to help him save his farm. From this experience she learned “it’s really about those who have versus those who don’t … And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people, those who don’t have access the way others have.”

After finally hearing her story, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack promised to review the decision asking for her resignation. But there is more. On CNN, Sherrod told the story of how Undersecretary of Agriculture Cheryl Cook called her three times as she was driving to clients in Athens, Georgia, a three and a half hour car drive. “They asked me to resign, and in fact they harassed me as I was driving back to the state office from West Point, Georgia, yesterday,” she said. The last call “asked me to pull to the side of the road and do it [resign],” she said. The undersecretary told her that the White House wanted her to resign, because “you’re going to be on Glenn Beck tonight.”

The irony is that Glenn Beck did not show the video on his program at all that day. On the following day’s program, Beck came on the air — before the full video of Sherrod’s entire March speech had been made available by Breitbart and by the NAACP — and told his program’s viewers that Sherrod “shouldn’t have been fired.” Why, Beck asked, would they force a resignation based on a 24-year-old incident that might have been “taken entirely out of context”?

As for Breitbart, we have to ask: Who gave him the incomplete video? Why didn’t he ask whether the entire speech was in the clip? Not having done that, it was clearly irresponsible for him to run it. Perhaps it was a setup. At any rate, he should have asked for the complete speech before releasing it, since the subsequent rush to judgment — including the forced resignation of Sherrod — was the result. Breitbart appeared this morning on ABC’s Good Morning, America, where he said that:

Indeed, Breitbart refused to back down from what he said was simply his intent to show the double standard applied to the Tea Party, and he refused to apologize for showing the incomplete video that cost Sherrod her job. “They were clapping racist behavior,” he said of the audience who heard her speech. Refusing to apologize, he said “the audience showed racism.”

The NAAP acknowledged that they were “snookered by Fox News and Andrew Breitbart,” and apologized for their condemnation of Sherrod and asking for her removal. Breitbart, having now seen the entire speech, should do the same. Sherrod herself blamed the NAACP for throwing her to the wolves, without calling her and even looking at the video, which they had.

As for Fox News, the Special Report with Bret Baier did not show the video, and on the panel, Charles Krauthammer said she should not have been dismissed and was owed an apology. Moreover, Shepard Smith, who anchors the 7 o’clock news show, called Andrew Breitbart’s website one that is “widely discredited” and posts “inaccurate” videos “edited to the point where the world was deceived.” So Fox News as a whole not only came off guilt-free, one of its anchors even blasted Andrew Breitbart. Yet Sherrod herself told Media Matters, the left-wing media-watch site, that “Fox News would like to take us [African-Americans] back to…where black people were looking down…not looking white people in the face, not being able to compete for a job, and not be a whole person.” Talking for the network, Baier said, “Mrs. Sherrod, that is just not true.”

Clearly Sherrod, although she herself had blamed the NAACP for not checking out the small edited video clip, now joined in the same spurious attack on Fox as the civil rights organization previously had done. Yet some on Fox News were guilty of a rush to judgement — particularly Fox News top rated pundit Bill O’Reilly, who showed the incomplete and misleading video and demanded on the air that Sherrod be fired. So did Sean Hannity, who called it “just the latest in a series of racial incidents.” Newt Gingrich then told him that firing here “for viciously racist attitudes was exactly the right thing to do.”

Both of them did not consider that the tape might have been incomplete. But even more guilty is the White House, whose pressure — which of course they deny having been made — resulted in the secretary of Agriculture’s demand that she be removed from the job. Why would the administration not phone Sherrod, ask for her side of the story, and first ask for the video of the complete speech before acting? Is it that because having branded the Tea Party as racist, they clearly could not afford to look like they were allowing someone who appeared to be a black racist to stay on the job, after she confessed in a speech how she did not help a white farmer?

As we learned tonight, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack blamed himself, said it was all his own fault, and exonerated the White House completely, although he previously noted that the demand she be fired came from the president. Now, he noted that the White House had asked him to apologize, and to quickly offer Mrs. Sherrod her job back.

The New York Times report noted: “Ms. Sherrod took to the airwaves on Tuesday, especially CNN, where she said that the N.A.A.C.P. was ‘the reason why this happened.’ ‘They got into a fight with the Tea Party, and all of this came out as a result of that,’ she said. Mr. Breitbart reached a similar conclusion, though from a different perspective. ‘They’re trying to make this about me and Shirley Sherrod. This is about the N.A.A.C.P.,’ he said by phone. He said that the civil rights group had ‘spent an inordinate amount of airtime trying to brand the Tea Party as racist’ while tolerating racism itself.”

Breitbart is partially correct. The NAAcP has shown its irrelevance many times, trying to act as if the U.S. is still in the segregated 40s and 50s, when it was a necessary and major civil rights organization with a mission to complete. It has a stake in charging racism where it no longer exists. But the organization’s head acknowledged he was disturbed about the audience reaction when Sherrod was accounting her first response of not wanting to help a white farmer, and pledged to look into it. Breitbart is also right that the group snookered itself, and it was not his fault. But this is not an excuse for his own failures. He too must apologize for putting out a video without checking whether or not it was complete, and considering what it might do to Sherrod.

It was not simply about the Tea Party. Thus, David Frum is correct when he writes: “There will be no apology or statement of regret for distributing a doctored tape to defame and destroy someone. There will be not even a flutter of interest among conservatives in discussing Breitbart’s role. By the morning of July 21, the “Fox & Friends” morning show could devote a segment to the Sherrod case without so much as a mention of Breitbart’s role. The central fact of the Sherrod story has been edited out of the conservative narrative, just as it was edited out of the tape itself.” So this conservative is not writing Breitbart out of the narrative. He too must apologize and admit his error. If he does not, and persists in saying it is just about the Tea Party, he only hurts his own credibility and reputation. Sometimes those with the best of intentions can become their own worst enemy.

I cannot answer each of my critics directly, but their points are the same: Breitbart does not owe an apology; the NAACP and the Left are exclusively at fault; Shirley Sherrod is a Marxist or perhaps even a communist; etc etc etc. Here is my response:

Last night, even Bill O’Reilly apologized to Sherrod for running the Breitbart released video and for not putting her comments in their entire context. Is O’Reilly now also a tool of the Left? Hardly, and he did the right thing. Breitbart, after hearing the NAACP’s attacks on the Tea Party, rememebered he had asked for the relevant parts of the video (not the entire speech) and then saw it, and released it to prove that the NAACP itself was playing a racist card. That means he responded with his own one-sided and misleading racial card, without trying to see if Sherrod’s entire comment proved his point.

Virtually everyone who has watched the speech, even Charles Krauthammer, notes that her speech was one of inspiration and reconciliation. Despite the horror of having her own father murdered by the Klan and a cross burned on their lawn in 1965, Sherrod calls for all of us working together, and transcending racial appeals. It is, as many have pointed out, an American story—not a racial story preached by the racial hucksters of the Left. True, at times she contradicts herself. In my blog entry, I included her own misguided statements about Fox News to Media Matters, and said she was wrong and losing her own high ground. But she has not repeated this on the numerous other programs she has been on.

The simple reason Andrew Breitbart owes an apology is this: He alone released the edited video- that did not include the rest of Sherrod’s story, in which she shows how her original reaction was wrong and how she moved on, and then helped the white farmer as best as she could- thereby indeed saving him from foreclosure and saving his farm. He and his wife have been Sherrod’s friends since then. Breitbart now says over and over “They made it about her,” as he did on a TV interview. No, HE made it about her, by releasing the misleading video. If he refuses to own up to his mistake, he has then squandered any credibility he may have had. So, I repeat: Andrew, apologize to her and to all of us.

"Even though he clearly explained that it was a partial tape and that he didn't know what was on the rest of it? "

Yep. If he was unable to view the entire source material, and unable to share with his readers the provenance of the tape, he shouldn't have released it.

What's the net effect of this, it has destroyed whatever credibility Brietbart had built for himself, at least in the short-term. Also, whatever comes out later about this woman and how she obtained her job, will be discounted.

The video - doctored or not - shows here clearly using racist terms tht would have been the total demise of any white GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL who might have said those things about blacks.

She and her husband already sued because of "racism", and her subsequent actions and rhetoric plainly shows that "race" is the first and last thing on her mind.

That said, obama is stepping in it with both feet...

