Edited video costs USDA worker her job.

[nobodyknows]

DIVERT DIVERT!!! No one look at the idiots like Fox and the OP!!! DIVERT!!!


:awe:

So have you watched the whole video?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Media Matters has NO PLACE to talk after the hatchet job on the "Rush Limbaugh calls Steinbrenner a "cracker" story." None.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007130033

Talk about taking something out of context...

HTTP 404- Hatchet job not found.

Limbaugh says shit intentionally for attention. He got exactly what he was after.

 

[Amused]

DIVERT DIVERT!!! No one look at the idiots like Fox and the OP!!! DIVERT!!!


:awe:

I've admitted I was fooled by a false report and shifted blame to no one. I edited the thread title and posted a retraction.

Now, please explain where and how I am attempting to divert?

Media Matters is just as guilty as the originator of this video and has no place to talk, much less lay blame. They are MORE guilty than Fox, as Fox was NOT the originator of the NAACP video, but merely reported on it as did other news outlets. Media Matters CREATED/EDITED the Rush video and intentionally took his comments out of context.

 

[ayabe]

Any of you guys a member of the Journolists? You sound a lot like them.

Now there's a story I'm surprised hasn't hit P&N.

That story is even more BS than this. But you should make a thread, PLEASE.

 

[Amused]

HTTP 404- Hatchet job not found.

Limbaugh says shit intentionally for attention. He got exactly what he was after.

It was a hatchet job and his comments were taken completely out of context and portrayed as something entirely different. The edited video of him is NO DIFFERENT than the one Breitbart posted and Fox reported on.

 

[Vette73]

So have you watched the whole video?

Yea I did. Your point? Or did you miss this part...

"But later in the tape, in the portion not originally posted, Sherrod says, "working with [the farmer] made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who have not. They could be black. They could be white. They could be Hispanic.""

 

[Analogsoul]

my quesiton is who gives a flying fuck when fox or whoever talked about the story. that does not let NAACP, USDA or the whitehouse off. They still should have got the full story.

I will say i seen more about it on CSNBC the fox. so its not just them. they all took it and ran.

No one is saying that it lets the NAACP, USDA or the Whitehouse off, obviously it was a knee jerk reaction to this "controversy" and they should have gotten their facts straight before they acted. As a "fair and balanced" media outlet, it is Fox's responsibility to make sure that their stories are fact checked and they are as guilty for creating this faux racist mess as Breitbart is.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

It was a hatchet job and his comments were taken completely out of context and portrayed as something entirely different. The edited video of him is NO DIFFERENT than the one Breitbart posted and Fox reported on.

There was no misleading here. Limbaugh said it, he said it to be controversial, he got his controversy. It was racially insensitive even given the context.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush...comments-were-absurd-to-illustrate-absurdity/

 

[dmcowen674]

\As a "fair and balanced" media outlet, it is Fox's responsibility to make sure that their stories are fact checked and they are as guilty for creating this faux racist mess as Breitbart is.

Actually the Supreme Court classified Fox News as an Entertainment outlet only, they can make up anything they want such as the Enquirer does.

They use the word "News" as part of their name, there is no real news involved.

 

[waggy]

No one is saying that it lets the NAACP, USDA or the Whitehouse off, obviously it was a knee jerk reaction to this "controversy" and they should have gotten their facts straight before they acted. As a "fair and balanced" media outlet, it is Fox's responsibility to make sure that their stories are fact checked and they are as guilty for creating this faux racist mess as Breitbart is.

ok so what about CNN, MSNBC that ran the story and going after her? they deserve t he hate too.

just gets irritating that people only go after fox when they are far from the only one that pulls shit.


ALL of them should have checked the facts before putting out a story.

 

[Vette73]

ok so what about CNN, MSNBC that ran the story and going after her? they deserve t he hate too.

just gets irritating that people only go after fox when they are far from the only one that pulls shit.


ALL of them should have checked the facts before putting out a story.

