Judging Breitbart

I have seen two defenses of Andrew Breitbart for his role in instigating the Sherrod Charade, and both of them fail. One is that Breitbart did provide the proper context in the text accompanying his video excerpt. As commenter George Mason notes on my previous post, Breitbart himself offers this defense.

This fails because, as far as I can tell, it's false. Here is what Breitbart said in his original post:

Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn't do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from "one of his own kind". She refers him to a white lawyer.

This accurately describes the clip he provides. What the text and the clip leave out is essential. Ms. Sherrod did eventually come around to personally aiding the White farmer when she saw that he was not being adequately served by other, presumably White, bureaucrats. He says she saved his farm. It also leaves out the punch line: Ms. Sherrod says that this incident taught her that her job was not about race but about alleviating poverty and misfortune.

The second defense is offered by commenter South Dakotan:

I haven't seen one pundit get this correct. Breitbart's point was the NAACP's reaction to Sherrod's initial racism. His clip showed and his point was that the NAACP crowd ate up the racism - laughing and nodding in agreement as Sherrod said she brought the white farmer to "one of his own kind' and "didn't give him the full force of help" that she could. This was the NAACP crowd's reaction LONG BEFORE her story turned to one of redemption. This is THE story. This is what Breitbart is trying to say. Pundits and readers alike are missing it. Everyone is running around, "acting stupidly" without the facts and assigning blame, including conservatives.

I don't believe Breitbart intentionally deceived anyone. Like Team Obama, we sure seem to easily throw our own under the bus.

This is a possible interpretation of the reaction of the NAACP audience to Ms. Sherrod's tale, but it is clearly the wrong interpretation.

Sherrod's speech follows a script familiar to anyone who has witnessed a tent revival or AA meeting, or any similar gathering of crusaders. Someone stands up and tells her tale. This is where I came from. This was my moment of crisis. This is how I overcame it. The audience knows the script as well as the speaker. At various points they laugh, nod their heads, and murmur agreement. Yeah, been there, done that. This was a moment of communal confession and mutual support. Given the horrific experiences of African Americans during the Civil Rights era, it would be astonishing if Ms. Sherrod's story were not in fact a common story. I am certainly not in a position to judge anyone harshly for this and neither, I dare say, is Mr. Breitbart.

When Ms. Sherrod tells of overcoming her worse instincts and doing the right thing, the audience was with her all the way. So I cannot but conclude that Breitbart's post title, "Video Proof: the NAACP Awards Racism, 2010", was a falsification. This is pernicious mischief when the Left does it, and it is just as pernicious when the Right does it.

I took issue with Powerline (my second favorite blog) in my last post over their defense of Breitbart. I note that Powerline has come around to my view.

Andrew Breitbart shouldn't have posted the video excerpts of Shirley Sherrod's speech with the comment that "the NAACP awards racism." It was a mistake to do so. He was had.

Others including ourselves should not have followed suit. It was a mistake to do so. We extended our apologies to Ms. Sherrod as soon as the unedited video of the speech was made available…

The shafting of Shirley Sherrod came to an end within something like 24 hours. As I see it, she was owed apologies by those from whom she has received them, in addition to one from my friend Andrew, from whom she has not. She has become a celebrity and an advertisement for racial redemption.

Perhaps the only reason I am not now apologizing to Ms. Sherrod is that I was traveling during the first phase of his story.

Comments

[A.I.]

Andrew Breitbart was had? I sincerely doubt it. If he was, he's a total idiot.

As I understand it, he claims to be a journalist. A real journalist would not jump to any conclusions from an edited film of a speech. That would be more the action of an ethically-challenged political hack which is exactly what this yahoo is. And as you point out KB, his weaselly defenses are total fails.

But dear ole' Andy wasn't alone in his deception. The journalistic pros at Fox "News" were more than happy to follow his lead one day and then express their incredulity that others didn't fact check this hoax the next. Rachel Maddow does a great job of showcasing their flexible (Breitbart-weaselly) coverage: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/22/886671/-Late-afternoon-Early-evening-open-thread

Which begs the question, when will Fox apologize for their journalistic malfeasance/political hackery? I suspect Godot will arrive first.

