Bio
I started out as a wee child with a love of magazines -- the old fashioned magazines with really good writing, such as Saturday Review or really powe...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

(VIDEO) Bloggers: Sherrod Affair Shows the Value of Doing Real Journalism

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 7
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Curt Wiley, USDA Business Programs Chief of Staff, Georgia Rural Development State Director Shirley Sherrod (center) and Business Programs Administrator Judith Canales address a business program regional meeting in Atlanta

In just 48 hours, Shirley Sherrod became a household name for those who read political blogs and follow the news. Sherrod, a long-time advocate for farmers, was the State Director for Rural Development in the Department of Agriculture in Georgia until Monday of this week, when right-wing propagandist Andrew Breitbart posted a deceptively-edited clip of a speech she gave to a local chapter of the NAACP last March on his website, BigGovernment.com.  The clip gave the impression that she had discriminated against a white farmer because of her anger over injustices black people had experienced over the years. The Department of Agriculture promptly fired her; the NAACP promptly condemned her, and FOX News personalities seethed with indignation as they played the clip over and over again.

Then Tuesday, everything changed because a few journalists did their jobs.  They bothered to do some research and ask Sherrod for her side of the story, spoke to people who actually knew her, and took the trouble to find the farmer referred to in her anecdote. The first decent piece of reporting I saw on the story came from Tony Harris at CNN on Tuesday morning:


Like CNN, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had done some actual reporting, and they, too, spoke to the family whose farm had been saved with Sherrod's help. They spoke to her family to learn about the experiences that shaped her -- especially the murder of her father, allegedly by a white neighbor who was never prosecuted.

Other friends, family and colleagues rallied to her side with testimonials such as this letter from the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, her former employer:

"Shirley Sherrod in her remarkable career has been one of the most active practitioners in assisting untold numbers of black and white farmers to access the credit, conservation and other programs at USDA. Shirley has essentially been an ambassador for the USDA in her work at the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and as Georgia State Director of Rural Development. If anything, she deserves to be honored for this work and not falsely condemned and forced to retire in disgrace. "

After the revelations, the NAACP recanted, made the whole speech available, and asked Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to reconsider Sherrod's firing. On Wednesday, Vilsack apologized, as did White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. As of this writing, Sherrod was reportedly considering whether to accept a new job offer from Vilsack.

FOX personality Bill O'Reilly apologized for not doing his homework.

Breitbart  said he didn't anticipate that Sherrod would be fired. On Breitbart's site, Editor-in-chief Michael Walsh said that while Sherrod might not have been racist, her audience was because they expressed verbal agreement when she shared her past resentment. However, if you watch the whole video, she prefaces her story by explaining that she wants to share how she had overcome that resentment, and the loudest acclamation comes as she says that she learned that the plight of the poor was what mattered, not race. (By the way, blogger Ann Althouse is perturbed by the overtly religious tone of her remarks, although she found Sherrod's personal narrative compelling.).


Once upon a time, there was a good chance that a story like this would never have seen the light of day, because any reporter or editor worth their pay who was presented with Breitbart's tape would have done a little investigating before running with the story. Once upon a time, the fact that Breitbart had been associated with the phonied-up videos that had been used to bring down ACORN would have tainted him as a source. But as the Project for Excellence in Journalism's State of the News Media report for 2010 reports, cable shows featuring opinionated journalism (and sometimes pseudo-journalism) garners more money and ratings than straight news channels, such as CNN.

Rachel Maddow told her viewers last night that Fox's coverage was part of its larger pattern of "scaring white people for fun and profit" -- and conservative political advantage. On the PBS Newshour, David Challian, PBS NewsHour's political editor, said the

  • 7
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Amanda Krauss 5 pts

I have to agree about the role of media consumers in this equation. While I agree Fox is practicing terrible journalism, it is also the consumers' job to ask the right questions of any story -- Why are they quoting this? In what context? To what end? -- and to understand that citation of sources can and will be manipulated.

