• 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
*sigh*
Is anyone going to give any actual evidence that Fox had any role in this, and acted any differently than any other news station? Or do people just like to feel ideologically superior by trying to prove that people who disagree with them "have no honor", whatever the actual facts say?

Are you trying to guilt me for disliking Fox news? I never claimed to be idiologically superior. Fox news digs it's own hole daily.
 
I would imagine Fox can't be sued. I would think initially they would have said, "Breitbart reported this clip:" If anyone is to be sued, it would be breitbart. I doubt that she would have much of a case though. Of course, a lot of times it's cheaper to settle like O'Reilly did with Andrea Makris.
 
There is no libel case against Fox News that I can tell, but there may be a case against Breitbart.

Key to a libel case is the status of the person being defamed. If Sherrod is a "public figure" (like a celebrity or a politician), then the burden of proof is on her to show actual malice (that BigGovernment specifically intended to defame her).

However, Sherrod is more likely a "private figure." She was speaking at a private event to a small crowd and works a behind-the-scenes government job. If she's deemed a private figure, then she only has to show damages and lack of due diligence on BigGovernment's part. If Breitbart's news crew went to press without taking the basic steps of fair journalism, and if that apathetic reporting caused her harm, then she might just a win a case against them.

A few things have to be shown, though.

Did BigGovernment attempt to contact her for comment? Did they contact the NAACP? Did they attempt to obtain the full context of the speech? Was there a pressing public need for the story?

Just to clarify, libel is a civil suit. Bad journalism is not a crime, but it is a crying shame. Just from an outsider's perspective, Breitbart deserves very low marks.
 
Yeah I have to agree.. it is a shame though considering it is fox news that was the primary source of the bull****. Poor woman victimised by the extreme right wing truly unbelievable they can get away with it.

Fox News Channel was not a source at all. They didn't report on it at all until after she had resigned. O'Reilly called for her resignation only because a) he wanted credit for the resignation or b) he didn't know the WH had already forced her to resign.
 
There is no libel case against Fox News that I can tell, but there may be a case against Breitbart.

Key to a libel case is the status of the person being defamed. If Sherrod is a "public figure" (like a celebrity or a politician), then the burden of proof is on her to show actual malice (that BigGovernment specifically intended to defame her).

However, Sherrod is more likely a "private figure." She was speaking at a private event to a small crowd and works a behind-the-scenes government job. If she's deemed a private figure, then she only has to show damages and lack of due diligence on BigGovernment's part. If Breitbart's news crew went to press without taking the basic steps of fair journalism, and if that apathetic reporting caused her harm, then she might just a win a case against them.

A few things have to be shown, though.

Did BigGovernment attempt to contact her for comment? Did they contact the NAACP? Did they attempt to obtain the full context of the speech? Was there a pressing public need for the story?

Just to clarify, libel is a civil suit. Bad journalism is not a crime, but it is a crying shame. Just from an outsider's perspective, Breitbart deserves very low marks.

I completely agree, but you would think Fox would have learned their lesson when they aired the sham ACORN videos from Breitbart and James O’Keefe which have been discredited.
 
Fox News Channel was not a source at all. They didn't report on it at all until after she had resigned. O'Reilly called for her resignation only because a) he wanted credit for the resignation or b) he didn't know the WH had already forced her to resign.

Neither option is journalistic or ethical for a "News Channel" IMO.
 
Watch Hannity try so hard to paint her as a racist and shift the blame. FOX News with egg all over their face.



The WH had already forced her to resign befor this ran. Apparantly Bill 'O was ignorant of that little fact.
She was thrown under the bus before anyone on FNC reported on it.
 
I completely agree, but you would think Fox would have learned their lesson when they aired the sham ACORN videos from Breitbart and James O’Keefe which have been discredited.

I'm not saying the Acorn tapes were a sham but say they were.... Maybe Fox did learn a lesson and that's why the DIDN"T run Brietbarts tapes until AFTER the WH forced her to resign.
If anyone should be sueing maybe it's Fox for all the lies being told about them concerning this case.
 
The WH had already forced her to resign befor this ran. Apparantly Bill 'O was ignorant of that little fact.
She was thrown under the bus before anyone on FNC reported on it.

They obviously would have ran the story if she hadn't resigned yet.

Vilsack screwed up. That's irrelevant to Fox's initial behavior.
 
They obviously would have ran the story if she hadn't resigned yet.

Vilsack screwed up. That's irrelevant to Fox's initial behavior.

I'm sorry, what behavior would that be? Reporting a news story that they and the WH both thought was legit? I'd be more inclined to think the other news sources like MSNBC not reporting on it because it makes their side look bad to be more of a problem.
 
I'm sorry, what behavior would that be? Reporting a news story that they and the WH both thought was legit? I'd be more inclined to think the other news sources like MSNBC not reporting on it because it makes their side look bad to be more of a problem.

Tom Vilsack thought was legit.

You mean MSNBC not reporting it because they hadn't confirmed the video yet? That's more of a problem? FNC rushed to air bad news for the administration. O'Reilly should be made to watch all of his segments on Dan Rather. :lol:
 
I'm sorry, what behavior would that be? Reporting a news story that they and the WH both thought was legit? I'd be more inclined to think the other news sources like MSNBC not reporting on it because it makes their side look bad to be more of a problem.

Exactly. If there's a news story, even if you feel like it shouldn't be a news story, it would be unethical NOT to report it, not the other way around.

From what has been revealed, it seems that Fox was as cautious and careful as they could have been in reporting this story. People talking about them trying to slander Sherrod are, frankly, talking out of their ass. Or they're confusing opinionated pundits with the actual news portion of the channel; and I don't know why they care what O'Reilly says, but he's already apologized anyways.
 
Tom Vilsack thought was legit.

You mean MSNBC not reporting it because they hadn't confirmed the video yet? That's more of a problem? FNC rushed to air bad news for the administration. O'Reilly should be made to watch all of his segments on Dan Rather. :lol:

O'Reilly is not news, he is opinion.
 
O'Reilly is not news, he is opinion.

He's the face of the network. He should be giving opinions about confirmed facts. Otherwise, it's irresponsible or propaganda.
 
He's the face of the network. He should be giving opinions about confirmed facts. Otherwise, it's irresponsible or propaganda.

He's not a face of anyone but himself. If anyone wants to think of him otherwise, that's their problem. But it's not as if the Fox network personally gives him a set of opinions to have. He has his own opinions, and he uses his show to spout them. Not news. Opinion.

And he's already apologized for not having all the facts first, so there you go. (Which makes him more responsible than the NAACP, which refuses to apologize for doing the exact same thing.)
 
Frankly, this whole "don't have an opinion unless you have all the facts" thing is bonkers to begin with. Nobody ever knows if they have all the facts. If you're going to follow that obligation, lefties are going to have to stop bashing birthers (and righties truthers), because for all they know there are facts that they don't have.

Opinions are impossible for situations where all the facts are clear, because at that point there is only objective truth. Opinions can only exist when all the facts aren't clear, and the less clear the facts, the more diverse the opinions.
 
He's the face of the network. He should be giving opinions about confirmed facts. Otherwise, it's irresponsible or propaganda.

The tape was there. It showed a woman with racist views. Those are the facts. The words were coming out of her mouth. I was fooled as was the WH and NAACP(supposedly) Why should O'Reilly be held to a higher standard. You think he's that much smarter than everyone else? I know he thinks so.
I really wonder, if this would have played out, that she really was a racist woman in the USDA and giving speechs to the NAACP if ANY of it would have run on MCNBC or any liberal channel?
 
He's not a face of anyone but himself. If anyone wants to think of him otherwise, that's their problem. But it's not as if the Fox network personally gives him a set of opinions to have. He has his own opinions, and he uses his show to spout them. Not news. Opinion.

And he's already apologized for not having all the facts first, so there you go. (Which makes him more responsible than the NAACP, which refuses to apologize for doing the exact same thing.)

Good on him for apologizing. He admitted his mistake.

Don't you think that someone at Fox approves his scripts? He can't just say anything.
 
The tape was there. It showed a woman with racist views. Those are the facts. The words were coming out of her mouth. I was fooled as was the WH and NAACP(supposedly) Why should O'Reilly be held to a higher standard. You think he's that much smarter than everyone else? I know he thinks so.
I really wonder, if this would have played out, that she really was a racist woman in the USDA and giving speechs to the NAACP if ANY of it would have run on MCNBC or any liberal channel?

Context is important. It's not a fact until you understand the context.

I'm not holding them to a higher standard, you are holding Fox to a different standard. I have stated repeatedly that they all are irresponsible and rushed to judgement without the facts. You want to keep deflecting away from Fox.
 
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).
 
Frankly, this whole "don't have an opinion unless you have all the facts" thing is bonkers to begin with. Nobody ever knows if they have all the facts. If you're going to follow that obligation, lefties are going to have to stop bashing birthers (and righties truthers), because for all they know there are facts that they don't have.

So you are arguing that fact-checking is futile so why bother? :rofl

Yes, things can still be in error like the Swift boaters, but you have to admit that it is more likely a fact if there is a corroborating source with the original. You would have to ignore the fact that video editing happens all the time nowadays.

Opinions are impossible for situations where all the facts are clear, because at that point there is only objective truth. Opinions can only exist when all the facts aren't clear, and the less clear the facts, the more diverse the opinions.

You can have an opinion about the facts without disputing the facts. People do this all the time. Look at the Stock Market.
 
Context is important. It's not a fact until you understand the context.

I'm not holding them to a higher standard, you are holding Fox to a different standard. I have stated repeatedly that they all are irresponsible and rushed to judgement without the facts. You want to keep deflecting away from Fox.

Because in my opinion Fox is innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever.
 
Because in my opinion Fox is innocent of any wrong doing whatsoever.

I'm sure they are.

Bill O'Reilly disagrees with you. He apologized.
 
So you are arguing that fact-checking is futile so why bother? :rofl

No, I'm arguing that sometimes fact-checking isn't possible, or does not yet appear possible, at least for the party involved. Or it just has yet to happen. And that there is nothing wrong with having an opinion in these cases. Most people here in the forum had an opinion of the tape when it came out, both on the left and right. Oddly, nobody is looking to sue them.

Yes, things can still be in error like the Swift boaters, but you have to admit that it is more likely a fact if there is a corroborating source with the original. You would have to ignore the fact that video editing happens all the time nowadays.

A fact that Fox News (news, not opinion) did not ignore, for those who have been paying attention.

You can have an opinion about the facts without disputing the facts. People do this all the time. Look at the Stock Market.

If (hypothetically; I realize this is logically impossible) the facts about which stocks would do what and when were completely clear, it would be difficult to have an opinion in that case.
 
Back
Top Bottom