At Politico, Context and Facts Are Negotiable
by Mike FlynnToday’s lead story at Politico is one of the finer examples you will find of ideological ax-grinding dressed up as straight-news reporting. The piece, by Ken Vogel and Keach Hagey, uses just about every journalistic trick in the book, assembling a selection of quotes and points to establish a narrative that was set in the authors’ minds long before they sat down at their keyboards. But the piece does so much more too; it flirts with some blurry ethical lines as well. Shouldn’t, for example, a Politico article about Journolist have perhaps mentioned or disclosed that at least some reporters for Politico were, you know, members of Journolist? Perhaps Politico has an incentive to downplay the impact of the listserve? (And, Mr. Vogel, did Andrew Breitbart really not respond to Politico?)
I will leave it to my colleagues at Big Journalism to give the proper attention this article is due. However, in building their ideological case, the authors point to certain “facts” about stories that first appeared here, which necessitates a few words here.
In discussing the recent Shirley Sherrod imbroglio, the authors write that Breitbart,
did not quite own up to the seriousness of the error he committed – posting a video misleadingly edited to make it appear that a black Agriculture Department named Shirley Sherrod was boasting of discriminating against a white farmer.
We did not edit, much less misleadingly edit, any of Ms. Sherrod’s remarks. We posted two excerpts from her speech, representing the sum total of the video we had. We didn’t cut anything out of her speech. Is any news organization in the future who only posts excerpts from a speech vulnerable to the charge that it “misleadingly edited” it?
At the very end of one of the video excerpt’s, Ms. Sherrod begins to explain how she later realized her initial discrimination of the white farmer was wrong. In Andrew’s article about the speech he noted
Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.
If we were trying to show that Ms. Sherrod was “boasting” of discrimination and were prone to editing the tape as evidence, wouldn’t we have cut that part out? Wouldn’t we have neglected to mention that she eventually did the right thing? But, the media’s focus on Ms. Sherrod is really an attempt to misdirect attention from the NAACP, who was the real focus of the article and the video excerpts.
As Andrew’s article noted:
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.
We all now know that Ms. Sherrod’s anecdote was part of a larger point about the need to move beyond racial prejudices. But, the NAACP audience did not know that as they heard the speech. As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. By itself, that made the video excerpt newsworthy.
Indeed, the NAACP, who was in possession of the full video for months, even noted in its initial statement condemning Ms. Sherrod:
The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.
This was always the story and it is clearly an uncomfortable one for the NAACP and, obviously, the authors of the Politico article. The media would rather focus on Ms. Sherrod or Andrew Breitbart than report that leaders of a state chapter of the NAACP approved of racial discrimination.
But, the authors aren’t finished there. To further underscore their point, they return to that old lefty cliche from last year; that what you saw with your own eyes on the ACORN tapes didn’t really happen. The authors make this outright statement:
The ACORN videos were later revealed to have been misleadingly edited…
Not alleged, mind you, but “revealed,” as if the Oracle of Delphi issued a formal proclamation. And, who exactly “revealed” this “fact:” oh, yes, Democrat Attorney General Jerry Brown. Brown is a long-time ally of ACORN and is running for Governor again this year. As ACORN had traditionally been an important part of Democrat candidate’s election efforts, he might have had an incentive to find that the ACORN videos were “misleadingly edited.” In fact, at the beginning of Brown’s investigation, a local ACORN spokesman told a meeting of local democrats that he had spoken to Brown’s office and was assured:
the fault WILL be found with the people that did the video — not ACORN.
That certainly adds some interesting context to Brown’s “finding.” Of course, Brown may objectively believe the ACORN videos were “misleadingly edited.” But he isn’t a disinterested observer. Politico should have noted that, even if it would have weakened their intended point. So too, they should have noted that, from the very beginning, the full audio recording and transcript of the entire ACORN interviews were available here. I have heard many on the left say ad nauseum that the ACORN videos were “heavily edited”, but I have yet to see one concrete example of how this alleged editing altered the substance of what the videos revealed.
At the very beginning of Andrew’s article on racism at the NAACP, he noted that “context is everything.” To the authors of the Politico article, context is negotiable; simply another weapon in a reporter’s ideological tool-kit.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
116 Comments
Deflection, misdirection and projection.