In this case, the White House modeled media literacy very poorly by taking Fox News at face value without doing its own work. If they had, they would have seen that Fox (unsurprisingly) used only part of the quotation, which is obviously downright dishonest.

After teaching for ten years I think media literacy is at an all-time low; I tried my best to correct this, but man, it was an uphill battle!

Worst Professor Ever ( http://www.worstprofessorever.com )

Nordette Adams 11 pts

Shep Smith, a Fox anchor, apparently doesn't excuse Fox's actions. Maybe Kurtz should talk to him.

He names Fox News ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/21/shepard-smith-unloads-on_n_655013.html ) as one of the places that played the video out of context, a reference to Bill O'Reilly's show (and Fox reporters as well, I see by the Media Matters timeline).

Everybody wants to play the voice of reason now, even Glenn Beck, who I guess wants us to forget he talked about the edited clip on his radio show Tuesday morning.

Maybe Kurtz missed that.

Knowing the way Fox operates via behind the scenes personal experience, I don't trust any of them.

While I'm angry about how the White House handled this, automatically standing up for Vilsack's dismissal of Sherrod without knowing the facts, I still suspect that Cheryl Cook, undersecretary at the USDA, was exaggerating whatever Vilsack told her when she told Sherrod the White House wanted her to resign.

The departments have probably been warned to avoid Fox news controversies and to do nothing that appears to suggest so-called "reverse discrimination" that would give Glenn Beck and Fox's other minions fodder for discussion.

So, the USDA senior people overreacted. I believe Sherrod when she says Cook told her the WH wanted her to resign and that Sherrod consequently believed Cook, but I think Cook telling her that is not proof that the president said anything directly to anyone. He may not have even been aware of what was going on until after Sherrod resigned.

Nevertheless, the White House needs to stop worrying about Fox. They're gonna do what they're gonna do.

Fox is busy trying to deflect from its role in this mess. Bill O'Reilly, who ran the video Monday night on that network, did a postmortem in which he apologized to Sherrod in one breath and in the next criticized her, still trying to prove she's a racist because of what she said in 1986. He even indicates he thinks she should have a job in the Obama administration.

Watch O'Reilly defend himself here ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/22/bill-oreilly-apologizes-t_n_655411.html ).

I bet Cook heard Sherrod's story would be on Fox Monday night and assumed it was Glenn Beck's show. As it turns out it was Bill O'Reilly's show that planned to vilify Sherrod, and he's still doing it.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile/Nordette ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Kim Pearson 18 pts

Thanks so much for all of your comments - Nordette, I'm going to come back and re-read and respond to some of your specific points. I have to say that I was dismayed by some of today's reporting, such as John King pushing Sherrod at length about what Obama said to her and who she might have thought was involved in the White House.

In the meantime, I was struck by Howard Kurtz's BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

mimitabby 5 pts

turn OFF the fox news. turn OFF the television....

Megan Smith 5 pts

Part of me wants to yell at the American public, "you get the media you deserve!"

If we as consumers of news, don't demand the kind of quality that we demand from say our laundry detergent, I think we're in real danger as a society.

It's an embrace of ignorance and a lack of any interest in being aware of who's work you're reading, viewing, or digesting on a weekly, daily, hourly basis.

It's also a lack of any sophistication about real news gathering techniques as opposed to just posting opinions or misleadingly edited videos on a website.

Tom Vilsack evidently falls into that category.

I'd like to think this could be a wake up call, but sadly I suspect it will not be.

Professor Kim, thanks for giving us a journalist's recount of the facts and the issues involved.

Megan

TV/Online Video Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/megan-smith )

Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/ )

Meg's Rad Reviews ( http://www.megsradreviews.com )

Nordette Adams 11 pts

Thank you, Kim, for writing this thorough piece that goes beyond the surface reporting I've seen in some parts of the MSM. I've asked in multiple places on line how is it that a website run by a man who's known to have promoted a doctored video in the past (ACORN) and who clearly has an agenda other than to tell the truth would be believed so easily? Sherrod's bosses, Vilsack and Cook, seemed to swallow the story immediately, acting swiftly to get rid of her.

