The Bizarre Story Of A USDA Worker

Remove all ads!

Some of you may have already heard about this. It is quite stunning:

This story has been unfolding all day, and it appears that the tape of the worker was actually edited by a conservative group to make a black lady who works for the government look like a racist. It turns out that it was an old, 24 year old story the worker was telling before she worked for the government, and the ending was quite different than what was posted on a conservative website.

There is an interview on CNN with the white farmer in question. It is quite revealing.

You have to watch those You Tube clips; they can be total BS.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/20/agriculture.employee.naacp/index.html

 

Synergies!

I got to this thread to the back-door, so to say. That video appears taken out of context. Oh, too bad she resigned already. Over nothing. But perhaps an existence destroyed and a career tarred. Fine style.

The origin of the video is Breitbart's BigGovernment site of ACORN Pimp and tape editing fame:

Breitbart's version:

​

The undedited version:

​

Mark my words: The NAACP, if the conservatives have their way, will be the next ACORN. This is a smear campaign.

 

I read about this on Monday and thought the USDA had overreacted. The remarks made by NAACP are truly disappointing.

 

Interesting comment on the affair: Shirley Sherrod: casualty of escalating 'tea party'-NAACP race spat?

That potshots can easily cause heads to roll is something the phony affaire ACORN proved - so compellingly that Breitbart is at it again. It has worked once, so there is no reason to assume it won't work again! When the smoke clears and it becomes apparent that it was all a hoax or dirty trick - the damage is done and perhaps even irreversible. Success!

Better still: That farmer Sherrod supposedly spoke so racist about? He says she "did her level best" to help him and credited her with saving his farm. Asked if Sherrod was a racist, he said: "Heck, no."

Nothing that would prevent Andy Breitbart from publish that edited video and smear her as a vile racist anyway. What a disgusting a**hole that guy is ...

It appears we can merge into 'Race-baiting 2010 and Tea-Party vs. NAACP - the Mash-Up' the following threads:
* Tea Party Federation Expels "Express Bigots"
* The Bizarre Story Of A USDA Worker
* Justice Department Drops New Black Panther Party Case, Accused of Racial Preference

 

This has gotten so much media attention that liberal and black groups are steaming over this firing and pissed at the Obama administration for falling for this cheap stunt. When Sherrod's boss fired her, he supposedly yelled, "This about to be on Glenn Beck." One of the interesting points made this morning is, "why are these guys [Team Obama] worried about what Glenn Beck says?" Obama was supposed to be "different."

Now they are saying that she may get her job back. Of course, she's a major lawsuit waiting to happen for everyone involved. Also, they just destroyed her character in pulblic with no evidence. Too late for the usual CYA. No matter what happens now, the Obama administration looks not only overly political, but stupidly political. So much for "Change we can believe in."

Another point made was that, "this sort of thing goes on everyday on You Tube [gross misinformation] and it never really gets fixed because it hardly gets much media attention. "

---------- Added 0 hours, 48 minutes and 30 seconds later... ----------

I just saw Briebart on TV claiming he, "hadn't seen the real clip before the edited version was posted." CYA time at the conservative website.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38343674#38343674

 

He may just be sued over this. Best would be, beyond the claim, there would be discovery. It would be interesting to read Breitbart's e-mails.

 

Yes, as a salesman you learn not to pay too much attention to what people are saying as opposed to "how" they are saying it. From that point of view, I saw panic in his face.

---------- Added 1 hours, 15 minutes and 8 seconds later... ----------

I found these interconnected blogs interesting:

I've been saying for years that liberals are only a small minority. America is one of the most conservative, "religious" countries around. Don't take that to mean "Republican," since many Dems are just as conservative despite what the "Rs" would have us believe. Not to derail my own thread, only that the "change" never really appeared the way some liberals/progressives hoped, as this topic about Sherrod helps to prove.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/21/4721605-first-thoughts-snookered

---------- Added 0 hours, 47 minutes and 48 seconds later... ----------

Not surprising - The right thing to do, but they sure look bad, along with everyone else who was a part of this sham.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920/ns/us_news-life/

 

I've been following this at work, as it's a fascinating and depressing story at the same time. Interestingly, the worried road-side comment not withstanding, Glenn Beck is defending her, saying she should never have been fired in the first place. Or attacked by the NAACP. I find it interesting that that hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet. The NAACP immediately attacked her and called for her to be removed, even (as they later admitted) without watching their own unedited copy of the film. They didn't even have to go out of their own house to fact-check this.

