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

[Gabriel]

Simple yes or no.

 

[MaggieD]

Had you just said Breitbart, you'd have gotten a yes. The way your poll is written, I can't vote.

 

[Jucon]

Had you just said Breitbart, you'd have gotten a yes. The way your poll is written, I can't vote.

Yeah. Though Fox News "broke" the "story", everyone was talking about it. She should certainly sue the editor of the clip.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Same here.

But can she sue? Does she have a case? Fox news in their *news-reporting portions* never demanded she be fired or accused her of racism (that I'm aware of, anyway, I'm not sure - I don't sit and watch it) but I did see that individuals like O'Reilly did.

I think she'd have a hard case, actually. . . she'd have to be able to prove that they intentionally destroyed her career and were quite intent on getting her fired.

 

[MaggieD]

Same here.

But can she sue? Does she have a case? Fox news in their *news-reporting portions* never demanded she be fired or accused her of racism (that I'm aware of, anyway, I'm not sure - I don't sit and watch it) but I did see that individuals like O'Reilly did.

I think she'd have a hard case, actually. . . she'd have to be able to prove that they intentionally destroyed her career and were quite intent on getting her fired.

The easy answer is, "Yes, anyone can sue" Your second question is the real one! Ha! I'd say she may....it'd be a close call if I were on the jury. But who? Brietbart because he didn't adequately his source? (It'd be hard to prove he edited the video -- and I personally don't think he did.) Is he obligated to verify a story before he runs it? Hmmm..... Interesting, isn't it?

Then there's the question of damages. What were her damages? Well, she was fired. That's pretty emotionally damaging, so I'd think she'd be entitled to 'emotional distress.' She was subject to ridicule. That's for sure.

If not for the person who altered the video and Brietbart not verifying it before he ran with it, none of this would have happened. Her being fired and subject to ridicule were 'foreseeable consequences' in my book. I'd say somebody's going to take up the gauntlet. Brietbart's prolly got some hefty personal liability policies.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

That's true.

Now - I'm not sure *when* I heard this (before or after things evolved into her being fired) - but I thought that Breitbart's intent with showing the film wasn't so much to accuse *her* of racism - but to point out how the *audience* reacted to that part of her story. . . she might have had a story that evolved in her speech but the audience appreciated her racist remarks.
(Now - 'when' is essential, here - if he made this point before things erupted (if he made the point at all - it's 2nd hand, I didn't hear it) then that's against her possible case and in support of his motives. . . . but if he said this 'after' things erupted then it would just be back peddling and meaningless.)

Sadly - all of the focus has been on her words, though (being a truncated video) were forced out of context.

And none of the focus has been on the audience who approved of her initial race-based actions.

As always - I prefer any questionable circumstance and dicey situation be taken to court where both sides will have to provide evidence and actually argue their case - I think it's impossible to make sound judgment if you don't have timelines and all the bits and pieces.

I certain don't have all the bits and pieces.

 

[Josie]

No, she should sue whoever wrongfully forced her to resign.

 

[MaggieD]

She had no employment contract...I assume that because they wouldn't have fired her if she had...at least so fast. She was probably employed "at will." Thank God that, sans employment contract, employers can't be sued for firing people. Yikes!

 

[Josie]

And I keep hearing that the White House forced her resignation before Fox News even commented about it.

 

[winston53660]

And I keep hearing that the White House forced her resignation before Fox News even commented about it.

Link please.

 

[Gabriel]

Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear | Media Matters for America

Timeline of Breitbart's Sherrod smear
July 22, 2010 7:38 am ET — 94 Comments
Media Matters has documented a timeline of Andrew Breitbart's smear of Shirley Sherrod, from Breitbart's initial posting of his deceptively edited clip of Sherrod -- which was amplified by Fox News and other right-wing media -- through the release of the full video of Sherrod's comments, which made clear the context of her remarks.

 

[Dav]

No, because nobody lied. Providing part of a video isn't a lie. Even if it's not the whole video, it's still just a video, and it can only show what other people have said/done.

And Fox News didn't hype this story any differently than any other news station; THAT is more of a lie than the video was. But nobody should sue for it, because we have this thing called "freedom of speech"....