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, the vast majority of lamearse, libtard, idiot-ridden, Obama-protecting MSM, etc., etc., etc. OWE the Tea Party an apology for repeatedly making false assertions of racism without providing one iota of realistic evidence..........first. KKthx. =.=

The NCAAP had her speech on tape all the time. They didn't have to depend upon Breitbart. Moreover, the 43 minute tape now on the NAACP site is more damning than the original when Sherrod goes into rant about Obamacare and the racist-based opposition to it.

"You know, I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn't it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush's and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.

Sherrod never should have gotten a job at the USDA in the first place. The job was an extortion payoff that was part of her $13 million race-baiting shakedown of the agency.

She is a race-baiting shakedown artist and her advocates and defenders on FR should take a closer look at this woman before going liberal batcrazy over her.

There was adequate context in Breitbart’s original video* that plain-as-day I understood Sherrod’s epiphany. I found the change in her perception of the man needing her help from “white” farmer to “poor” farmer touching. I even fantasied that maybe there was a Martin Luther King unifier in Ms. Sherrod.

The real racism depicted was in the NAACP crowd reaction to the early parts of her narrative where she remembers mocking and planning to screw Whitey. They affirmed her.

The repetition of the lie that Breitbart and Big Government removed all exculpatory context is driving me nuts. It was there. WAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Leave Andrew alone!!!

*http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/

Yep. If he was unable to view the entire source material, and unable to share with his readers the provenance of the tape, he shouldn't have released it.

Maybe he should have just waited for the white house to release the tape for him. Fortunately he isn't a coward like those who are rushing to throw him overboard.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you love it when Rush or Glenn Beck are taken out of context? If you do, you should be consistent. Otherwise you’re no different than the opposition.

What's the net effect of this, it has destroyed whatever credibility Brietbart had built for himself, at least in the short-term.

Snicker.

>>Whatever the circumstances are (or are not) of her hiring, her firing was unfounded.

Actually, given her “rich vs. poor” class warfare mentality as revealed in this speech, along with the fact that she’s an agent for a Governmental entity I don’t think should even exist with a budget that has been quoted at over $1B, I don’t have a problem with her firing. And that has nothing to do with any racism, or lack thereof, on her part.

I also think we need to know more about this lawsuit settlement with the agency that hired her. That’s clearly an odd thing.

No way. Not now. Not ever. The woman is a racist, viewing the world through brown-tinted glasses. To this day — as she made clear in her self-serving tale — it is still “my people” against “them” honkies. Unless, of course, the honkies are poor women, then her version of God has told her it’s alright to treat them like humans (though, of course, “my people” know that they are not).

Can we call off the cannibalism? Andrew Breitbart did the world a service by exposing the ugly virulent reality known as black racism. Hand the left his scalp, and the rest of our heads will follow next.

Carter L. Clews

It was at least a 43 minute speech--there was an unexplained audio/video gap presumably because the NAACP edited it before releasing it. Breitbart didn't have to provide the context. The clip speaks for itself. He couldn't show the entire 43 minutes even if he had the complete tape. The NAACP condemned her even though they had the tape.

Here is the complete text of the speech. The woman is a racist. She sees everything thru the prism of race.

I would never claim that we are above mistakes. I admit that for a brief moment, I started to feel sorry for her as well. But Breitbart offered the clip as-is, without making any commentary on Sherrod. The blowback she got was from the Obama admin and the NAALCP throwing her under the bus so quick it made your head spin. AB did not call for her head, he was using that tape as a weapon against the NAALCP. Her job was collateral damage.

I would agree that AB should be a bit more careful about this kind of thing in the future. Not because I think he did anything wrong, but because of how we start every game down 3 touchdowns.

Breitbarts point was NOT and NEVER was that there was ONE racist in the NAACP and that Sherrod was the one.

His point was the AUDIENCE REACTION to her story, long before they knew the story was going to come ‘full circle’ to a story of racial reconciliation; they were applauding her not helping someone and instead sending him to “one of his own”.

This was NEVER about Sherrod. It was about the NAACP’s REACTION to her story of racism. They hooted and applauded. It was about outing the NAACP’s racism. The left is again reframing the debate and the right, is again, falling for it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.