Really, show me the stories and talking heads at MSNBC and CNN going off that she should be fired right away and she is a racist,

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

ok so what about CNN, MSNBC that ran the story and going after her? they deserve t he hate too.

just gets irritating that people only go after fox when they are far from the only one that pulls shit.


ALL of them should have checked the facts before putting out a story.

Here's Rick Sanchez (CNN) going after somebody...
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007210063
Alt link:http://vodpod.com/watch/4069807-ric...ave-rules-and-standards-about-stuff-like-this

 

[Analogsoul]

ok so what about CNN, MSNBC that ran the story and going after her? they deserve t he hate too.

just gets irritating that people only go after fox when they are far from the only one that pulls shit.


ALL of them should have checked the facts before putting out a story.

They are the worst offenders though. You're right, other news outlets reported on it too, but it was Fox who initially ran the story and repeatedly called her racist and that she should be fired (Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, and Perino). CNN and MSNBC didn't go to that extreme.

 

[Craig234]

OK, I haven't said much about this until now, but the story seems to be getting clearer, so let's summarize.

The OP has modified the main point of the story, but he, based on his latest update, still largely misunderstands the situation and continues some mistakes.

I will say, his reactions are similar to mine before I got more info.

This is a speech from a woman who was NOT a government worker, but one whose background was a woman who had devoted herself to helping blacks in the South.

She worked for a non-profit, not the government, and had helped or tried to help many blacks, including black farmers and saw many lose their farms.

The point of her speech to the NAACP was laid out before the edited video's section, and not included in the edit, that the story was about how she had grown from thinking she should help blacks, to that she should help the poor regardless of race. This was warmly received by the audience, continued to be enthusiastic to her speech.

As she was recounting her earlier part of the story that was in the edited video, the audience enthusiasm already knew it was headed to how she had changed.

This is one of the things the OP hasn't seemed to learn yet as he thinks the audience shows they support her earlier behavior.

Another overlooked bit was that it wasn't just a white farmer - it was one she said was 'spending a long time trying to show her he was superior to her'.

Again, this is a *private*, not government, person feeling she is talking to a white person who is treating her badly, but wants her help. That's very difference from a government worker discriminating and only by race - which is how Fox presented the story, that she was speaking of what she did as a government worker. They did not indicate the video was decades old, either, not that she actually provided great help.

She goes on to explain this was the first white person she had encountered in her non-profit - and she described her first reaction to not do all she could to help for the stated reasons, but she went on to say, again not included in the edited video, that she realized she should help poor people regardless of race.

She was telling the story of how she had grown - she was criticizing her earlier reaction, indirect contrast to Fox saying she was 'bragging' she had discriminated like she should get a prize for it. Fox wrongly said she was in the government, wrongly said she was 'bragging', wrongly implied it was recent, wrong left out the context she was describing how she stopped looking at race - to a welcoming NAACP audience.

This happened before she was in the government - by the time she was, there's no evidence she did anything wrong based on race.

So, there's room for the OP to further amend his misunderstanding.

The Obama administration should say they were wrong and reinstate her.

The right-wing media who was reckless with this should follow in the footsteps of the NAACP and apologize.

 

[woolfe9999]

This is BS. There are links elsewhere in this thread showing O'Reilly saying "she must resign." Now, if she'd already resigned, that would be an awfully strange thing to say. Same for the Hannity clip. And same for the other clips. They all clearly were made BEFORE she resigned, and they play the same truncated clip that stops PRECISELY after Sherrod says she didn't extend as much help as she might have.

It looks like Sherrod actually resigned on Monday the 19th, but that fact was neither known to nor reported by the media until the 20th. When O'Reilly and company were calling for her resignation on the evening of the 19th, they did not realize that she had already resigned. It was a delay in information feedback.

It appears that although Fox did, of course, rush to judgment on this, relying on an edited video, nonetheless there was no causal link between the Fox reporting and the resignation. Rather, it was the edited video being posted on the web which found it's way to the USDA and the WH, which in turn caused them to pressure her to resign. Fox DID actually print one article about her on the morning of the 19th, though that was less likely the cause than the edited video itself which had been floating around for...not sure how long.

