• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outsted USDA employee Sherrod plans to sue blogger

:spin::spin::spin:

Rather lost his job NOT for the report, but because it was shady reporting and he refused to back down after it was proven he'd been rolled leading to doubt about his ability to tell fact from fiction. Nice try dan, but :failpail:

I hate to point this out, as it is obvious, but the report was the ahdy reporting. If he had done his job properly, he could have done what the NYT's did and make the case without the document. So, shady reporting is the point. And he was properly held accountable.
 
Okay - from my understanding, she has an absolutely good case:

According to Roger Ebert (he didn't sue, but suggests a precedent based on something very similar), the misuse of a quote without permission or consent of the speaker IS a civil offense.

blog: scanners :: rogerebert.com :: Scanners

In other words, if I write a negative review and a studio pulls some adjectives out of my review to suggest I liked the film, I can sue them.

Breitbart misused her words to suggest the EXACT opposite of what she was exactly saying. Her message in the speech was that she overcame her prejudice based upon the fact that her father was murdered before her eyes as a teenager by white racists who were never prosecuted for their crimes and went on to stop judging whites based on race. To use the first half of a statement to suggest she is racist is defamation of character and she has every right to sue.

Also, at the time - being an employee of the USDA - she was not a "public figure". Thus she is subject to higher protections than Palin was at the time of the improperly reported rumors of her child not being hers. The best example: Had you heard of Shirly Sherrod before this? If you had, then you might be able to argue she was a public figure. Since most Americans had no idea who she was, the "public figure" defense doesn't really work.

Whether she wins or not, who knows? But it's a legitimate case. Breitbart both made her a public figure and his misuse of her speech defamed her character and caused her damage.
 
What vicious lies were printed about Palin?....and give me an example where the media only used part of her speech to slur her.

Oh, I'll take this one up, since they absolutely did this. One sec, let me do a quick search...
 
Here we go. Going to quote a post I made from back during the election when Charlie Gibson and ABC absolutely, completely, and fully distorted and smeared Sarah Palin in one of her first major televised interviews which set the stage for her to be ridiculed, false meme's to start spreading about her in the media, and for the left to grab onto to suggest she's a radical insane christian extremists:

I'm really kind of annoyed with an excerpt they have on ABC's website of Palin's interview, which shows Charlie likely didn't watch the video or take his own notes but was given it.

The question was on Palin was clarifying her "god" comment from the infamous "Church Speech" talking about God's plan. And initially he asks:

"You said recently in your old church that our national leaders are sending US soldiers on a task that is from god. Are we fighting a holy war?"

Now, that didn't sound right to me. And she said, "I don't know if those are my exact words" and he goes "Those are your exact words". This, technically, is true and he's not lieing. But lets look at the full quote.

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending out on a task that is from God"

She is not saying "Our national leaders are sending US Soldiers on a task that is from god". She said to "PRAY....that our national leaders" etc etc. Charlie makes it out that she stated it as fact; in reality she stated it asking people to pray that it was true.

Lets go on.

Her answer was that it was an allusion to something Lincoln said. "never presume to know what's gods will is" (which she said she'd never do) "Let us not pray that god is on our side, in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side". Thus...essentially that's what she is saying. PRAY that the tasks our leaders are sending us out to do is the will, the plan, the side, of God.

Charlie says that he understands her reference to Lincoln's words but goes on to say that she stated: "There is a plan, and it is gods plan".

Now, again, let us go to the source material

"That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan."

Wow, that is a lot different...in one case, as Charlie is implying, she's stating that definitively that the War in Iraq is Gods Plan. In the other, the actual transcript of the speech, it shows she's asking people to PRAY that there is a plan (for the war) and that that plan is God's Plan.

The transcript backs up what she said, that she was making allusions to Lincoln's statements that you do not say god is on your side, you pray that you're on his. Charlie's presentation of it, which while not a lie because it is her words, is completely taken out of context and implies the EXACT opposite.

She did get flumoxed after this point and does poorly in response. However, its understandable as she's having to explain a position she didn't actually have, though she still did poorly.

Still, when people ask why did she not do interviews...look at this. Show me an interview with Obama that had his words taken out of context that greatly.

This is meant to be a person that is in the media news reporting media, meaning "UNBIASED". He is not a commentator to my knowledge, he is not a politician. He is someone that the whole nation is supposed to watch to ask LEGITIMATE questions of candidates, and he asks pure, complete distortions. And not only that, after her initial answer corrected his distortion, he followed it up by further sticking to it.

People asked why people were saying they don't care that Palin hasn't had an interview, or doesn't care if Palin got interviewed by the media, this is why. They have shown, since the moment she was nominated, that they have no desire to be fair and unbiased but seek simply to distort, misrepresent, and attack her.

They are NOT politicians, many of those doing it have not been commentators like Hannity or Olbermann, but actual people meant to be doing legitimate news coverage and reporting.

