Ousted USDA official: "No one would listen"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38321920...life?Gt1=43001

The woman ousted from the Agriculture Department over racially tinged remarks that sparked a firestorm in the media said she was uncertain if she would return to her job if invited back. On Monday, Shirley Sherrod resigned from a senior position with the USDA in Georgia after edited video clips surfaced appearing to show her admitting to racial bias toward a white farmer. However, when the full video of her speech at an NAACP event was made public, the civil rights group retracted a previous statement condemning her for acting in a racist manner, and said she had been treated unfairly. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack then said in the early hours of Wednesday that he would reconsider the USDA's decision to ask for her resignation.

This "story" is disgusting all the way around, from the LIARS at breitbart and faux news to the way the NAACP and Dept of Agriculture over reacted without looking at the facts.
"Normal" reaction would have been to suspend her while they investigated the claims of racism.
This should be a "teachable" moment about how breitbart and faux news are LIARS and how the NAACP and Obama administration are jumping through hoops to quell charges of racism without looking at the facts.

.......in this day and age where our country needs unity, Breitbart chose to use his prominent position in the media to falsely accuse Shirley Sherrod of racism. If you watch the video, she may have had an inappropriate thought or two like the rest of us but ended up doing the right thing for the right reason. She went on to explain how in the end, it's all about 'people' who matter regardless of race...

...Breitbart owes this woman a HUGE apology at the very least. What a pathetic excuse for a human being. He HAD to know how this would play out in the media.

We've been discussing this here.

Personally, I'd love to see her sue Breitbart for Defamation of Character, and loss of income.

Originally Posted by sandibert .......in this day and age where our country needs unity, Breitbart chose to use his prominent position in the media to falsely accuse Shirley Sherrod of racism. If you watch the video, she may have had an inappropriate thought or two like the rest of us but ended up doing the right thing for the right reason. She went on to explain how in the end, it's all about 'people' who matter regardless of race... ...Breitbart owes this woman a HUGE apology at the very least. What a pathetic excuse for a human being. He HAD to know how this would play out in the media.

Of course he did. That was the whole point of putting the video out there. He accomplished what he wanted, doesnt matter if the truth comes out later because there will be those that either refuse to believe the truth or will never take the time to pay attention to it.

Just look at the thread about in the news section, Ivanhook didnt bother to read the facts (which were posted by last night in the thread many times) and labeled her a racist this morning.

Same thing that happened with that whole ACORN ordeal. Doesnt matter if it was later discovered the video was heavily edited and BS, there are those that are sticking to the original "story" and either refuse to listen to the truth, or too lazy to pay attention to it. (Of course there are those who know the truth, yet keep spreading the lies because it "fits" their political agenda...Breitbart and Fox fall into that category but so do hundreds of thousand of Americans)

Originally Posted by BentonWesley We've been discussing this here. Personally, I'd love to see her sue Breitbart for Defamation of Character, and loss of income.

This. I don't usually say sue them but in this case I think she should.