- wolf

 

[Amused]

Actually the Supreme Court classified Fox News as an Entertainment outlet only, they can make up anything they want such as the Enquirer does.

They use the word "News" as part of their name, there is no real news involved.

Dave, you really need to get back on your meds.

Seriously.

 

[Amused]

There was no misleading here. Limbaugh said it, he said it to be controversial, he got his controversy. It was racially insensitive even given the context.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush...comments-were-absurd-to-illustrate-absurdity/

Bullshit. Media Matters portrayed his comments as insulting to Stienbrenner and blacks, when in fact he was praising both.

Try again.

 

[woolfe9999]

OK, I haven't said much about this until now, but the story seems to be getting clearer, so let's summarize.

The OP has modified the main point of the story, but he, based on his latest update, still largely misunderstands the situation and continues some mistakes.

I will say, his reactions are similar to mine before I got more info.

This is a speech from a woman who was NOT a government worker, but one whose background was a woman who had devoted herself to helping blacks in the South.

She worked for a non-profit, not the government, and had helped or tried to help many blacks, including black farmers and saw many lose their farms.

The point of her speech to the NAACP was laid out before the edited video's section, and not included in the edit, that the story was about how she had grown from thinking she should help blacks, to that she should help the poor regardless of race. This was warmly received by the audience, continued to be enthusiastic to her speech.

As she was recounting her earlier part of the story that was in the edited video, the audience enthusiasm already knew it was headed to how she had changed.

This is one of the things the OP hasn't seemed to learn yet as he thinks the audience shows they support her earlier behavior.

Another overlooked bit was that it wasn't just a white farmer - it was one she said was 'spending a long time trying to show her he was superior to her'.

Again, this is a *private*, not government, person feeling she is talking to a white person who is treating her badly, but wants her help. That's very difference from a government worker discriminating and only by race - which is how Fox presented the story, that she was speaking of what she did as a government worker. They did not indicate the video was decades old, either, not that she actually provided great help.

She goes on to explain this was the first white person she had encountered in her non-profit - and she described her first reaction to not do all she could to help for the stated reasons, but she went on to say, again not included in the edited video, that she realized she should help poor people regardless of race.

She was telling the story of how she had grown - she was criticizing her earlier reaction, indirect contrast to Fox saying she was 'bragging' she had discriminated like she should get a prize for it. Fox wrongly said she was in the government, wrongly said she was 'bragging', wrongly implied it was recent, wrong left out the context she was describing how she stopped looking at race - to a welcoming NAACP audience.

This happened before she was in the government - by the time she was, there's no evidence she did anything wrong based on race.

So, there's room for the OP to further amend his misunderstanding.

The Obama administration should say they were wrong and reinstate her.

The right-wing media who was reckless with this should follow in the footsteps of the NAACP and apologize.

Yeah I don't get Amuseds' qualified retraction either. Even the wife of the now deceased farmer was outraged that Sherrod lost her job, and says that Sherrod actually saved their family farm...

- wolf

 

[nobodyknows]

Yea I did. Your point? Or did you miss this part...

"But later in the tape, in the portion not originally posted, Sherrod says, "working with [the farmer] made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who have not. They could be black. They could be white. They could be Hispanic.""

Yes, I saw that and I've said it many times myself. That part is right after the break in the video I've been talking about? What's up with that break? Did NAACP edit something out?

I also saw the part where she was complaining to the NAACP that she has less then 20 black people working for her out of 129 employees. Combine that with the fact she was enouraging people to get involved with agriculture and I'd guess she was trying to get blacks to sign up for USDA jobs and she would help push them through.

So, was the NAACP paying her to speak at this fundraiser?

 

[Amused]

Yeah I don't get Amuseds' qualified retraction either. Even the wife of the now deceased farmer was outraged that Sherrod lost her job, and says that Sherrod actually saved their family farm...

- wolf

Well, it appears I, along with many others were fooled by a crudely edited video. While I am still appalled at her original actions she described AND at the laughs and applause those actions got from the NAACP audience, I cannot maintain my support of her forced resignation.