Transcript of her speech

Segment

Absolute and complete distortion, misleading, and clipping/editing of statements out of context specifically to give a false impression counter to what was actually done.

Absolutely bull**** to suggest that this wasn't done to Palin.

The only difference in the two situations is that in Palin's case she has no real recourse because she's a public official, and in Sherrod's place she didn't have a legitimate, recognized, widely respect, supposedly neutral "news network" that is expected to have actual intellectual honesty and integrity.
 
She's not a public figure and the blogger who ran this story going after a private citizen did not do his due dilligence in researching this prior to putting out a story with the implications his had. Do I think this'll succeed in court? I'm unsure. But I don't have an issue in general with her persuing it.
 
No, she has no case. He wasn't attacking her, he didn't edit the video, thus... you are completely off base.

Repeating this over and over does not make it true. I suggest you google the following: "libel" "slander" and "prima facie case." Get back to us with your research results. Thanks.
 
– Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.


Ousted USDA employee Sherrod plans to sue blogger - Yahoo! News


Good for her. These right-wing nutjobs have gotten away with their propoganda for too long. Its time that irresponsible journalism on either side of the aisle does not go unchecked. Breitbart has lost all crediility...its time that he lose a little of his (not) hard earned cash.

You cry out 'right wing nutjobs' as if they're the only nuts not falling far from the tree!

I support her taking it to court - that's how things should work. The outcome shouldn't *be* pre-determinable . . . which is why we *have* the court system. the judge will then be provided with solid arguments and evidence on both sides of the case to prove whether or not Breitbart did this with the intent of getting her fired.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely bull**** to suggest that this wasn't done to Palin.

The only difference in the two situations is that in Palin's case she has no real recourse because she's a public official, and in Sherrod's place she didn't have a legitimate, recognized, widely respect, supposedly neutral "news network" that is expected to have actual intellectual honesty and integrity.

No...the difference is that Palin was confronted in the interview and was given every opportunity to explain her words. I will give you that Gibson does take her words out of context (moreso on the second quote, than the first one. I think when you read the first one, even in the full context, it does sound like she is suggesting that it IS God's plan. However, the second quote does clarify it so more).
 
You cry out 'right wing nutjobs' as if they're the only nuts not falling far from the tree!

I support her taking it to court - that's how things should work. The outcome shouldn't *be* pre-determinable . . . which is why we *have* the court system. the judge will then be provide with solid arguments and evidence on both sides of the case to prove whether or not Breitbart did this with the intent of getting her fired.

It is the right-wing nutjobs in this instance....but I have said many many times on this site that there are nutjobs on the left as well....even more radica left than I am that I have no respect for because I don't see them as any more credible than their right-wing counterparts.

Both sides play this "Gotcha" politics andthe real losers are anyone who wants at least a semblance of the truth.
 
No...the difference is that Palin was confronted in the interview and was given every opportunity to explain her words. I will give you that Gibson does take her words out of context (moreso on the second quote, than the first one. I think when you read the first one, even in the full context, it does sound like she is suggesting that it IS God's plan. However, the second quote does clarify it so more).

Told ya DD would ignore my post. Proof left wing bloggers lied about Palin and the MSM took it up. But carry on DD with your fantasy.
 
Told ya DD would ignore my post. Proof left wing bloggers lied about Palin and the MSM took it up. But carry on DD with your fantasy.

Which post? I waited all day yesterday for you to reply. Did you actually finally post something? I guess I'll go back and check.
 
You accept all the claims about Palin as truth, so why would I bother wasting anyone's time by posting:


Townhall.com Blog : Amanda Carpenter : Lefty Bloggers Go After Palin's Daughter


Watch everyone, DD will either IGNORE this post, or he'll run away and never post in this thead again, cause he just got PWNED.

So I see that you actually did finally respond to my post.

However, I have to laugh at your response. I actually kind of thought that this would be the best that you could come up with. I thought to myself, I expect Vicch to come up with the Trig argument.

The BIG difference here is that this was BS that was perpetuated in extreme left-wing blogs, not in the major media outlets. There was really no credible source that I know of that tried to run the story as being true.
Unlike the BS Rev. Wright stuff that was pushed by those on the right.

Do you actually have a real example of anywhere where the press lied or mis-quoted Palin (and don't come back with SNL's/Tina Fey "I can see Russia from my house).

At least Zyph had a pretty good example.

Got anything better?
 
No...the difference is that Palin was confronted in the interview and was given every opportunity to explain her words. I will give you that Gibson does take her words out of context (moreso on the second quote, than the first one. I think when you read the first one, even in the full context, it does sound like she is suggesting that it IS God's plan. However, the second quote does clarify it so more).

She was confronted in an interview about words from a youtube clip from god knows how long ago from a respected journalist who implied to her that those were specifically what she said.

