Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum: Shirley Sherrod and the shame of conservative media

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:08 AM
Original message
Former Bush speechwriter David Frum: Shirley Sherrod and the shame of conservative media
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 11:11 AM by democracy1st
David FrumEmail
Shirley Sherrod and the shame of conservative media
When Andrew Breitbart unveils a selectively edited tape to defame a federal employee, conservatives blame Barack Obama

You want to see media bias in action? Okay — look at the conservative media reaction to the firing of Shirley Sherrod.

Sherrod is the former U.S. Department of Agriculture employee fired for supposed anti-white racism. On July 19, Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com website posted a short video clip from a speech Sherrod had delivered to an NAACP gathering at some unspecified point in the past.

In the clip, Sherrod confessed to having deliberately declined on racial grounds to help a white farmer faced with a foreclosure on his farm. She was immediately terminated by the USDA and condemned by the national NAACP.

But a second look at the tape made it obvious that the tape had been severely edited, abruptly cut short. Within hours it emerged that the story on the tape was exactly the opposite of the story Breitbart had wanted to tell.

Sherrod was telling a story about overcoming her own racial antagonisms. She had repented, had helped the white farmer, had saved the farm, had formed a friendship with the farmer and his family that lasts to this day. Besides which: The video was old, taped before Sherrod ever went to work at the USDA.


By the morning of July 20 the Sherrod-as-racist narrative had collapsed.

What is most fascinating about that second day, however, was the conservative reaction to the collapse. At midday on the 20th, Rush Limbaugh was still praising Breitbart: "I know that Andrew Breitbart's done great work getting this video of Ms. Sherrod at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and her supposed racism and so forth saying she's not gonna help a white farmer."

By the evening of the 20th, however, conservatives were backing away, acknowledging that an innocent women had been defamed.



Here's Glenn Beck.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/20/naacp-and-glenn-beck-agree-people-rushed-to-judgment-on-sherrod/


Here's Rich Lowry, editor of National Review.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODQyN2I2ODRjMDA4YWY5MDlkMWY4ODk5ZDQyZmQ3MWY=


Here's the popular Anchoress blog at First Things.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2010/07/20/sherrod-blames-naacp-for-resignation/


Even the racially incendiary Eric Erickson tweeted his disquiet, and then posted this on his RedState website.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/20/collecting-scalps-at-what-cost/



But you’ll never guess who emerged as the villains of the story in this second-day conservative react. Not Andrew Breitbart, the distributor of a falsified tape. No, the villains were President Obama and the NAACP for believing Breitbart's falsehood.

Breitbart went almost universally unmentioned. Erickson even justified Breitbart's falsehood as a tragic but necessary and justifiable measure of conservative self-defense:

This is what we have become in politics because of the unrepentant race-baiting on the Left. It has become a tit for tat war of retribution. ... That war has casualties on both sides. Ms. Sherrod is the latest. It is not fair. But that’s how the Left plays and the Right must fight on offense or not fight at all. It disgusts me to have to say it, but that is so very sadly where we are."


Breitbart himself had this to say about those who would manipulate the public record for ideological purposes:

Journalists love whistle-blowers. Just not when the whistle is blown on them. Journalists love transparency. As long as they’re not the ones being exposed. No steadfast journalism rule is unbendable when it comes to justifying and protecting the racket that is modern journalism, specifically, political journalism in the United States today. The ends justify the means .... They lie when they claim to be objective. They lie when they claim to be unbiased, because these so called "truth seekers" are guilty of engaging in open political warfare. And when the whistle is blown, they simply double down.

But that of course was not a confession or apology. Breitbart continues to defend his own "ends justify the means" bending of the truth, as you can see here in this July 20 interview with CNN’s John King.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-breitbart-to-cnns-john-king-i-did-not-fire-shirley-sherrod/

No, Breitbart’s indignant words on the 20th were aimed at another snippets-out-of-context scandal for the Right: the Daily Caller’s publication of quotations from the JournoList archive in which liberal activists and bloggers jeered George Stephanopoulos for asking Barack Obama about Jeremiah Wright.