It's the only game in the "journolist's" little world of socialistas, Politico owes Breitbart an apology and boatloads of humility to avoid being sued blind for libel.
Politico should get the same reciprocal respect from us as Fox News gets from the left.
Sorry AB but the audience "reaction" wasn't even a PC reaction let alone an indication of racism, suck it up and move on IMO…..
After listening to the whole speech and getting the complete context, the audience "reaction" was not racist at all, just a typical American reaction to a lady telling a story about a life changing event in a lite hearted jovial manor.
The audience reaction was mild even without the full context and within the full context the supposed reaction is not news worthy. The audience should have easily picked up the direction she was heading and the audience should have already known that she was setting up a turning point her life and her world view.
You've completely missed the point. With the racially-charged language she was using to tell the story, people should have been walking out, not nodding approvals !!!!
Mike, what used to be the first rule of Journalism? John Adams said “Facts are stubborn things.” Facts properly placed in context with objective writing used to be the norm. Now it is obfuscated truth with agenda driven writing and it is responsible for much of the nation’s ills. The few journalists found here with AB and the likes of your self are now exceptions to the rule.
The progressive media outlets posing as journalists are nothing more than party shills. Who reads or listens to the media magicians anymore; the hard progressive left looking for more talking points and pseudo journalist apparatchiks writing for each other. The majority of Americans have awakened and search for facts. The minority of Americans will enjoy the Soros and Huffpo tabloid tripe but in the end remain the useful idiots.
Mike Flynn — thank you for spelling this out for the liberal idiots out there who continue to make this about the firing and the evil conservative media. The fact NAACP members weren't shocked at the language being used is indeed disturbing.
As AB has said from the very beginning, "this is not about Shirley Sherrod, it's about the willingness of the Administration and the NAACP to sacrifice a scapegoat, so as not to appear racist"…
But we all know they are…
Right on Andrew, keep up the good work of exposing the blatant hypocrisy of the left. My favorite quote from “Journalist” as it pertains to the conversation taking place:
“Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Read this and remember as we engage these statist in a war for our great country, “racism” is an Alinsky tool too suppress debate. Note: Rep. Boehner Minority Leader, and like a trained seal, has now criticized Breitbart for releasing an edited video leading to the firing of Mrs. Sherrod, no mention of the White House or the NAALCP, disgusting…fire’em all!
Lies, Damn Lies, and Liberal Lies.
Why would anyone be shocked, there were no racial slurs used in her speech. Look just answer this question. If a person comes into your house wanting a meal, but goes out of their way to make it know that they are better than you, are you gonna give that person the full amount of your charity or are you gonna hold back a little because you feel they tried to belittle you? I believe that most people will hold back just a little. The issue was not race nor was it the have vs. the have nots. It was pride the farmer had too much pride to ask for help from someone he felt was beneath him, and Ms Sherrod had too much pride to understand people have those views and it should have not swayed her effort in helping them to the fullest.
ABC nightline last night did the same thing,used the words heavily edited to describe the videos used here,looks like BIG GOVERNMENT struck the main nerve because all out war has broken out against Andrew,to bad the only people listening live in a progressive bubble,my wife,who knows very little about whats going on watched the Nightline hit piece and made the comment that Andrew needs to watch his back now,my comment was NO HE DOES'NT,the progressives need to watch there backside now,the table has turned and those liberals who thought they ran something are finding out they run nothing but their mouths and the tactics they used are now getting used on them,and they don't like it.HEHEHE
Was it only me??? I really did not hear the apology, she did say that she realized that it was a poor person (aka as Marxist rhetoric as a cover for personal motive) and that charted her course in aiding the farmer. Yet, even in the whole context of the speech, did she say that her first reaction, reluctant to help the farmer because of his race, was wrong?? No she did not. The tail end of her speech basically sounds like she doubted her decision. The administration, with Ms. Sharrod's and MSM compliance, are spinning this around like crazy to indict Mr. Breitbart and the Tea Party Movement. Now if Ms. Sharrod was white, would there have been a chance to explain the context. Ask Don Imus, "Kramer", Jimmy the Greek, or any White Person who walks in fear of calling a black racist a racist. Sorry, but we are falling for the same ol canard, shut up or be tarred a racist whether you are or not.
"Facts . . . Such pesky little things . . . Good Lord . . . if we had to start basing our opinions on facts . . . we . . . we would have to tell the truth! No way am I ever going to do that!" – Ezra Klien (parody)
Folks this is just so much tripe.
This situation has been put upon us by people who stole the government and are now SCARED.
They thought that the furor of what is being done would die down. However they are finding it impossible to enact their agenda as America awakens.
This Nov. may be our last chance to save ourselves. And then the really hard work starts
Exactly, well put. Now if she was calling white people the racial slur reserved for them then we would have a serious problem.
You betcha! We are going to kick us some commie ass at the ballot box!
The language is not the point that AB is hanging his hat on, he hung it on the audience reaction and that was typical American…as for the language, it may not have been PC but it wasn't racist.
She does use white and the term of "haves" and White interchangeably–probably racist if you are looking for racism, but it is also a fact that the vast majority of the corporate welfare recipients are white owned big agribusinesses, that is just a fact. Whether she sees that fact as racism isn't clear at all but they are white, I can deal with the truth.
I have been in many conversations with the majority being white people, where the topic was individual welfare recipients and in those settings it is often treated as common knowledge that the majority of welfare recipients are black–I doubt that is true and even if it is the percentages would not come close to the percentages of the whites in the corporate welfare state—which I would guess is in the very high 90% range.
(Government Lobbying is the "haves" feeding at the trough, it is a big businesses all by itself, likely rivals the biggest businesses in the world if it isn't already the biggest)—call them The Man, call Them The White Man or call them undeserving corrupt thugs, I don't really care…they are for the most part WHITE too!
I would disregard anything coming out of POLITICO, and every other such left-wing leaning blog. They are race pimps and a bunch of cowardly jerks. Here is just one of the reasons why (there is much more coming on its way). Please read: http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2010/07/21/...
This is completely off topic, but I hope you can take a minute to watch:
A Brits view of the ground zero mosque: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-...
talk about hypocrisy!!!!!! you guys are going to burn in hell for your constant lying.
Dang, all this time I thought POLITICO was writing political satire. They consider themselves reporters? Now how am I going to start my morning with a good chuckle.
What we are witnessing here, actually we're even in the middle of as commenters here on the Big's
is the MEDIA WARS, as the old tired pathetic Fourth Estate writhes in her death throws. Every so often
she flails about completely out of control but still able to knock anyone who has begun rising to the top
off their newly acquired position. As we continue on our way happily consuming and sharing the news,
we will occasionally need to pause in our march forward to fight a battle like this.
FIGHT ON PATRIOTS !
the only POS that will indeed by sued for libel is brightfart!!!!! i hope the idiot is pennyless afterwards. what scum!!!!
What an ass
Let's see. A person goes in a crowded theater and yells, "Fire". The crowd stampedes and persons get hurt. Now the individual who yelled "Fire" wants to blame the crowd for believing him. I have a feeling you better save it for the jury.
It is very entertaining to see the progressive bastards defending their own prejudice and deeply dividing racism. Rays scurrying for high ground.
Keep pouring the Alinsky tactics back on these a-holes. They will always be exposed as the frauds and despots they really are.
No racial slurs? How about "one of their own kind" ? I find that incredibly offensive, and I would find it incredibly offensive uttered by anyone of any color referring to someone else.
Tell me you think the NAACP would leave that alone had a white guy said that about a black farmer…
You first!
So "one of their own kind" wasn't racist enough for you?
Please present the libel that was done by Breitbart.
Utter nonsense. Immagine if this were a white government official making similar statements about a poor black person coming to her for help: "his own kind," "it's about black and white," "I didn't do everything I could for him [because he's black]." And then immagine the white audience laughing it up and nodding their heads in approval of this white woman racially discriminating against a poor black man. Think that would be newsworthy? Think about it.
While I agree with the general content of your post, I would question your statement that they are ………"However they are finding it impossible to enact their agenda as America awakens." I don't know what would draw you to this conclusion.
