A bit, yes. I’d like to make sure nobody goes over the line here.
She did help him, but she didn’t (at first) do everything she could. It wasn’t just because he was white, actually. She was conflicted about helping a white farmer but she also felt he was trying to show he was better than she was.
No.
He used a short excerpt of a long speech and presented the story completely out of context. She was telling a story about seeing what this farmer dealt with in the mid-'80s made her realize poverty is a bigger issue than race; the video made it sound like she was admitting to discriminating against white people in her current job. Nobody knows if Breitbart edited the video himself. He says he didn’t.
For some reason I posted the wrong quote after this. But for the record, the “Failure to investigate does not in itself establish bad faith” comment is from the St. Amant v. Thompson case, not New York Times v. Sullivan. The rest of that part of the post does come from the Sullivan case.
It doesn’t help that all the media including the so called liberal media are speaking of the WHO being duped and overreacting and discussing how competent they are to lead if they were this reactionary.
It seems to be the reaction of one official who probably did not consult the WH before reacting. Why is Obama getting blamed almost as if he personally decided to let her go? Isn’t that also a misrepresentation of the facts?
The video clearly shows how she came to toss off her bias and realized that her job was to fight for all people getting creamed by banks, regardless of color. It was about her growth, not her bigotry. All it required was listening to the whole tape, which I am sure Brietbart did. He edited it to sucker people into believing it was something else.
Who looks bad? Brietbart ,followed by Magiver.
I made a clear point regarding her choice of words. You are free to discuss the point without being a jerk about it. I wasn’t the person who fired her. I never promoted the idea of firing her. I didn’t support the video in any way.
I think she needs counseling and a review of her past dealings with the public. You’ll note that she was not offered her old job back. Did you ever ask yourself why?
“Internal review”? By whom? Shirley it cannot continue to escape your notice that she was not working for the Federal Gov when the incident in question occured. You do know that, right? Are you demanding that the non-profit she worked for review everything she put a hand to from twenty odd years ago? To what end, may one ask?
The WH looks foolish? Have you any reliable testimony or evidence that shows that the WH was involved in this decision in any way before the fact of her dismissal?
You are ok on the Breitbart thing, though. Clearly, he did not give due diligence in this matter, and his sterling reputation for integrity is besmirched.
(The previous sentence is sarcasm. If your detector does not register at least 700 millihicks, recalibration is recommended. If you believe that Mr Breitbart actually has any integrity, however, the excercise would be pointless.)
The captions that precede the video are, to put it mildly, misleading. Were the captions a part of the video that unfortunately trusting Mr. Breitbart received, and so innocently passed along?