Is it because the edited version of Sherrod's video was also played repeatedly on Fox, a major network? That's surprising as well because the White House and the NAACP have both expressed a wariness of Fox News in the past. Why did they swallow the story without question?

I think Vilsack's decision to muscle Sherrod out created an avalanche of assumptions by others. Vilsack, for whatever reason, believed the reports and did not bother to check out the story. Perhaps he shares some of the beliefs Breitbart types promote about the NAACP and Civil Rights leaders, and so, he bought the story completely. That's me wondering, I don't know what he actually believes or thinks about the NAACP and the Civil Rights movement.

Plus there was a video and despite our knowing that people can edit video, many humans still assume that if it was on a network news show, the video must be true. Or maybe Cohen at WaPo nailed Vilsack correctly when calling his actions cowardly ( http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/07/the_firing_of_shirley_sherrod.html ).

So, Vilsack believed Breitbart and Fox. The decision to fire Sherrod went to the president's office probably as "Mr. President, an Agriculture Department director in Georgia was caught on tape making racist statements at an NAACP event. She was asked to resign and she did."

President may have thought, Oh, she resigned? She must be guilty then.

I think someone should have asked more questions, but like most high-level executives, Obama probably doesn't micromanage and double-check matters such as the circumstances behind department heads firing and hiring decisions. Then the NAACP probably assumed the story about Sherrod was correct because the WH stood by Vilsack's decision and again--"there was video." (However, since Sherrod was speaking at one their fundraisers, they really should have checked the story and full video out themselves before commenting and condemning her.) Next came the pile-on as other people in the media and more bloggers spread the first story without question, reminiscent of the Jeremiah Wright circus. VOILA! Insanity reigned. All speculation on my part, but feels like a reasonable scenario.

Even in the recapping of the story after the facts are out, I see poor article structure choices and sloppy presentation. Too many journalists are telling the story chronologically like it's supposed to be a mystery novel or something and they don't want to offer spoilers. They use a delayed lead, presenting the original edited clip first or a recounting of the clip, and the truth comes later in the story as a sort of kicker. A better presentation, if setting the record straight is the goal, is to begin, as you have done, by telling readers up front Shirley Sherrod was wronged, because a lot of readers still don't go to the end of the story. There's no need for them to tread carefully. They have unedited video!

Also, many stories I've seen mention ACORN but never clarify that a court ruled the ACORN videos were doctored and that Breitbart's decision to push the story were questionable in that case as well as though all readers know what finally happened. They mention ACORN only as a way of reminding readers that Breitbart bought us the ACORN story. They miss the opportunity to inform readers who probably don't remember or never knew. It could be handled by the old reporter's standby, the word "allegedly," and possibly the words "misleading" or "questionable." Breitbart presented a "questionable video that allegedly showed ACORN" blah blah blah. They can say that. They've got a judge's ruling.

I think a lot of people believed Breitbart this time because they still believe his original ACORN story, and that lot includes some journalists reporting Sherrod's ordeal.

To go tap the added layer you bring, the black farmers' lawsuit, goes far beyond what most journalists do these days. Somewhere along the way journalists stopped trying to understand the stories about which they write, it seems. They blame it on deadlines. I call it abandoning diligence.

The only people who did what they were supposed to do early were the journalists who followed the old adage, "Consider the source." Seeing Breitbart as the source, questioning his motivations, they dug a little deeper.

Some people think this mess will be Breitbart's downfall. I don't think so. His ardent fans will believe him no matter what. The rest of us should be less forgiving.
Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile/Nordette ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

ddicorcia 5 pts

No kidding a little investigated reporting needed to be done! My husband has worked in local TV for fifteen years and they always reviewed the tape BEFORE IT WENT TO AIR. All Fox and Glenn Beck want to do is ignite the fires of racism and hate. Fox news should be fined by the FCC for fraud and the gov’t should consider treason charges against Mr.Beck

www.thejerseyshort.com ( http://www.thejerseyshort.com )