Every day of this world, the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled Congress are passing their agenda like a steamroller. Yes, there is a lot of opposition to what is going on, but so far for the most part to no avail.
Lest we lose sight of the mission in front of us, let's not post false assessments of our status in this WAR for our country. We have not lost the WAR but day by day we are losing battle after battle.
It will only play out in future years as to whether our taking back control of the reigns of government can undo the immense harm that is being done daily to our American way of life and our futures.
Yeah, because if you say "you people" and you are white, you are a racist.
Sorebird, I so enjoy your rationalizing and then using, the unfortunate, debating technique of making up numbers. The next time you would like to engage in a logical discussion of a subject I suggest that you either bring concrete numbers that can be verified or leave the "made up" numbers out of your conversation.
If you do not understand the point I am trying to make I will give you two examples:
1. When someone says "I doubt that is true and even if it is….", this means that they have no clue. Go do some research and come back
2. When someone compares two numbers (that they have no clue even what the numbers are) they should go do some research and come back. For instance when they say "I would guess is in the very high 90% range". You said yourself this is a guess, which makes your argument an automatic loser.
Thanks, Try Again.
The problem with your question is that Ms. Sherrod was not in the business of giving charity. She was tasked with a job. And with all jobs that deal with the public, you're going to run into assholes. If you're a professional then you suck it up, ignore the asshole comments and do your damn job.
If you're not a professional or if you abuse what power you have in your job that you're being paid to do, then you pull something like what Ms. Sherrod did. It looks like she saw the err of her ways, but she was totally unprofessional and in a racist way in her initial dealings with the white farmer.
What Breitbart was pointing out was the complete lack of outrage at the revealation that Ms. Sherrod shirked her responsibility to help this person because of race. It's great that she learned from this experience, but that's not the point. The point is that the NAACP members there approved of the racist behavior, thereby destroying their credibility when they accuse the Tea Party of racism.
As to your question, that depends: if I was running a food pantry and it was my job to help, I'd help, no matter what I thought of the arrogant SOB with his/her hand out. If it was my own house, they'd be flying out the door with my boot up their rear-end.
racism is profitable to the naacp, cant deny that, and racism can be magically created as the naacp knows…they say the tea party is racist and voila it is
"Shouldn’t, for example, a Politico article about Journolist have perhaps mentioned or disclosed that at least some reporters for Politico were, you know, members of Journolist? "
That would mean ANYONE at Politico has a shred of decency.
And you will find the nice smoking jacket with the ties in the back uncomfortable after a time. If you promise not to hurt yourself they might take it off and just let you sit in your own cell.
And she was laughing about what she had done. Doesn't sound like she REALLY had a change of heart.
There is a cure for your self hatred. Get a shrink!!
It's funny how the denizens of the Abortion Party only believe in Hell and damnation when they wish it upon Republicans.
Actually, I think he's blaming idiots like you for thinking he yelled "Fire" when he clearly didn't.
The post isn't about numbers is is about observation verses realities….If the debater is using common knowledge the numbers don't matter.
The reality is that a significant percentage of corporate welfare companies are in fact white, do you really need a number to understand that as being a fact?….no research is needed, hell the whole system was set up by, The Man– wallstreet, corporations and politicians —you pick an exact percentage 70-80-90-99.—the vast majority of the race of the "haves" is white in that system
The number of white people that think the majority of individual welfare recipients are black is high, that is a fact of common knowledge that may not be true, common knowledge facts are often not true but since they are believed to be facts they still carry just as much weight in reality.
Some of my posts were deleted, and they were supportive of AB. But a software issue isn't as exciting as a conspiracy theory.
First of all if you want to DISCUSS anything with me than get off your "holier than thou attitude" and we will talk.
Second – there are countless edited tapes floating around on the Tea Party. TRYING to show that people had a gun, but when the WHOLE tape was shown it was a cop. I can go on with all the lies this administration and the radical left have been trying to catch the Tea Party doing, but there's no proof of anything. So stick with FACTS!
My point is, did we ever get an apology for the edited tapes shown against us? NO! Do I care? Not really, but it seems hypocritical that the ONLY ones who get any fake apology these days are the left winged racists.
Were you on this site during the Black Panther tapes? Were you on here during any of our discussions when obama wrongly accused us as being terrorists? Why you here now?