Sherrod said Cheryl Cook, USDA deputy undersecretary, called her Monday and said she had to be on administrative leave." She adds: "People were calling and writing the Department of Agriculture in Athens, Ga., and Washington to tell them about it. That I needed to be fired. That a racist like me had no business working for the department. That is the way they intimidate people and it worked." By the end of the day Monday, she was forced to resign. Sherrod, 62, said her first reaction was shock that, after a career working for civil rights and as the daughter of a father murdered by racists, she would be seen in such a terrible light. "I am getting hate calls and e-mails at this point. I got one call last night at my house at 12:30 a.m. that said 'you lost your job, good for you' and 'bitch' There are people out there who will believe that I am a racist person, even though the story is getting out there." But the clear damage to Sherrod comes from Breitbart, who posted the tape without context, and Fox, which ran with the story and did not seek to confirm it. "The news media should tell it like it is and not the way they want it to be," she said. Sherrod said Breitbart never contacted her before posting the video clip to ask about it. "I never heard that name until a few minutes ago," she said Tuesday night about Breitbart. "He never contacted me. I think they intended it to be what it ended up being, a racist thing that could unite even more the racist people out there who follow them." She also said Fox News never checked the facts with her before posting a story and the video clip. "Not before they reported it," she said of Fox's negligence. "They have called me today and initially I had said yes (to an interview), but I thought about it and I did not think they intended to be fair in their reporting. They are going to say what they want to say regardless of what I say." She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage. "I think they should but they won't. They intended exactly what they did. They were looking for the result they got yesterday," she said of Fox. "I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person." Still, Fox continued to push for an interview with her, Sherrod said. "It was unbelievable. I am refusing to be on there. They have been calling me and calling me. I have refused to do an interview because they are biased," she explained. "I don't think Fox News does it fairly. It is worse so now. I have sat and listened to the way they cover the news even before this administration and I saw what was going on." "I think it is race. You think we have come a long way in terms of race relations in this country, but we keep going backwards," she said. "We have become more racist. This was their doing, Breitbart put that together misrepresenting what I was saying and Fox carried it." Sherrod said she has been helped by many media outlets, such as CNN and others that have allowed her to explain the truth, enough so that the NAACP retracted a statement Tuesday that had denounced her. She said that has convinced her to trust some media outlets, noting she had plans to be on Good Morning America and NPR Wednesday. "The only one I refused to do is Fox," she said, adding the fair coverage by others "makes me think highly of some of the media, but not any better about Fox. It is a bad taste in my mouth dealing with them. It would help some if they apologized and say they were wrong, but I don't see that happening."

http://mediamatters.org/strupp/201007210037

"The only one I refused to do is Fox," she said, adding the fair coverage by others "makes me think highly of some of the media, but not any better about Fox. It is a bad taste in my mouth dealing with them. It would help some if they apologized and say they were wrong, but I don't see that happening."

Of course they will never apologize.

They are in the business of lying and promoting fraud.

Originally Posted by BentonWesley We've been discussing this here. Personally, I'd love to see her sue Breitbart for Defamation of Character, and loss of income.

Originally Posted by tasslehoff This. I don't usually say sue them but in this case I think she should.

I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on tv), but here's some pretty simple information about defamation. (This was written specifically for California employees, so I'm sure there's other data that's more on point, but the basic definition is accurate.) I agree that she should sue - and there are probably a number of lawyers contacting her already.

Defamation is an injury to the reputation or character of someone resulting from the false statements or actions of another. Defamation is a false attack on your good name. Your good name is regarded as a proprietary interest, not a personal interest. Defamation is an improper and unlawful attack against your proprietary right to your good name, your reputation. Defamation is a general term for the false attack on your character or reputation through either libel or slander. Libel is a term describing visual defamation, usually in the form of lies in print, or misleading or deceptive photographs. Libel exposes or subjects you to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or causes you to be shunned or avoided, or injures you in your occupation. Slander is a term describing defamation that you hear, not see, usually in the form of someone talking trash about you or spreading or repeating lies and unfounded rumor. Slander is an oral statement that tends to injur you in respect to your office, profession, trade or business. The statement or statements generally suggest that you lack integrity, honesty, incompetence, or that you possess other reprehensible personal characteristics.

There are other critical differences which make defamation important to be aware of. You can prove defamation on your word alone, even though it is always better to have some confirming evidence. ( a letter, a memo, an e-mail, statements from fellow employees confirming the defamatory remarks about you, etc.) You can testify in court as to statements made by others about you. This means that the "hearsay" rule does not apply to the testimony in court which repeats defamatory statements.made out of court. You do not have to prove damages in defamation cases. Damages are presumed. This means that you do not have to testify that you were emotionally destroyed or had to see a psychiatrist or other mental health specialist or doctor. The defamatory comments do not have to be stated (this is described as being "published") to someone outside the company. Purely internal memorandums or comments that falsely attack you can be defamatory. If another employee heard or read the comment then the defamatory statement has been "published" sufficiently to support a charge of defamation. Each repetition of a defamatory remark is a new injury. This means that you can obtain damages for each time the defamatory statement is repeated. You may even be entitled to receive damages every time you repeat the defamatory comment to someone else! Yes, if it was reasonably foreseeable that you would feel compeled to repeat or explain the defamatory comment, your employer may be liable each time you repeated his comment!