I still hold the strong opinion that the NAACP is a racist, political organization that should lose it's non-proft status. Proof of this lies in the way the audience showed overwhelming approval of her original, racist actions and the recent BS with the Tea Party, yet silence on the New Black Panthers issue.

Apologies to all.

Now, care to tell me what's wrong with that? I said I no longer support her being forced from her job. What more do you want on that issue?

My comments after that are about the NAACP. not her.

 

[nobodyknows]

OK, I haven't said much about this until now, but the story seems to be getting clearer, so let's summarize.

The OP has modified the main point of the story, but he, based on his latest update, still largely misunderstands the situation and continues some mistakes.

I will say, his reactions are similar to mine before I got more info.

This is a speech from a woman who was NOT a government worker, but one whose background was a woman who had devoted herself to helping blacks in the South.

She worked for a non-profit, not the government, and had helped or tried to help many blacks, including black farmers and saw many lose their farms.

The point of her speech to the NAACP was laid out before the edited video's section, and not included in the edit, that the story was about how she had grown from thinking she should help blacks, to that she should help the poor regardless of race. This was warmly received by the audience, continued to be enthusiastic to her speech.

As she was recounting her earlier part of the story that was in the edited video, the audience enthusiasm already knew it was headed to how she had changed.

This is one of the things the OP hasn't seemed to learn yet as he thinks the audience shows they support her earlier behavior.

Another overlooked bit was that it wasn't just a white farmer - it was one she said was 'spending a long time trying to show her he was superior to her'.

Again, this is a *private*, not government, person feeling she is talking to a white person who is treating her badly, but wants her help. That's very difference from a government worker discriminating and only by race - which is how Fox presented the story, that she was speaking of what she did as a government worker. They did not indicate the video was decades old, either, not that she actually provided great help.

She goes on to explain this was the first white person she had encountered in her non-profit - and she described her first reaction to not do all she could to help for the stated reasons, but she went on to say, again not included in the edited video, that she realized she should help poor people regardless of race.

She was telling the story of how she had grown - she was criticizing her earlier reaction, indirect contrast to Fox saying she was 'bragging' she had discriminated like she should get a prize for it. Fox wrongly said she was in the government, wrongly said she was 'bragging', wrongly implied it was recent, wrong left out the context she was describing how she stopped looking at race - to a welcoming NAACP audience.

This happened before she was in the government - by the time she was, there's no evidence she did anything wrong based on race.

So, there's room for the OP to further amend his misunderstanding.

The Obama administration should say they were wrong and reinstate her.

The right-wing media who was reckless with this should follow in the footsteps of the NAACP and apologize.

LOL, you're comedy gold and rationalizations like your are why I'm no longer blindly supporting Obama. If any critisism is due, it's the Obama administration for firing her without checking into the story. Then again, maybe they did and that's why they fired he from being in charge of such a large program.

 

[xj0hnx]

So why did the OP and the rest of this thread, until the whole video came out, attack her?

Because until the whole video came out she was a racist, and relating a story about her racist actions to the NAACP who were nodding and laughing about it, pretty simple.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Bullshit. Media Matters portrayed his comments as insulting to Stienbrenner and blacks, when in fact he was praising both.

Try again.

They did no such thing, at least not in the link you provided. The only commentary on the page are the words "race-baiting," which Limbaugh himself basically admits he was doing.

 

[xj0hnx]

They are the worst offenders though. You're right, other news outlets reported on it too, but it was Fox who initially ran the story and repeatedly called her racist and that she should be fired (Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, and Perino). CNN and MSNBC didn't go to that extreme.

Just in case you missed the facts so far ...

No, Fox do NOT initially run the story, she was fired BEFORE Fox, or ANY other network ran the story.

 

[Analogsoul]

Just in case you missed the facts so far ...

No, Fox do NOT initially run the story, she was fired BEFORE Fox, or ANY other network ran the story.

The story ran the same day she was forced to resign. O'reilly said in his show that she should resign, so at that point he hadn't heard that she had resigned right? Whatever, you only use facts when they're convenient.