Yes, she did have it in a different circumstance than Sherrod. Unlike Sherrod however it wasn't coming from a known partisan blogger on an internet site but from a "respected" journalist on a "legitimate" news network in an official interview.

In both cases a video was taken entirely out of context and used to slur and defame the person. You asked for an example where the "media only used part of her speech to slur her." Without question, without argument, I have shown an example of the media using only part of a speech of hers to slur her. Your question did not have "in EXACTLY the same way as Sherrod", nor did it have "Without the ability to speak back against it". You wanted an example of the media clearly twisting her words out of context to slur her and I provided that.
 
So I see that you actually did finally respond to my post.

However, I have to laugh at your response. I actually kind of thought that this would be the best that you could come up with. I thought to myself, I expect Vicch to come up with the Trig argument.

The BIG difference here is that this was BS that was perpetuated in extreme left-wing blogs, not in the major media outlets. There was really no credible source that I know of that tried to run the story as being true.
Unlike the BS Rev. Wright stuff that was pushed by those on the right.

Do you actually have a real example of anywhere where the press lied or mis-quoted Palin (and don't come back with SNL's/Tina Fey "I can see Russia from my house).

At least Zyph had a pretty good example.

Got anything better?

Oh Disney. Do we have to remind you again that she was already fired when Fox News posted the video?
 
So I see that you actually did finally respond to my post.

However, I have to laugh at your response. I actually kind of thought that this would be the best that you could come up with. I thought to myself, I expect Vicch to come up with the Trig argument.

The BIG difference here is that this was BS that was perpetuated in extreme left-wing blogs, not in the major media outlets. There was really no credible source that I know of that tried to run the story as being true.
Unlike the BS Rev. Wright stuff that was pushed by those on the right.

Do you actually have a real example of anywhere where the press lied or mis-quoted Palin (and don't come back with SNL's/Tina Fey "I can see Russia from my house).

At least Zyph had a pretty good example.

Got anything better?

:blink:

Sherrod was "attacked by a blogger", so I pulled a "Palin was attacked by a blogger". Showing the difference between a clip of video, and malicious intent.

How about...

"I can see Russia from my house!"
She never said it, yet plenty of idiots claim she did.

The attacks on Palin started online shortly after McCain named her his running mate and quickly spread to the mainstream media. Palin was allegedly a member of the John Birch Society. She became a member of an Alaskan separatist group. She showed no compassion for rape victims in Wasilla, Alaska. The attacks cited news organizations but were all quickly debunked. Unfortunately, the attacks went viral and started circulating through email and across the internet.

What struck many bloggers as unusual about these “grassroots” attacks was the production quality of the videos. They were well done for amateurs. The Jawa Report, a noted right of center blog known for tracking down online terrorists, observed that the videos had a female voiceover strikingly similar to the same voice David Axelrod has used in Obama advertisements and other work.

Breaking yesterday, the Jawa Report has provided stunning documentation and evidence that fairly well proves the videos are tied to David Axelrod and the Barack Obama campaign.

The Jawa Report has so well documented the ties to the Obama campaign that it sent the posters of the online attack videos into a coverup frenzy. The posters have been hard at work yanking all the attacks from the internet. Here, in a nutshell, is what the Jawa Report has shown.

The ads were put on YouTube by user “eswinner.” The Jawa Report alleges that eswinner is actually Ethan S. Winner of Publicis Groupe, whose subsidiary company Winner & Associates is run by Chuck Winner, a Democratic operative and Obama donor. The firm has also represented Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson as well as the European Union in its efforts to sell the European Union treaty to the public.
Axelrod Astroturfs an Attack Against Palin - HUMAN EVENTS

And who can forget this?


There’s a savage narrative developing among the media’s elite that suggests Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin will be a bad mother if she becomes the nation’s first female vice president.

MSNBC, CNN and the Washington Post have each hinted Palin may neglect her five children, including one with Down’s Syndrome should the Republicans win the White House in November. Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden even spent a considerable amount of time opining about Palin’s looks while attempting to lay out the differences between himself and Palin.
Townhall - Amanda Carpenter - Top Five Sexist Attacks on Palin

Care to get school'd more DD or you just gonna slink away now?
 
The whole thing with Palin is that she wasn't even getting valid criticism from the media. Daily it was just a laundry list of gossip and smear that came from our supposedly respected journalists. Things like:

- Palin is a bad mother
- Palin hates rape victims
- Palin wears hooker boots
- Palin advertises for snow machine companies as governor
- Palin is dishonest
- Palin spends too much on clothes
- Palin wears fur
- Palin's daughter is a slut
- Palin is stupid
- Palin is a prolife nazi
- Palin wants to secede from the US
- Palin can't or doesn't read
- Palin's church has "de-witchings"

etc, etc, etc.

It was disgusting.
 
If she sues and wins, Michael moore better watch out. :ssst:



She could sue her employer for wrongful termination, but that's it.
 
Back
Top Bottom