That the administration fell for and acted on this slanderous rubbish without even considering the source is indefensible, stupid and/or indicative of their need for a collective spine transplant. That Breidbart and Fox perpetuated it very well may be criminal. They trashed the reputation of an innocent person with no due diligence given to fact checking their story. Perhaps Sherrod will sue their sorry behinds--and win.

[William]

Fox News did not broadcast the video until the White House fired Ms Sherrod. Are you arguing they should not have aired the video that was the source of the firing?

[duggersd]

First, let us all agree it is wrong to take something out of context in the effort to hurt another person. In looking at Breitbart's post, I cannot say that I saw anything that was untrue, although if one did not pay close attention, it could be misleading. And if I had not been reading the post with the knowledge of what I should be expecting to see, I would say I would have jumped to the same conclusions.
However regardless of all of this, perhaps we can learn a lesson from this. Conservatives have watched themselves be maligned on many occasions by things out of context that have hurt them. The TEA party has been unfairly characterized as having a racist element to it despite being very vocal in distancing themselves from individuals who do have racist leanings. We have been finding out that a bunch of "progressive" liberal "journalists" were part of a list serve that was looking for ways to spin things to help Obama get elected.
At this time both sides can now say they know what it is like to have one of their own attacked unjustly. Perhaps now it would be a good idea to call a truce.

[A.I.]

I am arguing, William, that Fox News picked up Breitbart's bogus story almost immediately after he posted it and ran with it on Fox Nation and Fox News.com. Granted, they did not actually air the story until after the firing which, in part, may have been due to Shepard Smith's refusal to do so. But once they did hit the air with it, they were merciless and reported with gusto until they were forced into an Emily Litella awakening and said "never mind".

It appears Fox did no fact checking of its own ever. In fact, Fox "reporters" were dissing other media outlets for not carrying the story of the racist USDA employee. And why wasn't the story being carried by legitimate news organizations? Maybe because they don't run stories just because they fit a preset, partisan narrative.

[William]

AI,

Legitimate news organizations? Unfortunately, it's difficult to name one these days. Personally, I read a lot of news from a lot of different sources as I feel pretty much all sources are biased to some degree.

[A.I.]

You’re right William, all media organizations exhibit bias. But distinguishing between legitimate and faux news media is not that difficult.

Bias might be top-down, from individual reporters or from a combination of both. In the case of a legit news organization, management does not impose top-down bias on staff and individual reporters check facts before reporting regardless of any personal bias they might have. They may slant the news a bit, but they strive to be factually correct.

With the exception of Shepherd Smith, Fox went to air without fact checking and with bias guns blazing as they covered the Sherrod story. The contributors and personalities were down right giddy as they trashed Sherrod, the NAACP and the Obama Administration. The coverage was bias epitomized and unfettered by any perceived need to check facts.

This is not an isolated incident. Fox bias is top down and shared by their on-air personalities. Many argue the network is an arm of the Republican party. Others say the network simply seeks to make money by catering to conservatives. In either case, it all too often presents purposely biased “reporting” masquerading as news.

[Mark Anderson]

The left doesn't do this at all. Attack Baby, Attack, that's all the conservatives believe in, no morality enters into it at all, except perhaps in South Dakota.

[KB]

A.I.: I have posted on this for the sake of readers who might not know the whole story of Fox's coverage. A few points here: Fox News is biased. It is no more biased that the major news outlets, it is just biased in a way less to your liking.

In 2004 Sixty Minutes 2, working in collusion with the Kerry Campaign, produced a story about George W. based on fraudulent documents. CBS was clearly trying to influence the outcome of the election, and they did so at the expense of their integrity.

In the 2008 election, the MSM as a whole ignored clear evidence that Johnathan Edwards was having an affair (and a love child!). Why did they ignore such a juicy story? Because Edwards might have made it onto the Democratic ticket, and they didn't want to give the Republicans any advantage. For their pains, they got scooped by the National Inquirer. Meanwhile the New York Times ran a story alleging an affair between John McCain and a lobbyist. The story had no basis whatsoever, beyond innuendo.