Speaking on a liberal list serve, journalists had wondered how the Wright story could be stifled. One obnoxious young participant had even suggested that the story could be killed by hurling accusations of racism at conservative figures like Fred Barnes and Karl Rove. Conservatives exploded: The media were colluding to quash bad news about their beloved Obama! Only of course the Wright story was not quashed — unlike the story of Breitbart's role in Sherrod's firing, which has been, at least among conservatives.

On the phone on the evening of July 20, a friend asked me: "Can Breitbart possibly survive?" I could only laugh incredulously. I answered: "Of course he'll survive, and undamaged. The incident won't matter at all."


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.


When people talk of the "closing of the conservative mind" this is what they mean: not that conservatives are more narrow-minded than other people — everybody can be narrow minded — but that conservatives have a unique capacity to ignore unwelcome fact.

When Dan Rather succumbed to the forged Bush war record hoax in 2004, CBS forced him into retirement. Breitbart is the conservative Dan Rather, but there will be no discredit, no resignation for him.

Instead, conservatives are consumed with a new snippets-out-of-context uproar, the latest round of JournoList quotations. Here at last is proof of the cynical machinations of the hated liberal media! As to the cynical machinations of conservative media — well, as the saying goes, the fish never notices the water through which it swims.


http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/205190/shirley-sherrod-and-the-shame-of-conservative-media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. Not a lawyer, but I wonder if she's got a libel case
Would be nice to see someone hit back for a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. She's a federal appointee - she has almost no legal protections.
As a public figure, there's no libel case to be made just like there wasn't one for John Kerry re: the swift boat assholes.

And as a federal appointee, she doesn't have any legal protections as far as labor law is concerned either. OPM Quote: "Schedule C appointees are not covered by statutory removal procedures and generally have no rights to appeal removal actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board." http://www.opm.gov/transition/trans20r-ch5.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. She isn't an appointee, she's a Federal employee
And, she still has legal rights re: defamation and racial harassment, both against her employer and Breibert.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. According to the Plum Book, she's a Schedule C appointee.
From the latest available online version, 2008. Obviously, she's not in it herself, but her position is, listed on page 3:
Athens, GA ............. State Director - Georgia .................................... F. Stone Workman ............. SC GS 15

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2008/p12-19_agriculture.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. That is ridiculous for a career employee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
39. She was appointed 25 July 2009.

Prior to that she had worked most of her life for charities and community activist organizations.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. Also from the Plum Book:
"Because of the confidential or policy-determining nature of Schedule C positions, the incumbents serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority (usually the agency head) and may be removed at any time. They are not covered under conduct-based or performance-removal procedures that apply to certain other excepted Service appointees."
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2008/p202_appendix3.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
33. interesting - however, she still has constitutional free speech protections
beyond those that private sector at will employees have. If she could show that she was fired because of something she said that constituted protected free speech, as long as it didn't disrupt the workplace, etc., she may have had a claim against her employer, had they not offered to reinstate her plus otherwise "make her whole".

I am not a lawyer and don't know enough about the libel and defamation laws re: what claims she might have against Breitbart and Fox, as opposed to her employer - I understand that she would have to show damages and B & F's intent to harm (she should be able to do that).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. You have no free speech protections in any work place. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. That statement is incorrect.
Edited on Thu Jul-22-10 01:23 PM by spooky3
There is a large body of law on this. This body spells out conditions under which Fed. govt. or other govt. employers may not take actions based on employee speech and where employee rights end. There is a similar body for other constitutional protections such protection from unreasonable searches and seizures (e.g., drug testing must be reasonable).

Start here for an overview:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/05/30/740/71827

Note the importance of the word "unfettered" in the first pgh.

"The Supreme Court has long held that public employees do not have an unfettered First Amendment right to speak freely without fear of losing their jobs. In the past, the Court has protected employees who speak out on a matter of public concern (including blowing the whistle on governmental misconduct), but not when the employee speaks about private concerns. If the employee's speech addresses a public concern, the Court balances the employee's interest in speaking freely against the government's interest in avoiding disruption of the workplace. (Note: this is a simplified and necessarily incomplete summary of a complex body of law. To understand the two tests more fully, read Connick v. Myers and Pickering v. Board of Ed.)..."

Here's another short summary that is good as a starting point:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm

You may want to search for quotes of Justice Stevens about this topic, as when he has written majority opinions, he has made some very clear statements.

