I am unaware of O’Reilly’s position on the issue, since as far as I can tell it has not been discussed in this thread.
I think this is about the only silver lining here.
I will be shocked if Breitbart will ever be able to pull off something like this again. Absolutely everyone, right and left and in-between, will scrutinize everything he puts forward from here-on-out with an electron microscope before acting on it. Yeah, they should have on this too but this should seal it for any future videos he sends out.
Hopefully that will put an end to him. He may have had some credibility with the right before this…think that is shot now.
He’ll probably thrash and flail for attention but hopefully should fade away into the obscurity he richly deserves.
We’re getting close to the hair-splitting level, but she admits she did something wrong: she found it difficult to help the man because he was white, and at first she only did what was required when she could have done more. That’s the point of the story.
In the end, fortunately for all concerned, she realized the lawyer almost screwed the guy out of his farm, and because she got re-engaged in the case, she was able to help. So there was no lasting consequence to what she did and she learned a lesson. We don’t need to go to the other extreme and say she didn’t do anything wrong at all. But it’s something that didn’t harm anyone in the end and it’s something she learned from. There’s no cause to villify her over this.
You’re joking, right?
You’re so much less cynical than I am.
Instead, I expect him to be praised, maybe not as much publicly as privately, and heralded as someone who gets things done.
I’m ashamed of the way the USDA and the White House handled this. I’m not holding my breath for conservatives to be ashamed of Breitbart. They might pooh-pooh it, but then they’ll change the subject and the next time? OMIGOD DID YOU SEE THAT VIDEO THAT PROVES THAT OBAMA EATS BABIES, Y’ALL?
Of course not. It’ll be just like the time Beck went a bit too far and lost his job, or that time Limbaugh compared the President’s daughter to an animal and got kicked off the air the next day. The far-right are people of strong morals, and won’t tolerate that kind of bullshit, even if it supports their position.
It was my understanding that she still did the minimum her position required and didn’t go the extra mile. I would say that isn’t actually doing something wrong. It’s not commendable, but it would meet the minimums expected from her.
That said, I haven’t read about this in detail, I was going by what I had heard on the news.
No, not really. I do not expect Beck and Limbaugh and such to change their rhetoric but I bet even they (or rather their staff) will look more closely at anything Breitbart tosses out in the future. Even Beck and Limbaugh do not want to get caught out if they can help it.
As for Breitbart getting hammered for this:
From here: http://www.breitbart.tv/sherrod-racism-invented-by-elites-to-keep-the-poor-down/
These are from after it has come out that Breitbart lied. The far right has no intention of living in the real world.
To the degree this incident is remembered at all, it probably hurts the White House more than it does Breitbart or anybody else. The White House looks dumb, which its supporters may or may not forgive. Breitbart lied, but do you think his viewers care? He told them what they already know. It doesn’t matter that he was wrong. In that kind of situation it’s very hard to dislodge the lie because the people who accept it don’t care if the particular instance is wrong. They already believed the Obama administration is discriminating against them. (Nevermind that Shirley Sherrod wasn’t a member of the administration by any stretch of the imagination; she was the director of rural development for the USDA). They also believed ACORN was an instrument of that discrimination, and they believed the Obamas personally hate white people. If you did a survey, how many people do you think still believe the Michelle Obama “whitey” video really existed?
It’s been funny, and more than a little sad, watching this play out on the right-tighty forums.
Day before yesterday: “OMG, the NAALCP (the “L” is for “Liberal”, donchaknow) is a racist organization! Disgusting! And Obama is racist, because he supports that racist organization!”
Yesterday: “OMG! Obama threw the NAALCP under the bus!”
Today: “OMG! Obama acted without all of the facts! Obama took it out on an innocent employee! Disgusting!”
The Obama Admin by a country mile. When a known liar and a biased news network do what you would expect them to do, I expect people of conscience and responsibility to act conscientiously and responsibly, not like little children scared of their own shadow. The Obama Administration has come off as weak, reactionary and easily duped. While Fox and Breitbart have a general moral responsibility to tell the truth, they are what they are, but the Administration has a greater responsibility.
Add to that the disappointment and it is just unfathomable to me why she hasn’t been reinstated (although she would likely tell them to stuff it up their ass).
On MSNBC, Breitbart claims that he got the video pre-edited. Note that I said ‘claims’.
Are you serious?!? Limbaugh and Beck are living proof that it doesn’t matter if you get “caught out.”
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I was thinking. I have no expectations of Breitbart to be anything but a partisan shill. He’s known for being that, so the reaction of the Obama administration really looks pathetic. And while we all talk about the buck stopping with Obama, I doubt he even knew about this until after the fact. Whoever did the actual firing should be kicked out and replaced with someone more even keeled.
I believe she’s now on record saying she probably wouldn’t go back. I don’t blame her. And I smell a lawsuit. Is there a Gloria Alread in the house?
I don’t see any evidence from past incidents that they care if they get “caught out.” Their audiences don’t care, so why would they? Indeed, they just spin things into those liberals making too big a deal of things, or where there’s smoke there’s fire, or persecution at the hands of liberals, or I was just joking anyway I’m just an entertainer, or see how great we are we have so much impact they are running scared, or they didn’t even understand what I was saying, or I never said that in the first place, or of course I was right the whole time, or this is just a symptom of the larger disease!
And their audience says, “Right, Rush! You keep fighting the good fight, Rush!”
It’s neither here nor there. If he edited the video himself, he flagrantly misrepresented her comments. If he received the video in its current state, he still made definitive statements about the content and Sherrod without bothering to find out the truth. From an ethical standpoint I’d say they’re equivalent, and from a legal standpoint (I’m not saying he is going to get sued), they really are equivalent. If you are a public figure suing for libel, you have to prove that your reputation was harmed, and that the publisher either knew the material was false, or did not care whether it was true or false. Breitbart meets that standard either way as far as I’m concerned.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but even in the edited version, it’s clear she was talking about something that happened years ago, before she held her current job. No?
This much is true. As with essentially any incident, the only real winners will be the lawyers.