I would love to see more responsibility on the part of our news agencies, and I agree with you that we ought to criticize any lapse of professional responsibility. While we wait for the better angels of our nature to inspire the journalists, we will have to make do with an adversarial press divided against itself. That sounds properly Madisonian to me.

When Ms. Sherrod was pressured to resign (=she was fired) she was asked by a USDA superior if she wanted to see this story discussed by Glen Beck. It is a good thing, in a Republic, that the executive branch is afraid of the press.

[Ivan]

A.I.,that would be nothing like the New York times running a story on a supposed affair by McCain without any proof at all. There's hundreds of examples from the lame stream media, and you want to attack Fox on this. Hypocrisy thy name is A. little i.

[A.I.]

KB, last time I watched, it was no longer the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather. It seems there were consequences for the report you so often cite as an example of media bias. But last I checked, no one at Fox has been fired for inaccurate, biased reporting.

KB and Ivan, the NY Times neither alleged nor supposed that McCain had an affair. Many read the story involved as an insinuation that he had and affair, but that was never explicitly stated. The point of the story wasn't that he had an affair, but rather that he showed a perhaps unhealthy lack of concern for the appearance of impropriety. In any case, the Times also suffered consequences in the form of an anti-defamation suit and the wrath of thousands of readers who felt the story was slanderous.

KB, neither of us knows why the MSM didn't report on the Edwards affair. Perhaps they were being cautious and making sure they had their facts straight before reporting, something the Inquirer is not noted for. Whatever the case, there is no proof they were trying to protect a Democrat. And why would they? Even if they had a "liberal bias", Edwards was the odd man out in a three-way primary and everyone knew it.

[William]

AI,

It's no longer the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather more so due to the abysmal ratings decline after he destroyed not only his own reputation but that of CBS News which continued to defend the indefensible long after it was obvious that Rather's "big story" was a fraud. A risk one takes at their own peril.

Fox News, Brietbart, et al, issued apologies as their error was discovered. Your "Godot has arrived". (post Jul 23, 2010 10:17:24 AM)

Do you seriously think that referencing Rachel Maddow and the Daily KOS substantiate your arguments?

[A.I.]

You must be better at the Google than I am William. I can find an apology from O'Reilly but not Fox News as an organization or Breitbart. In the case of Breitbart, there only seems to be a story of him refusing to apologize.

[William]

I apologize to you AI, Breitbart did NOT apologize. I thought I heard on the radio coming home from work that he had, but I was mistaken.

[KB]

A.I.: It is true, so far as I know, that no one at Fox has been fired over the Sherrod Affair. Has anyone in the Obama Administration been fired? I mean, apart from Ms. Sherrod?

There is a very good reason why Dan Rather saw his career end in disgrace over the documents scandal. It was a much worse scandal. Documentgate, or whatever we were calling it, began with collusion between the Kerry Campaign, which obtained the fraudulent documents, and Sixty Minutes 2, which ran the story. That is in itself a small scandal. CBS failed to properly authenticate the documents, and after Powerline raised questions, they tried to engineer a cover-up. It was weeks before they admitted that they couldn't verify their story.

By contrast, Ms. Sherrod's persecution lasted about twenty four hours. After that, all the guilty parties except Breitbart had backtracked and apologized.

As for the New York Times story on McCain, no they didn't explicitly accuse McCain of having an affair. Instead they ran a 'nod, nod, wink, wink,' story that had absolutely no substance. The Times was in fact subject to a great deal of embarrassment over that story, and properly so.

As for the Edwards scandal, was he at least guilty of the "appearance of impropriety"? Somehow that didn't merit so much as an inquiry, in Edward's case. Edwards might well have ended up on the ticket again, at least as a running mate. Let's be honest: if Fox News had ignored a similar scandal on the part of a Republican candidate, what would you think? The same thing I am thinking.

The comparison of the Times' hit piece on McCain with the silence about Edwards is about as clear a case of bias as one can find. The MSM is pretty good, as national press systems go. It is not dependable. That's why we need Fox News and, God help us, Breitbart.