I hardly feel you trolls are in any position AT ALL to play…I'm better than you are. 2 wrongs don't make a right, and while you act like you are so sympathetic toward sharrod, be careful….because the webs they're weaving on the hill is only the beginning.
The NAACP had the full tape, BOTTOM LINE!! Truth hurts….deal with it!
Next….who have I attacked? Your post is so twisted I don't think YOU understand a word you wrote.
Oh…one last thing, we DO stand for truth, that's why Glenn deserves an apology from sharrod and those who wrongly accused him, when he supported her. If you don't agree, you are the hypocrite. Now be gone, before someone makes a tape of you too.
It is amazing how the same words are used across the board in the "Lamestream Media" and the claims that Journolist was shut down. They not only lie, they are lazy.
Again, you didn't read the article that accompanied it. You again missed the point – that the NAACP members laughed at her recollection of racism. You also missed the fact that when the whole video was shown it is even more damaging to Sharrod. Finally, the point must be made that Breitbart didn't edit the video – that was how it was received. I have to wonder who shot the video, edited it, and sent it to Breitbart. I hardly think that a conservative would have been allowed into said meeting.
Rush Limbaugh is probably laughing hysterically right now. The left has been using "heavily edited" clips of his show, taken out of context, to portray him as a racist for years. Even when the clips are debunked and Rush is vindicated, the left-wing media keeps repeating them as if they are fact. Now that it's been done to one of them, it's a suddenly bad thing.
Such as when he talked about the "Magic Negro" that appeared in the LA Times, Rush was labeled a racist and accused of coining "Magic Negro" when in fact, it was a liberal paper that titled him that.
So "one of their own kind" wasn't racist enough for you?
She was reflecting back 24 years ago, the context matters.
Is'nt it curious that what those e-mails revealed is in full swing today ALL of the MSM is parrotting the race issue,those trying to diminish the Journolist as just one mans opinion are not being honest,I can't wait to see more of those e-mails and how they played out in the communist press.
I don't think calling—big agribusiness lobbyist that get the vast majority of government handouts– the White Man is racist, it isn't politically correct but it isn't racist…the majority of those agrithugs feeding at the big government trough are white–what about that fact should bother anyone?
There is a big difference between out right racism and being politically correct, I am white and I thought it was funny and I think she meant for it to be lite hearted and palyfull.
Her comments reveal she HAD NOT CHANGED her racial biases.
You're not a surebird, you're a sore loser. You can't continue to lie and actually influence people. The truth is out there and you're still trying to pretend the elephant in the room is not in the room. No matter how you try to stare through it, you can't.
the original post is back FWIW
the software likely stopped me from 20 more dings to my reputation LOL
Exactly! She could easily had changed her language. Had she been telling the tale of her "conversion" in front of an audience that was not predominantly (wholly?) black she would have done so.
So yes, I still think she's a racist, certainly as much as the NAACP thinks Tea Party members are.
And THAT is conundrum here. It's not about Ms. Sherrod; it's about the NAACP.
No, what you heard was a person who was narrowly focused on race struggle to fit that racism into a wider context of poverty. That's all you heard. Sherrod never gave up the "black vs white", but realized that if you focused solely on that, you ended up doing stuff that could come back and bit you. Oh, wait, it did. Instead, she adopted the class warfare meme, and crammed it into and around her racial meme.
No, Breitbart raised the curtain so that the audience saw Sherrod and the NAALCP attempting to set a fire, and then you come along accusing AB for the reaction Sherrod, the NAALCP and even Obama had when naked wrongdoing was revealed.
It is a problem with Intense Debate, the word press software plugin that is at fault, he can't fix anything until the plugin is repaired or reinitialized. Many websites using this comment platform are having trouble with this issue today and have been for about a week or so.
Are you saying that the Spooners are agrithugs? Because that's who she was talking about. I didn't here that the Spooners were some big agricultural company, but rather poor white farmers looking for help. So I'm not sure WTF you are talking about?
Again you missed the point – the words she was using, if said about blacks by a white person would be deemed racist. That's just an fact. So why is it when she's using it to discuss a white farmer, it's just being light hearted and playful?
