Sherrod to sue Breitbart over edited video

[UberNeuman]

That it was edited is not of consequence, what was edited out is, luckily for him he had both her racist comments, and her redemption speech, she has no case, that is unless it comes up before some liberal activist that shouldn't even be on the bench because they can't see past their partisan bias, like a lot of posters here.

Mr. Andrew Brietbart - you have been sworn in.... You have placed on the internet, a news story, which was picked up on broadcast media and offered as fact, when in fact was spliced footage to engage viewers in a deceptive manner - we ask you now if you did not edit this footage, then who did?

 

[waggy]

Mr. Andrew Brietbart - you have been sworn in.... You have placed on the internet, a news story, which was picked up on broadcast media and offered as fact, when in fact was spliced footage to engage viewers in a deceptive manner - we ask you now if you did not edit this footage, then who did?

not going to matter. i really doubt this lawsuit is going to see the light of day.

she has from the start claimed it caused the WH to get her fired. the WH has said they had NOTHING to do with it. If briabarts lawyers are any good they will use that. i don't think the WH wants this in t he courts.

 

[bullbert]

So the audience didn't clap at her comments before the moral of her speech?

Shhh. Do not point out the facts. You will be accused of "teabaggery", of being a sock puppet, or of being a racist.

 

[UberNeuman]

not going to matter. i really doubt this lawsuit is going to see the light of day.

she has from the start claimed it caused the WH to get her fired. the WH has said they had NOTHING to do with it. If briabarts lawyers are any good they will use that. i don't think the WH wants this in t he courts.

oh, brother, I hope it goes all the way just so they have to reveal the source of all this.......

Who is the source of that edited video.....

 

[Nemesis 1]

and.................... who emailed him the clip....?

Obama

 

[UberNeuman]

Shhh. Do not point out the facts. You will be accused of "teabaggery", of being a sock puppet, or of being a racist.

nah, bull, you'll just be another of the many jumping to conclusions....

 

[lupi]

give little chance of a sucessfull case, to much of the evidence is her own speach.

 

[Zebo]

The only one who hurt her career was one who took action to fire her w/o due diligence...i.e. the feds.

 

[UberNeuman]

The only one who hurt her career was one who took action to fire her w/o due diligence...i.e. the feds.

Perhaps.... and what brought that on?

 

[xj0hnx]

Perhaps.... and what brought that on?

Their over reaction to the fear that the video would be on Glenn Beck, even though it had the part of the the video where she explains her realization that she was wrong.

 

[UberNeuman]

Their over reaction to the fear that the video would be on Glenn Beck, even though it had the part of the the video where she explains her realization that she was wrong.

Sir, if you check Amused first post on this subject - who was it that I did I blame for this over-reaction....

\doesn't get the firebug off of starting the fire....
\\the woeful, inept firebug.........
\\\that some of you keep running with......

 

[TehMac]

I like how even Chris Matthews, a hired hand of MSNBC no less, defends Breitbart and slams governor Dean for his blatant idiocy and ignorance.

Dean admits he has never even viewed that 2:36 video in its entirety! Nor has he even read Andrew Breitbart’s original article, which states:
Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Yep, typical leftist slime job, and what's hilarious/sad is that they don't even look at the facts!

 

[UberNeuman]

why? why be so simple to link to Brietbart, when it's been shown to be so dishonest?

\WHY SO DISHONEST?
\\nevermind, it's just rage junkies looking for their fix...........

 

[Pulsar]

Yea, she really got hurt Even if she could prove damages, she was damaged by the USDA, not Breibart.



And? They need to look foolish if they did something foolish. Suing Breitbart, and not the USDA is nothing but partisan bullshit.

Getting fired from your job is being damaged. Period. This is about more than just being financially damaged. Her character was impugned. That is damaging. The fact that she got her job back afterwards has no bearing on the case. Do you know what type of hell she probably went through (and will continue to go through)?

The damage portion of the case is the easy part. The hard part is... well... the rest.

 

[shira]

I don't see what she expects to get? Everyone keeps saying that it was a "heavily edited" clip, but it wasn't "edited", it was just taken out of context and if we start suing every politcal hack who takes things out of context our courts will soon be plugged.

I think I read that Briebart recieved the clip they way he posted it so where's the case??

Frankly, I think she would have a far stronger case against Fox news. They edited the clip to stop right after the point where she says she helped the farmer much less than she was capable of. And at that point, we have O'Reilly, Hannity, and the "Good Morning America" wannabees all proclaiming her a racist who should be fired. If they had the original tape, they DID engage in willful disregard of the truth.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Shira has a point . If Fox did as he says . Than I wouldn't have seen she was speaking of her early failings and the growth she went threw. Which was clearly in the reported video of discussion. How it can become a debate is beyond my understanding . Even the edited version clearly speaks to her intent and the lifes lesson she learned.