I've got mixed feelings about the original posting. The guy has claimed his post was meant to illustrate the reaction from the NAACP crowd to her claims that she had denied aid to a white farmer (and the clip shows that quite well). If that's the truth, then that she later turned it around and helped him and is still his friend to this day is happy, but irrelevant, because the post was never about her in the first place. I'm pressed for time now, and I haven't had a chance to look at the original blog posting to see if there's any context to support this.

EDIT:I think this is the original post. I'm guessing the text block at the beginning of the first video saying she was actually talking about something she did before working for the government is a later correction. Judge for yourselves what the intended focus was, and whether it should have been shown.

 

She was used as a pawn by this moron. I believe what he did to her is disgraceful. And of course he is playing CYA big time by spinning it in a different direction. I hope she sues the hell out of him.

As for the NAACP, they admitted they were wrong and apologized. They obviously rushed to judgment.


Great take on this by Huffington:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-potok/shirley-sherrod-and-the-r_b_654315.html

BTW, NOG, this is a comment from the introduction to the video on Breitbart's website:

Yeah, it wasn't about her at all...r-i-g-h-t.

 

Chandos, you and your worst case scenarios ...

 

Well, of course I am about "worst case" scenarios.

I hope this is the end of Breitbart's credibility, at least outside of his right-wing domain, where of course his followers will continue to make excuses and spout malicious spin about "racists" in the NAACP.

 

Hehe, the guy was named Jealous, hehe.

 

Yeah, I thought that was funny. If I had a name like that and I got into any public position, I'd change it first. Then again, I may just change that name even if I stayed out of the limelight.

 

Months? What are you smoking? The whole thing was over in a day, and I didn't see anything on FOX on it (mind you, I hit the website more than the TV channel) until it was all over. It was MSNBC and CNN that really drove the story online, as I saw it.

I agree with you there, but I'm honestly not sure why the NAACP is in the same boat. Maybe it was all the attention they got from the Tea Party letter, and not wanting to look like hypocrites, but I don't know. Even then, I'd expect they'd do their research before blasting one of their own.

 

My bad. She actually gave the speech in March. I had thought I heard on the News that the clip had been around since March but only posted in Breitbart's site this last week, especially since he "clamied" he had gotten the tape from another source.

I wish.

There you are wrong:

I almost forgot the punchline:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201007210066

 

Three days versus one is kind of splitting hairs when compared to three days versus 'months.'

 

T2 - I don't know if you were directing that at me but I was commenting that FOX drove the story before she was fired -- the amount of time had nothing to do with my point.

 

It may not have been your direct point but by exaggerating the amount of time the argument villifies the action even further (it biases the argument in the same way those you are targeting biased the issue by selective editing) -- a long term campaign against the woman shows gross negligence and intentional misdirection in a big way, not just idiots being duped.

By the way I agree the role several played in this (including some ultra-conservatives, ignorant journalists, and even the NAACP) was very wrong. I think some of the actions border on criminal -- I really hope she hires a good attorney and becomes quite rich over the entire episode.

 

I didn't "exaggerate" the amount of time, it was an error, since I thought the clip had been in circulation since March. For you to suggest that I was "exggerating" is beneath you. I never question your honesty but if it makes you feel good to keep jumping on it, go right ahead. Big deal.

Spare you your petty insults.

 

Oh, please ...

You got caught spreading bad information and, to your credit, you were a big enough person to admit the mistake. Then in the same post you attack because someone else used 'over in a day' (which could be a metaphor) for something that took -- oh my god -- THREE WHOLE DAYS to resolve. This was nit picking.

Spare me your "righteous indignation."