 

[earthworm]

No, because nobody lied. Providing part of a video isn't a lie. Even if it's not the whole video, it's still just a video, and it can only show what other people have said/done.

And Fox News didn't hype this story any differently than any other news station; THAT is more of a lie than the video was. But nobody should sue for it, because we have this thing called "freedom of speech"....

And if the people do not learn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then we will end up losing our precious "freedom of speech".
IMO, not telling the whole truth is the same as lieing.

 

[Hatuey]

Watch Hannity try so hard to paint her as a racist and shift the blame. FOX News with egg all over their face.

 

[goldcatt]

What was done to her was unethical, but honestly I'm not sure she would have a case. And even in these kinds of disgusting cases I'm hesitant to advocate placing limits on the press. For the most part they're dumbed down power hungry snuggle buddies with whomever will appeal most to their target audience. But without them would there be any level of transparency at all, even as corrupt as it is now?

 

[Barbbtx]

Sherrod herself said, she was told to pull over and resign then and there (per the WH) because she was going to be on Glenn Beck that night.
So how is Fox to blame? Apparantly no stories on Fox had been run at that time. The WH jumped the gun.
If she is able to sue for Fox airing something out of context, can someone on behalf of the Tea Party sue the liberal networks for doing the same? I don't know how many times I've seen that huge gun being carried (by a black man) but leading the viewer to believe it was a racist white man from the Tea Party. They knew it was a black man. They went to great pains to crop out his head and hands. What about the the white supremist (probably a plant) declaring he was a racist at a Tea Party? They conveniently cut out the part of him being surrounded by real tea partiers and told that they had no use for him and he didn't belong. That that wasn't what the tea party was about. They told him to get out! It was aired only as a racist at a Tea Party. Nothing more. What about the lie that keeps being repeated about the N word being said 15 times and a congressman being spat on. Shouldn't the liberal networks be held accountable for painting the tea party as racist with no proof?
This woman Shirley Sherrod seems to have some fishy things in her past that involves quite a bit of money. Maybe this is why the WH was so quick on the trigger. Maybe they didn't want people digging into that. The more I hear this woman the less I like her. I think I jumped the gun when I apologized for jumping the gun.

 

[phattonez]

From what I hear, Shepard Smith wouldn't even play the clip because he didn't trust Andrew Breitbart. So to blame Fox News is kind of disingenuous. The news portion did fine, the opinion portion not so much.

 

[peepnklown]

If there is evidence for libel/slander then yes.

 

[Gabriel]

If there is evidence for libel/slander then yes.

I agree though I doubt she can make a case to be honest. Not because there is no evidence but proving damages etc are difficult. I couldn't tell you the legalities around the subject. I honestly think if she can she should.

 

[Dav]

If there is evidence for libel/slander then yes.

If taking someone else's words out of context is libel/slander, every politician in the country would be guilty.

 

[pbrauer]

Simple yes or no.

I have go with the others, had you said Andrew Breitbart, I would have given a definite 'YES." For defamation of character.

 

[ludahai]

She had no employment contract...I assume that because they wouldn't have fired her if she had...at least so fast. She was probably employed "at will." Thank God that, sans employment contract, employers can't be sued for firing people. Yikes!

Actually, that is wrong. Many (if not most) states DO have rules about wrongful dismissal and employers CAN and ARE sued for violating them. A former employer of mine (when I was a student in Georgia -- a right to work state) was successfully sued for wrongful dismissal while I was working there.

 

[Gabriel]

I have go with the others, had you said Andrew Breitbart, I would have given a definite 'YES." For defamation of character.

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.

 

[The Uncola]

Absolutely. If any supposed "news organization" FAILS to do the basic due diligence of their reporting, especially when it appears to be deliberate, as in this case, they should be held accountable for their slander and libel and be made to pay significant restitution for their clear and despicable attempts at character assassination.

Righties have no honor.

 

[Dav]

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.

Absolutely. If any supposed "news organization" FAILS to do the basic due diligence of their reporting, especially when it appears to be deliberate, as in this case, they should be held accountable for their slander and libel and be made to pay significant restitution for their clear and despicable attempts at character assassination.

Righties have no honor.

*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?