Other factors that may be considered in making a finding of defamation are whether the person making the statement knows or believes the statement to be true; whether the statement is the result of anger, jealousy, resentment, grudges, quarrels, ill-will or other conflict between you and the person making the statement. In order to be defamatory the statement must be, of course, false. The employer has the burden of proving that the statement is not false In other words, the employer has to prove that the statement was true. The statement must also seem to state a fact, or that it is based on fact, rather than an opinion, or based only on opinion.

http://www.faceintel.com/defamation.htm

this also includes a White House that overreacted in its ongoing pathetic attempt to appease the right.

Shirley Sherrod Scandal: How the White House is Backing Away From The Decision to Fire Her ... Since then, my cynical heart has been tickled to watch the Obama administration frantically back away from the stupid decision to fire Sherrod. I've been led to believe that this was all Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's call. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Sherrod's resignation in a statement, saying the department has "zero tolerance" for discrimination. Sherrod told CNN that Cheryl Cook, deputy undersecretary for Rural Development, called her three times on Monday to eventually demand her resignation on behalf of the White House. And, via Ben Smith, here's how the White House sees it: A White House official told me just now that the White House backs Vilsack's decision -- but that it was Vilsack's alone. The official said the White House -- contrary to the Sherrod's charge -- did not pressure the Department to fire her. I can easily understand why the Obama administration wants nothing to do with this decision, seeing as how it would look for all the world that the White House serves at the pleasure of Breitbart's agitated humors, but this is just silly: it cannot be Vilsack's decision "alone" if it has the backing of the White House. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_654006.html

So what's the White House's line now, that Sherrod is a liar? And that's supposed to be better?

Originally Posted by LindaK this also includes a White House that overreacted in its ongoing pathetic attempt to appease the right. So what's the White House's line now, that Sherrod is a liar? And that's supposed to be better?

What I read (and can probably find the link to if you need it) was Sherrod stated the under secretary was the one who told her the white house was demanding her resignation. So that would mean the under secretary was lying or was lied to and led to believe the order came from the white house. It has also been said many many times in the press by Vilsack he made the decision on his own and the white house was informed AFTER she resigned, and that at the point based on what Vilsack told them, they backed his decision.

Originally Posted by ppammela What I read (and can probably find the link to if you need it) was Sherrod stated the under secretary was the one who told her the white house was demanding her resignation. So that would mean the under secretary was lying or was lied to and led to believe the order came from the white house. It has also been said many many times in the press by Vilsack he made the decision on his own and the white house was informed AFTER she resigned, and that at the point based on what Vilsack told them, they backed his decision.

The White House is dancing all around this one trying to keep Obama above the fray, sorry he ain't. It's his administration for god's sake, if all the leftgonerighters had fought this hard to hold Bush harmless his eight year long global disaster would have appeared a mere picnic.

Originally Posted by LindaK The White House is dancing all around this one trying to keep Obama above the fray, sorry he ain't. It's his administration for god's sake, if all the leftgonerighters had fought this hard to hold Bush harmless his eight year long global disaster would have appeared a mere picnic.

Do you believe Obama himself called for her resignation?

I'm hoping someone will dig deep enough and discover WHO provided that edited tape to Breitbart and Fox News. Just exactly WHO is that entity with the agenda to revitalize racial fears and hatred in this country while simultaneously embarrassing Obama and the NAACP?

Originally Posted by ppammela Do you believe Obama himself called for her resignation?

You bet he did if he sent out the order to nip any racism by anyone in his administration in the bud.

Sherrod is an Obama appointee wouldn't he have been clued in by Vilsack that he was wasting no time in forcing her to resign? Sherrod believes he did. This administration in yet another attempt to appease the FOX & Fanatics crazies jumped the gun. Sherrod will probably be offered her job back but she has said she doesn't even know it she'd take it now. Her father was killed by another farmer (white) in a dispute over cows (not the KKK as I heard yesterday, see article below) and the Obama administration makes her out to be a racist. Better for Obama to just put the lid on this one and get as far from it as he can. Oh yeah, and someone should lose their job and it ain't Sherrod.

The Story Behind the 1965 Killing of Sherrod's Dad http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/...f-sherrods-dad

I just watched Vilsack on msnbc and he reiterated that it was HE and HE alone who asked her to resign. She has been offered her job back.