Husker loses big time on that one.
"Shame that BG is turning into the huffpo and deleting post….here i will re-post my reply, "
Nice work.
This paranoid accusation was as accurate as your initial reply.
In the complete video she said Olinsky had already funded 80M dollars, that is big business not Spooners….and that is the real story, that and the story that AB was going for in the first place but got sloppy and used a poor choice of an out of context video to make his point…. "Democratic Party and social-justice politics, supports a new America that relies less on individualism, entrepreneurialism and American grit, but instead giddily embraces, the un-American notion of unaccountability and government dependence."
And, again she was talking about an incident from 24Years ago….in the original video…
http:/ /http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/
Oh, I love this "Attacking is all you have it seems." Are you another disciple of “Rules for Radicals” and Mr. Alinsky? Really, you progressives should start coming up with some new stuff. We have read it and understand it better than you. The rules won’t work anymore. I know it will be hard for the mental degenerates of the left but start exercising the grey matter if you want to keep up. Run along numb nuts and stop basking in your ignorance.
Oh look another progressive providing us with an actual visual of constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the keyboard. I am so glad to have witnessed it first hand. Now I have proof that it does exist. Thank you so much.
Geezer, just wanted to point out that attacking me is an Alinsky tactic…if you want to be involved in a discussion with me and propping up the use of the video then use facts to do it. Or I can give you a link to Huffpo were that is the norm.
Relax the NAACP will supply plenty of legitimate opportunities to show their true colors…..was that racist or just politically incorrect?
I understand what you are saying – it would appear that they should have understood where she was going, but then why the chuckling and clapping during the part when she was saying the comments about "his own" and how she didn't want to help him?
At best, I can say that this may not have been THE best example of racism, but it doesn't mean that Breitbart was at fault for Sherrod's firing either. He was trying to make a point about the hypocrisy of the NAACP.
Sounds to me like it was a big old pooch screw.
You are a hypocrite to hate bigots. How can a bigot hate another bigot? You're of the same cloth. Can you spell spot?
Welcome. Pull up a chair and stick around.
No Sorebird I have to strenuously disagree with your reasoning. The "common knowledge" that you are refferring to is something that YOU think is common knowledge. I, on the other hand, want to have assertions backed up with checkable facts. Who are these "corporate welfare companies" that you are using as "common knowledge"? Personally, I do not know what you are talking about. Should I assume/guess? OK, I'll play YOUR game. I'll name some "corporate welfare" companies and YOU tell me the "color". 1) ACORN, 2) NAACP, 3) Jessie Jackson, 4) Al Sharpton.
In my world YOU do not get to "pick" the percentage. That number is researched, verified and agreed upon!!
I will make a wager with you. I get to pick the area of the country, and you get to ask them who they "think" receives the most welfare. I wager that we will get different responses in different areas.
The numbers ALWAYS matter, to someone who wants a reasoned response.
Next!!!
–Today’s lead story at Politico is one of the finer examples you will find of ideological ax-grinding dressed up as straight-news reporting. The piece, by Ken Vogel and Keach Hagey, uses just about every journalistic trick in the book, assembling a selection of quotes and points to establish a narrative that was set in the authors’ minds long before they sat down at their keyboards.–
This really takes the cake…
Substitute "Politico" with "BigGovernment.com" and "Ken Vogel and Keach Hagey" with Andrew Breitbart…
Pot, kettle, black….c'mon! LOL!
Maybe if you keep screaming that loudly enough, someone other than the mindless combox drones here will believe you…as it is, no one does, and the longer you push this, the greater harm you do to your own "side".
Absolutely agreed on the audience reaction. That's why I said this changes nothing of the original post.
To me the video showed an audience barely paying attention except for the parts that could be superficially judged in isolation as racist (and a few other bits of pablum), to which positive affirmations became obvious. At 24:00 she even jumps to a bizarre, brief non-sequitur. She launches from a fairly calm, even tempered and non-racist theme into how the health care debate is due to racism, and from there to how Republicans are now full of hate because we have a black President. It was truly bizarre. It felt to me that she thought she was losing her racist audience so tossed some red meat.