Of course, if the Roberts Court continues to get its way, what protections are there will continue to be eroded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #6
35. Kerry certainly did have a defamation case
which he could have pursued if he wished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
34. The tort would be "false light," which is another "species" of defamation
Here are the elements:

1. A publication by the Defendant about the Plaintiff;

2. made with actual malice (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan in "Defamation" cases);

3. which places the Plaintiff in a false light; AND

4. that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarrassing to reasonable persons).

She certainly has a case and if I were her, I'd be pursuing it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-22-10 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Thanks...
that's sort of what I thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. I think David meant "shamelessness". n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. Same old Frum...
Here is the crux of his opinion, slyly inserted in the middle of his faux criticism of the right:

"...because of the unrepentant race-baiting on the Left."

Full paragraph:

"This is what we have become in politics because of the unrepentant race-baiting on the Left. It has become a tit for tat war of retribution. ... That war has casualties on both sides. Ms. Sherrod is the latest. It is not fair. But that’s how the Left plays and the Right must fight on offense or not fight at all. It disgusts me to have to say it, but that is so very sadly where we are.""

It's all those big bad Lefties that caused this, according the the POS Frum.

Unrecc'd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Yeah, I mean, you didn't expect a full rebuke from him, right?
Overall though, he doesn't paint a pretty picture of his pals in the piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. He frames his words to look that way but...
He deliberately mixes his messages, he is a man not to be trusted, ever, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disillusioned73 Donating Member (963 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. I believe that was a quote from someone else;
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 11:36 AM by disillusioned73
"Breitbart went almost universally unmentioned. Erickson even justified Breitbart's falsehood as a tragic but necessary and justifiable measure of conservative self-defense:"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. You are right, they were not Frum's words...
I stand corrected and appreciate you pointing it out.

I do not nor will I ever trust Frum but that doesn't mean I should attribute something to him that he did not say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. Eric Erickson said that, not Frum. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. You are right...
I read it wrong, and freely admit I was wrong in attributing those words to him.

I do not and will never trust Frum, (long history in Canada before he wrote his infamous phrase "axis of evil" for bush) but I was mistaken in regard to his words and appreciate being corrected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. What's the story, Spazito? I just asked down thread
Edited on Wed Jul-21-10 11:53 AM by EFerrari
because I don't know much about him except that I've generally liked his stuff since he left BushCo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. He was neck deep in the rabid right wing in Canada....
doing much the same as he did while a 'darling' of the rabid right wing in the U.S. He is, above all, an oportunist who will 're-discover' himself whenever it is convenient, which is what is happening now, imo.

He once, according to him, was a supporter of the NDP (the left of the left in Canada)when he was 14 (uh huh) until they mocked him for reading Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago (I highly doubt it but he was selling himself, at the time, to the U.S. extreme right).

He was president of the Federalist Society while at Harvard which speaks volumes in itself as to where he stands in reality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Thanks. He sure seems to have been "mobile". lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. LOL, "mobile" is a perfect way to describe it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
4. Rather didn't "succumb" to anything.
He told the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Yes. And iirc, the BBC never retracted that story. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
31. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
5. K & R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
13. I was torn between giving that piece of shit Frum a kick by replying....
but I do agree with this: " But you’ll never guess who emerged as the villains of the story in this second-day conservative react. Not Andrew Breitbart, the distributor of a falsified tape. No, the villains were President Obama and the NAACP for believing Breitbart's falsehood. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. I don't understand why people don't like David Frum.
What am I missing? He wrote for Bush but hasn't he been left since? I used to write for a ventriloquist. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. Because of things like this...
"this is what we have become in politics because of the unrepentant race-baiting on the Left."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. He was quoting someone else there. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
20. wow, Never thought Frum would have more brains than some squacking idiots here
who think it's All Obama's Fault, All The Time, in Known and Unknown Universes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
22. Boycott Breibart's sponsor : Progressive Insurance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
24. "conservatives have a unique capacity to ignore unwelcome fact."
So true. And, a very convenient requirement for Republicans to continue being elected with the same old BS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
26. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, democracy1st.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
30. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-10 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
32. Well,
Obama & the NAACP should have done their research, what they did was ridiculous and embarrasing

but yes, the lion's share of the blame lies with Breitbart & Faux Noise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC