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:
- A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
- The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
- If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
[*]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.