It wasn't the best example of racism from her, certainly. Since this came out she's started to show her true colors, ranting about Fox and BG wanting to keep black people from looking whites directly in the eye. Crazy. But I think it did exactly what Breitbart wanted, and did it well. He released just enough while laying out his case, then watched the insanity. It was very similar to his ACORN release. The next day was when he put out her comment about the racist GOP. It was genius, actually.
It was a big pooch screw, but not for BG. The media, including FNC (except for Beck), did not read and therefore accurately report the original piece here. The Liberal media went outright wild and into full Alinsky/cover mode. The NAACP mysteriously grossly overreacted despite having the original video in full. The Obama admin grossly overreacted (mysteriously, given their unrepentant open racism at DoJ).
With the exception of the infuriating sloppiness and stream of lies from other outlets, this has been illuminating and fantastic.
My only quibble, and it was a small one, is technically she did give any audience members paying attention some indication of the moral of that story.
—Who are these "corporate welfare companies" that you are using as "common knowledge"? Personally, I do not know what you are talking about.—
This is an example of USGA corporate welfare and what it does to small farmers.
The Cato institute on ethanol and sugar subsidies to Archer Daniels Midland:
A Case Study In Corporate Welfare
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
As for the rest, I am not going to go back through your post to see if your post use the same high standards that you think mine should.
Only 4388 parroting articles, my my, the department of Propaganda must be having a slow day. ;0)
I have to admit that was really stupid of me to post and even to think!!
Not nearly as well though out as my original reply.
I know. It's usually around the 9000 mark!
What I remember is that the point he was trying to make with that quote was this – that Sherrod said that more blacks should try to get hired by the Agriculture Dept. because it's hard to get fired from the federal government, NOT that big business and so-called agrithugs were the problem.
Remember, Breitbart was going off the two individual clips that he had. His first point was the racism of the NAACP based on the reaction of the audience to Sherrod's story. His second – and he said his even MORE important point – was the size of the gov't and how the bigger it got the more unaccountable bureaucrats we have that kind be fired.
Still not understanding what you are saying.
And I know it was from 24 years ago. The time to me doesn't matter in the context of what Breitbart was trying to get at – the reaction of the audience to the story that involved racism.
The fact that it was 24 years ago only goes to why she was fired – it was obvious that the agrisec and WH didn't bother to check into it any further. They thought it would wind up on Beck and they wanted to be quick to respond and they did so without thinking. They are ultimately at fault, not Breitbart. He has been clear about what he was trying to do. And he never painted HER in a false light as her words speak for themselves and he had acknowledged that it appeared that she had repented of the racism.
Again fault is 100% on the WH and the AgriSec, IMHO.
Missy8s, I would like to talk with you. can you stop by 21stcenturyteaparty.wordpress.com and leave a cooment with your email address. No one else we see the comment becuase I will not approve it. Talk to you soon.
Steve
Nevermind that at that time, she freely admits to discimination based on race. Yes, a person can change, but that person can never undo the effects of their discrimination. Do you think that the people harmed by the results of Robert Byrd's KKK activities (recruiting and building the organization) had the damage done to them undone by Byrd's change of heart?
As to whether or not they should have fired her so quickly, I don't think so, but the point was not to do a hit on Shirley Sherrod, the point was the type of racial rhetoric that is considered acceptable by the NAACP. For an organization that claims to fight racial prejudice, they sure did approve of a lot of it in her speech.
Sorry, but as someone whose cousins still farm a small family operation and are white, I think you are making some assumptions about white farmers that are simply untrue.
And how do we know that he was actually trying to portray himself as "better than her"? We are only hearing her side of the story. I'm not saying she lied; if she had as much of a racial chip on her shoulder then as she claimed, he may very well have seemed that way to her due to her perceptions and not due to much of anything done on his part.
Exactly. Who cares about a minor Ag functionary in GA? The real story was the NAACP and now it's the knee-jerk reaction displayed by the Admin and the organization. Jealous's own organization had a full copy of that speech on video with the NAACP chapter in GA. You'd think he would have checked it out before crying racist like he did.
No, this is all about trying to pin a false accusation of racism on the right, so that they can then proceed to discredit all the other racism claims.