 

[RedCOMET]

oh, baby doll, Brwrongbart is going to have to reveal his source...

Does he have to? Isn't that sorta thing protected by law... assuming a blogger = journalist.

 

[StageLeft]

Don't you need damages to sue? Her job she lost briefly, has been offered at least one back since and her name that was taken through the mud briefly is now net-positive. To be honest it seems to me that Breitbart inadvertently helped her career and her character.

 

[daishi5]

so why comment at all if you have no clue?? seems to me like you should stfu........especially if you have no clue..

Most people on this forum are clueless about things they post about, I just try to be more clear on my own lack of knowledge. It seems that at least one of my second hand "facts" was wrong, they did directly talk about Sherrod, but it does not seem to be direct enough that it could be considered intentional libel, but I think that would be dancing a very fine line, so looking at Classy's link I don't know how much of a claim she would have because it is a close call.

 

[Narmer]

For those defending Breibart, it isn't just about the video. It's about his comments, which were blatant lies. If he just posted the video he would be in the clear, but his commentary should be the meat of her evidence against him.

 

[waggy]

Don't you need damages to sue? Her job she lost briefly, has been offered at least one back since and her name that was taken through the mud briefly is now net-positive. To be honest it seems to me that Breitbart inadvertently helped her career and her character.

not only did she get a job offered back it was a promotion and pay raise. now everyone knows her cause and such.

i agree. i think it helped her. this and the WH involvement makes me believe that it won't go to court (but hell i have been wrong before heh)

 

[waggy]

oh, brother, I hope it goes all the way just so they have to reveal the source of all this.......

Who is the source of that edited video.....

i agree. i would like to see who the source of this all is.

 

[hal2kilo]

I think this analysis is basically correct - it depends on how it was originally presented on his website.

I remain a bit confused about how an edited version of her speech got out though. I keep hearing conflicting things about whether it was Breitbart who was responsible for the editing or not.

- wolf

Not sure what was in the clip on the original link on Breitbart's wesite. Chris Matthews got in a tisy with Gov. Dean and the gal from Slate, saying that the clip did not stop at "I sent him to one of his own" but continued with the redemption story. Dean and I can't remember her name were adament that it was what Fox was showing on their Fox nation website. Linked files can be changed after the fact though.

 

[HumblePie]

Wow, so much fail in this thread.

1) It doesn't matter whether Breitbart edited the tape or not. It is his job as a responsible journalist to find out ALL the facts before reporting a story and claiming it as fact.

That is not to say he could not air the edited version, but that the way the story is presented must in line with the fact that not everything is completely known. Meaning, if Breitbart had stated, I received this video from a source and it seems to show X person doing Y bad thing then this would not be a libel or slander case. Why? Making a hypothesis based on the evidence he currently had is perfectly legal and acceptable.

The problem is he stated as a fact of statement that she WAS racist and the video he originally showed was his proof for that statement of fact.

2) Her grievances with the whitehouse, NAACP, USDA, or whatever have zero bearing on her grievances with Brietbart. They are not mutually exclusive. She also has the right to take up complaints against all parties involved.

3) While she has a grievance against the NAACP and whitehouse, they also made good on her grievance by offering her basically an "out of court" settlement. She got a better job and probably some side benefits we will never know about. By doing this, the white house and other parties involved rectified their own part of the error. By doing so, chances are she signed a non retaliation agreement to not sue them by accepting the "offer" of an apology.

4) While the white house and other parties had ways out of court to settle their wrongs, Breitbart and company do not. What they did was wrong and illegal. She has a valid grievance and she needs to take it up. Political leaning be damned here. This is a (excuse the pun) black and white scenario. Personally, I do not care whom is favoring whom, or belongs to party X. It does not matter in this case. Breitbart and Fox, to put it simply, fucked up here. There is no excuse for their behavior. They need to feel the consequences for their actions or they will do this again.


Again, I would have had no problem with Breitbart over this if he had just simply alluded to the allegation instead of claiming it as fact. It does not matter if he personally edited the video or not. The defamation comes strictly from his statement. The video is peripheral.

 

[PeshakJang]

To those saying she has a legitimate case:

Would you apply the same standard to every other political (journalist, blogger, commentator) who took another person's comments out of context? Michael Moore comes to mind as somebody who has done just this for a living for years, yet it wasn't a big deal until this relatively minor incident.