| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| Andrew Breitbart owes no apologies | |
| 2010-07-27 | |
One of the strengths of Rantburg, built in by Mr. Pruitt from the very beginning, is that posted articles -- or excerpts from articles -- link to the original, wherever in the world it may have been published. Thus we can see for ourselves the journalist's context and intent, not only those bits the poster thought most important at the moment he presented it here. Yesterday there was a discussion here at Rantburg about the Shirley Sherrod adventures. The title of my very little essay -- in the original sense of to attempt -- links to Mr. Breitbart's piece breaking the Sherrod/NAACP story on his Big Government site, with the notorious Sherrod videos (there are two of them) therein embedded. I dare make no claim to orginal insights, as everything here was better said in the Rantburg thread yesterday, not to mention all over the internet. I only bring you what Mr. Breitbart actually wrote, which generated so much Sturm und Drang. He opened his piece with Context is everything. The key paragraphs, halfway through the essay, put his point in sharp relief (bolding mine): We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions. Mr. Breitbart very clearly aimed his expose at the NAACP, triggering the kind of response from the NAACP and the White House that would have made Saul Alinsky beam with pride. But why did he target the NAACP, of all groups, at this time? He explains that at the top of the essay, when he reviews the recent NAACP's attack on the Tea Party movement as inherently racist, a meme common in the mainstream media from the beginning of their reportage on the subject. But it's new that the NAACP, with all their authority, has chosen to weigh in on the subject. Mr. Breitbart chose their own videoed behaviour as the tool with which to spike their very powerful guns. And spike he did. As a result the charge of racism has lost much of the power to harm that its wielders held over the heads of the rest of us for the past two generations. With it goes much of President Obama's remaining power and appeal. Y'all still think Mr. Breitbart needs to apologize for what happened to Ms Sherrod? | |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #8 I saw that episode of Beck, he did defend her. That was before HE saw the full video and transcript though. I wonder what he'd have to say now. |
| Posted by: bigjim-CA 2010-07-27 20:09 |
| #7 I never thought Sherrod was spouting racist remarks after listening to the Breitbart video. What interested me was the response of the NAACP audience when they thought she was discussing payback to "whitie" a la O.J trial. Some of them may have never figured out she was discussing a pivot point in her life as it relates to race. My gripe with Sherrod has been her accusations of "Racism" against Fox and Glenn Beck. Hell, Beck didn't say a word the first day after her firing and defended her on the second day even before the NAACP released the full video. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2010-07-27 15:57 |
| #6 Quite an effort there lex. If you read the transcript, which at this point, you did not, yet, I am sure you will after reading this comment and then roar back here with "I read the transcript and you are wrong!"... But if you read the transcript Sherrod swings wildly back and forth between saying "it's all about being poor" and not race to those people who are against Obama's Health Care are racists, just like the NAACP says. Yeah, thats right. She spoke glowingly anti-racism and then dived right into racism in her 45 minute rambling speech. Sherrod was all over the map in her transcript, saying it is a shame their are no whites in the meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as well as saying anyone who opposes Health Care are racists. Why??? Because the sole purpose of such talk is to level false charges against people who, as Trailing Wife stated, believe in "individualism, entrepreneurialism and American grit" and are a danager to Government Administered Health Care by Beaurocrats like she was at the time of her speech. Why??? Because she is the government beaurocrat that is trying to protect her turf. That is her REAL ambition. To take as a government beaurocrat from people in the private sector who workeded hard for what they have and give it to people who don't work in the government entitlement sector that Sherrod and her "small time beaurocrats" as you refer to her as, who she and Obama rule over. Now, get on your knees, crawl up to her and beg for a hand out! You deserve no less. And don't act "high and mighty" doing so or you will be the butt of her next story at a closed door for sure this time NAACP meeting. |
| Posted by: Jusoque Henbane7160 2010-07-27 14:58 |
| #5 The woman is a minor bureaucrat who spoke about her own internal change of heart. The video of this speech was edited in order to make her seem like an unrepentant racist when in fact her speech indicates the exact opposite, that she recognized her behavior-- from a quarter century ago!-- and then CHANGED her behavior, in fact becoming close friends with the farmer in question! She's not a hero, and neither is anyone in her audience, but she like anyone else does not deserve to have her speech selectively edited and twisted to mean the 180-degree opposite of what she actually said. Breitbart acted just like the MoveOnners. He is not a journalist; he's a culture warrior. He should give up the pretense of "reforming" journalism and admit he's no different from Moulitsas or any of the other little ideological partisan bloggers braying through their tin megaphones. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-07-27 13:13 |
| #4 He did his job as a journalist, he put the tape online and let people decide what they were watching. |
| Posted by: bigjim-CA 2010-07-27 13:12 |
| #3 The ones that need to apologize are those that rushed to judge and fired her so quickly. An investigation was perhaps warranted and firing could have followed but firing her for what is on that tape seems a bit illegal. What is interesting to me is the audience reaction. It reminds me of the Trent Lott comments during the Strom Thurmond scandal. Nobody at the event thought the comments were out of line. Not the lefties or the journalists or anybody there until bloggers picked up the feed and realized the moronic meaning of what was said. Perhaps people are just too polite when stupid things are said from a podium. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2010-07-27 11:29 |
| #2 H*ll no he doesn't! An excellent summary TW. You should get your own blog. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2010-07-27 10:09 |
| #1 Ms. Sherrod is one black pelt out of a long string of white pelts in today's race war. |
| Posted by: badanov 2010-07-27 07:38 |