Sorry I don't write very well
The big business that I am talking about wasn't in the original video, she referenced– 80M dollars already funded– in the full video, that isn't small farmers that is big business. And no AB didn't speak about the corporate welfare angle. I was attempting to make that point.– Big government subsidized farms are the "haves" and they are a piece of the corporate welfare that the Tea Party wants to eliminated from the government.— In other words the small farmers like Spooner are being crushed by the very organization USDA that is "helping" them….government funding to the big boyz is the money that they use to buy the small farms.
We are the government and we are here to help
Thanks for your one example. One question. Does ADM have any "non-white" Share holders?? Employees?? Vendors?? Politicians??
I see you have NO response to MY "corparate welfare" receipients.
As for the rest of your dismissal. It should be easy to note that I do NOT use any numbers, I am just challenging your assertion/argument. At the present, your arguments are complete failures, as you can not provide any evidence to back up your claims. I welcome any challenge to my assertions, as I believe they are all defensible.
You, however, want to assume from the beginning that everyone accepts your assumptiions. I do not. That is why I challenged them. Since you will not or can not defend them I will reason that they are like your numbers, made up.
Seems to be just what the "witch doctor" ordered for Obama to distract his lock-step voters with the racism card, not the fact that Blacks have the highest unemployment and the most endemic problems in the Country.
Only one, just search the Cato site or google "corporate welfare" it is a government giveaway of 60-100 billion dollars per year, depending on where the numbers come from. Olinsky calls much of his green "investment", the bailouts and TARP could be considered corporate welfare–should be it they aren't officially recognized as such.
Did you read that one example?? Do you think the corporate welfare is Marxism?
ADM;
How many of their CEOS, CFOS COOSs and board members are white would be a better question, I couldn't give an exact figure other than most all of them.
Historically– "The Man" is white is the point–, and if you need a bunch of numbers to prove history in this country then it is you that is missing the context of the point.
My overall point is in my view–The Man is the alliance between corporation and the government.— very well could be the context of the video too and likely is IMO.
Its not about pinning racism on the right. Its about nailing the right for posting videos that deceive the audience into thinking an employee of the Ag Dept is a racist. Obviously the broader goal was to embarrass Democrats and the Administration. The problem is the deception employed to do it.
The least you idiots could do is recognize who you are and condemn something you may find objectionable. This was an obvious smear job, perpetrated by Breitbart and carried on by Fox News and the army of right wing pundits. It has also turned into a story about how stupid the Obama Administration is for caving to sensationalist pressure for political reasons. They reacted before they thought it through, before they knew the facts. They felt the pressure and reacted to stem it from getting worse. They tried to react quickly in a situation that required confirmation and investigation. Only idiots take Breitbart and Fox News at face value without some verification. We can now add Obama to that list of idiots.
Is it sunny in the world you live? How many hours are in a day on your world?
Thats the new Fox News slogan.
The farmer-Spooner- came out and defended her, he said she saved his farm and I think they are still friends today. People should be judged by their character including their mistakes, but not only their mistakes….she was using her mistake as a teaching tool.
Also I didn't post to defend her I posted to poopoo the video as journalism.
We march on to November, back to the status quo!
A video of Shirley Sherrod giving a speech had nothing to do with Shirley Sherrod?
Are you stupid or just dumb?
Welcome. You'll fit right in, you already display a lack of critical thinking skills.
I heard AB has some bridges for sale at half price, you should check it out.
No problem. I prefer clarity over agreement. I get what you are saying now.
Thanks for clarifying.
but the most important part of your tirade is….AB didn't yell fire. He showed a tape he was provided. The organization that is being accused yelled fire, and there went Sherrod. Not to mention, said organization was in possession of the entire transcript. Nice try, but your record of convicting citizen journalists is pretty dismal. You had Okeefe and you screwed the pooch. However, ACORN employees are being put away and are STILL being investigated.
Even after viewing the entire speech, what doesn't change is that Ms. Sherrod refused to offer her full services to the white farmer because he acted "superior" (what exactly does "superior" mean?), then sent him off to a white lawyer because the attorney was "one of his own". "One of his own"???? That's not racist?
I noticed that, too. Wonder what hit the editing room floor!
You must be logged in to post a comment.