Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 112

Thread: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

  1. #61
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video



    Corruption? I believe this has more to do with the WH firing Sherrod so quickly, than anything else.
    Also this recent case against Brietbart(after waiting 7 months) I believe is because he's not letting the Pigford story die.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    The race card? Really?
    It's a more accurate representations of our respective positions than your stupid posts.

  3. #63
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Stop lying, he didn't edit anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    That's what he said, you don't know if that is actually a fact. So, who is lying???
    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Breitbart's intention was to destroy her professionally to score points against Obama. She was collateral damage to him.

    I wonder how much some of you would enjoy having your statements here mischaracterized and used against you on national television, so that millions of people think that you're a racist.

    I welcome this lawsuit against Breitbart, and I hope he ends up reaping what he's sown.
    Not sure how there's "intent" derived here? And what physical evidence is there that the video was edited? Sorry folks, this is a huge stretch... and I agree, the damage was done by Fed for firing her. If taking things out of context was a crime, there's be precious little media left in this country and Michael Moore would be spending 4 life terms in San Quentin.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  4. #64
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Seriously, j-mac, the editing of the video has all been proven. You're looking pretty bad right now.

    If you want to discuss the merits of the suit, then get the facts straight. The big question here is malice and intent. Did he intentionally try to defame her?

    But you still don't seem to have an understanding of the FACTS. The video was edited.
    Actually he didn't edit
    anything.
    He did try to defame the NAACP. If you recall the NAACP had just come out defaming the Tea Party. I'm sure he was upset (as many tea partiers were) and thought he had hit the jackpot when he was sent that video. Should he have tried to get the whole thing? Perhaps, however the video did seem pretty blatantly racist and who could have imagined that anything else on it would have exonerated what she said?
    Still odd that the NAACP didn't immediately come out with the complete video. Perhaps they believed it to be racist too?
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Did you totally miss the story? He misrepresented what she said by editing the video.

    You've got the wrong facts and continuing to discuss this with you would be pointless. Please check back after you've gotten the story straight.
    so... in your mind... showing only a small portion of the tape... the equiv of a sound bite... is 'editing' the tape?

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    What you are missing is that he never edited the tape. He, along with lots of others thought it was a clear cut case of racism by the USDA employee in a speech given before the NAACP.
    That's what he CLAIMS. But to believe that we have to believe that the source only turned over a portion of the speech. A portion that conveniently paints a negative light on the speaker.

    His explanation doesn't hold water if you understand how videographers for these types of events work--they collect and store content. They're not in the business of editing stuff then sending it out. But who does have a history of intentionally editing tape to paint people in a bad light?(Acorn)

    The only statements I could find on the videographer:

    Big Government has not posted the full speech. The Douglas, Ga., company which filmed the banquet for the local NAACP has refused to release it to TPMmuckraker. The owner of the video company, Johnny Wilkerson, says he is sending the full video to the national NAACP, and hopes to post it in full once he gets permission.

    Wilkerson also told us that the full speech is exactly as Sherrod described, and that she goes on to explain learning the error of her initial impression and helping the farmer keep his farm.
    So Wilkerson confirms the entire speech is 'exactly as Sherrod described.' This doesn't sound like someone with a grudge or agenda. And he says he needs permission to release the full speech. So how did the edited portion of the speech get to Breitbart?

    And many people who watched the EDITED video realized there was something missing. The portion that Breibart originally showed seems to be a lead-up to something--any reasonable person can tell she's telling a story with a point, but edit cuts this out.

    8:21 p.m.: Allahpundit questions the video's editing, but says he will "assume Breitbart's edit is fair to the spirit of her remarks." In a HotAir post, blogger Allahpundit echoed Scalia's concerns about the video's editing of Sherrod's statement, despite his "assum[ption]" that "Breitbart's edit is fair to the spirit of her remarks":

    Here's Ed's post on the vid in case you missed it this morning. It's a great write-up, but The Anchoress adds an important wrinkle: Doesn't it sound like Sherrod was building to a "but" before the clip cut out?
    3:31 p.m.: Elizabeth Scalia of the blog The Anchoress raises questions about the editing of Breitbart's video. In her post, Scalia wrote, "I am uncomfortable with this 'get' by Breitbart." Scalia further questioned Breitbart's selectively edited video of Sherrod's comments (emphasis in the original):
    Here is a timeline of the incident:

    Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear

    What's disturbing is watching the right-wing attack machine kick in. All the big Fox shows jumped on the editing video, showing it hour after hour, drilling the negative images of the black Government Women who is prejudiced against white people.

    Two days after the video came out, only a few people have bothered to question, 'Where's the rest.'? What was she trying to say?

    On Tuesday, CNN allows her to explain herself. After she gives her explanation the Video Producers confirms the entire video is exactly as she described. But Fox continues to frame the story as an example of how racist the Obama administration it.

    Bottom line: People who viewed the edited video made reasonable assumptions that there was something missing, there was more to the video. Breitbart viewed the same video and released it anyway, framing it in a very negative context. He later regrets not waiting for the entire video. It's those statement, the hindsight, that doesn't hold water.

    When Breitbart release the edited video, he wasn't interested in truth or accurate context, his intent was to smear this women and further his own agenda.

    Defamation:

    Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

    1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
    2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
    3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
    4. Damage to the plaintiff.


    .........

    Public Figures

    Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

    Breitbart admitted that he should have waited to see the entire video.

  7. #67
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    That's what he said, you don't know if that is actually a fact. So, who is lying???
    do you know what editing is as opposed to taking something out of context? If you think what he did was editing then 99% of videos posted by Media Matters are edited.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  8. #68
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

    Quote Originally Posted by Whovian
    so... in your mind... showing only a small portion of the tape... the equiv of a sound bite... is 'editing' the tape?
    That's a very common liberal tactic now. If there's 30 seconds of pertinent data, unless the entire 4 hours uninterrupted is provided and verified, it's "edited" and therefore, taken out of context, slanderous, or only to be viewed as propoganda. Of course, that only is the view if the material is showing questionable behavior or views of another Liberal, the NAACP, etc... if it's, for example, a video showing a politician saying the word "macaca", well.... riots in the streets - the line to the right and protest rally signs are to the left.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  9. #69
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

    Slander requires three components 1) A false statement about a person in made 2) the statement is known to be false by the person putting it forth 3) harm is done to the person being lied about.

    Brietbart claimed

    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.
    It is a fact that the video was no about Sherrod's current federal duties , so the statement is clearly false. Obviously Sherrod lost her job. The sole question that determines Breitbarts liability is if he knew his statements were false. According to him, he was given the edited video and was unaware it did not contain the whole truth. The crux of the case should be discovery to determine exactly how Breitbart obtained the video and if he was aware of its falsehood.

  10. #70
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: Andrew Breitbart sued by Shirley Sherrod over damaging video

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Breitbart's intention was to destroy her professionally to score points against Obama. She was collateral damage to him.

    I wonder how much some of you would enjoy having your statements here mischaracterized and used against you on national television, so that millions of people think that you're a racist.

    I welcome this lawsuit against Breitbart, and I hope he ends up reaping what he's sown.
    It had nothing to do with Obama or the WH. They inserted themselves into it. It was about the NAACP and their defaming of the Tea party.
    I'm one who absolutely hates to be falsely accused of racism and that's exactly what the NAACP was trying to do. Sorry if I can't feel too sorry for Sherrod because that was believed of her for a short time.
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •