• 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!

Should Shirley Sherrod sue Fox News and Andrew Breitbart for their lies?

Should Shirley Sherrod sue Fox News and Andrew Breitbart for their lies?

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 45.2%

  • No

    Votes: 23 54.8%
  • Total voters
    42
independent_thinker2002 said:
Bill O'Reilly disagrees with you. He apologized.
Click to expand...

Bill O'Reilly =/= Fox News, as I've already stated. He almost certainly disagrees with you about being the face of the network.

EDIT: Isn't Beck more popular than O'Reilly on the station nowadays anyways? He (Beck) actually defended Sharrod.
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
Bill O'Reilly =/= Fox News, as I've already stated. He almost certainly disagrees with you about being the face of the network.

EDIT: Isn't Beck more popular than O'Reilly on the station nowadays anyways? He (Beck) actually defended Sharrod.
Click to expand...

The Network has him in their Prime Time slot. O'Reilly is a representative of Fox News. You can't divorce them until he leaves the channel.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
O'Reilly is a representative of Fox News.
Click to expand...

He isn't. He's a pundit who uses allotted time on Fox to air his show.

Again, if all the pundits on Fox were "representatives" of the channel, they'd all agree with each other. And Beck and O'Reilly did not agree with each other, at least until the latter apologized.
 
Dav said:
He isn't. He's a pundit who uses allotted time on Fox to air his show.

Again, if all the pundits on Fox were "representatives" of the channel, they'd all agree with each other. And Beck and O'Reilly did not agree with each other, at least until the latter apologized.
Click to expand...

You are missing what I am saying. As an employee, he is a representative of the company. He doesn't have to share opinions of other employees. There should be some kind of standard used to make sure the things they purport as facts actually are. That standard is to fact-check and corroborate sources. Fox didn't enforce this as other shows made the same mistake.
 
Dav said:
Bill O'Reilly =/= Fox News, as I've already stated. He almost certainly disagrees with you about being the face of the network.

EDIT: Isn't Beck more popular than O'Reilly on the station nowadays anyways? He (Beck) actually defended Sharrod.
Click to expand...

Beck is usually second or third behind O'Reilly in ratings. I'm not sure he's ever beat him. I wonder if Beck was on in prime time if he would beat him....
 
digsbe said:
No, she should sue the White House. They were the ones who wrongfully fired. Maybe Sherrod should be sued for bring FoxNews into things and lying about Glenn Beck? (saying she would be on his show when Beck didn't mention it).
Click to expand...

I think when they told her she'd be on his show, they meant her video would be on his show and many people watch it so she'd be toast. However, Glenn didn't even air the video that night. He did the next night and sided with her. I believe Glenn says she now refuses to go on his show even though he defended her.
 
I dunno... does GWB have a case against Dan Rather?
 
Goobieman said:
I dunno... does GWB have a case against Dan Rather?
Click to expand...

expertlaw.com said:
lUnder 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. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
Click to expand...

Click for more

I realize you were being snarky, but I'd just like to point out that a public figure like a former president is much more exposed -- legally -- to defamation. Bush would have a tough case proving malice. Sherrod, likely not a public figure, just has to prove negligence and harm.
 
Look at all people who believe in the injustice served this woman is appropriate.. How pathetic can you get? It was the story that caused it and it was posted and ranted about by the libertarian "fox news" outlet.. from blog to national television. Don't you think "fox news" should .. um you know.. stop bull****ing for political gain?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You are missing what I am saying. As an employee, he is a representative of the company. He doesn't have to share opinions of other employees. There should be some kind of standard used to make sure the things they purport as facts actually are. That standard is to fact-check and corroborate sources. Fox didn't enforce this as other shows made the same mistake.
Click to expand...

But he didn't do anything wrong. He called for her resignation just like lots of people did. Hell I did it right here on DP, then had to apologize. He apologized, as did the WH and I think the NAACP did. I think the only one who hasn't is Brietbart, but I guess that's his choice.
As far as Fox seemingly to be the only network that needed to apologize is because no one else ran it. They don't run anything that might make their side look bad. They were all over the story of the NAACP(lies) calling out the tea party as racists. They weren't about to then turn around and air something that pointed to the NAACP as racists.
 
Barbbtx said:
But he didn't do anything wrong. He called for her resignation just like lots of people did. Hell I did it right here on DP, then had to apologize. He apologized, as did the WH and I think the NAACP did. I think the only one who hasn't is Brietbart, but I guess that's his choice.
As far as Fox seemingly to be the only network that needed to apologize is because no one else ran it. They don't run anything that might make their side look bad. They were all over the story of the NAACP(lies) calling out the tea party as racists. They weren't about to then turn around and air something that pointed to the NAACP as racists.
Click to expand...

If he didn't do anything wrong, what did he apologize for?

Did Dan Rather do anything wrong?
 
Barbbtx said:
But he didn't do anything wrong. He called for her resignation just like lots of people did. Hell I did it right here on DP, then had to apologize. He apologized, as did the WH and I think the NAACP did. I think the only one who hasn't is Brietbart, but I guess that's his choice.
As far as Fox seemingly to be the only network that needed to apologize is because no one else ran it. They don't run anything that might make their side look bad. They were all over the story of the NAACP(lies) calling out the tea party as racists. They weren't about to then turn around and air something that pointed to the NAACP as racists.
Click to expand...

Tea Party ousts leader over racist satire - Dallas Voice
 
Why would she sue Fox News? They never said she was racist, they simply reported the footage. I have not seen anything that suggests Fox News accused her of being racist or that she should lose her job. If anything she should go after the NAACP or the White House.
 
Btw, the way you asked your poll question is very revealing...
 
Gabriel said:
Look at all people who believe in the injustice served this woman is appropriate.. How pathetic can you get? It was the story that caused it and it was posted and ranted about by the libertarian "fox news" outlet.. from blog to national television. Don't you think "fox news" should .. um you know.. stop bull****ing for political gain?
Click to expand...

She came out looking like a Saint. Where are the damages? I just wonder why she didn't refuse to resign. She knew she was in the right and the tape would vindicate her. Now she's wanting to sue? Seems she is as much to blame as anyone.
 
Barbbtx said:
She came out looking like a Saint. Where are the damages? I just wonder why she didn't refuse to resign. She knew she was in the right and the tape would vindicate her. Now she's wanting to sue? Seems she is as much to blame as anyone.
Click to expand...

Her integrity was compromised by a crafted rumour. I don't know about this business at all I couldn't tell you what she would be entitled to from this massive injustice. I’ve already stated as much .. but my gut says she is certainly a victim.
 
Haven't read the entire thread, but here's my view:

You may have a case against Breitbart. He knowingly took footage and then lied about its content, ruining the reputation of an innocent person.

As I said in another thread, to prove defamation, you must prove three things:

1. The accusation was untrue. Clearly, Breitbart said that this woman was a present-day racist, which is not true.

2. People believed it. Obviously they did.

3. It harmed her reputation. This is usually proven by having someone fired from their job because of the lie. Once more, that's pretty obvious.

Fox, on the other hand (as well as all the other news channels that reported this): There's a bit of a different standard, because you would have to prove that they knowingly and maliciously reported this, aware that it was untrue. As far as I know, that's not the case.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Click for more

I realize you were being snarky, but I'd just like to point out that a public figure like a former president is much more exposed -- legally -- to defamation. Bush would have a tough case proving malice. Sherrod, likely not a public figure, just has to prove negligence and harm.
Click to expand...

"or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth"

In that, GWB would have a case :D
 
We don't know that Brietbart lied. He says that's how he got the tape. The same way as he presented it to us. I thought it was enough to call her a racist right along with everyone else.
 
Helvidius said:
Do you have proof of Fox News calling Shirley a racist or demanding she resign? I haven't seen anything that suggests either.
Click to expand...

O'Reilly did, after she resigned, but before he knew it. He has apologized.
 
Barbbtx said:
We don't know that Brietbart lied. He says that's how he got the tape. The same way as he presented it to us. I thought it was enough to call her a racist right along with everyone else.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say this is forthright:

 
Helvidius said:
Do you have proof of Fox News calling Shirley a racist or demanding she resign? I haven't seen anything that suggests either.
Click to expand...

Dear lord.. take a look at this compilation.

 
Helvidius said:
Do you have proof of Fox News calling Shirley a racist or demanding she resign? I haven't seen anything that suggests either.
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom