The lesson of the Shirley Sherrod story would seem to be a simple one:A conservative blogger with a history of promoting inaccurate, racially chargedstories published another one, and people in the media (not to mention the White House) fell for it–again.
But New York Times reporter Matt Bai wrote a piece in the paper’s Week in Review section (7/25/10) that soughtto make things a lot more complicated. Under the headline, “Race: Still Too Hot to Touch,” Bai laments that the country is still not having a meaningful discussion about race:
In many ways, Ms. Sherrod’s ordeal followed a depressingly familiar pattern in American life, in which anyone who even tries to talk about race risks public outrage and humiliation.
We might have hoped that the election of a black president would somehow make the subject less sensitive and volatile, in the way that John F. Kennedy’s election seemed to allay the last, lingering tension between American Catholics and the countryâ┚¬Ã¢”ž¢s Protestant establishment. But as the week’s events made clear, Mr. Obama’s presence alone isn’t going to deliver us from a racial dialogue characterized by cable-TV conflagration–and it may even complicate the conversation.
It’s hard to square Bai’s story with reality.It seemed to me thattheconsensus view of her speech after Breitbart’s lie was exposed was that it was a thoughtful examination of some potentially uncomfortable ideas. Even people like Bob Schieffer and Andersen Cooper–hardly ones to court controversy or throw elbows–werecriticizingBreitbart’s stunt.
The reallesson to be drawn isabout agullible corporate media–not some grand lesson aboutthe problems in “American life.” Perhaps that’s why some writers try too hard to make it into something else.
Thankfully,Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionnedoes a good job today:
The traditional media are so petrified of being called “liberal” that they are prepared to allow the Breitbarts of the world to become their assignment editors.
AndDionne points to the manufactured “controversy” over the New Black Panther Party(which the Post‘s ombud believed deserved more media coverage): “It was aimed at doing what the doctored video Breitbart posted set out to do: convince Americans that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites.”
That’s the real story here–that right-wing outlets are eager to push these tall tales, and that centrist outlets often give them additional coverage for fear of being considered too left-wing.
Peter Hart & EJ Dionne have the right analysis here – – Bai is simply trying to give cover to his bosses (and/or media management in general, to perhaps pad his resume for future use?) by obfuscating the obvious point that the CONSCIENTIOUS media and politicians always need to check out their sources before blindly running with something. That’s true across the political spectrum… right/center/left. Your credibility rightly goes down the toilet if you quote a known & exposed liar a second or third time.
I personally give Fox News NO credibility (just like those checkout tabloid magazines) and never watch them, so whatever they say doesn’t directly bother me because I’m unaware of it. But I was disappointed in Obama’s continual kowtowing to the right, as was made obvious by his over-reaction to this contrived controversy. Where was his purported ‘cool’ hand? He was jumping in there like the Neo-cons were! Nobody wants him to be unequivocally supportive of everyone in his administration, but he SHOULD check out any criticisms of them closely before taking an extreme action like terminating them. He surely sent an ambiguous message to the people who work for him…
I don’t understand why there is not greater attention to the case for libel in the Shirley Sherrod episode.
Certainly Andrew Breitbart is certainly guilty of maliciously misrepresenting the facts in an effort to damage Ms. Sherrod’s reputation and hence her livelihood. Is this not the essence of libel?
Mr. Breitbart has argued, in this case, that the ends justify the means. This summons the arguments of fascists in the past. Why does the radical right get to wrap the ideals of democracy around their fear and hate campaign with so little commentary on the facts in main stream news?
By dismissing the issue of race Peter Hart has effectively proven Matt Bui’s point–even this progressive blog is afraid to engage in open discourses about race, whatever the “real issue” may be. Life is not so simple and issues are constantly cross cutting. Why can’t this be a discussion about “gullible corporate media” AND race?
The bigger harm was done when Ms. Sherrod’s employer skipped whatever procedures the department has in place and rushed to judgment. Even if Ms. Sherrod was the kind of political appointee who doesn’t have such rights under EEO, there is the matter of simple decency (isn’t there?).
Ms. Sherrod was fired at least in part because of her race. An administration extremely sensitive to attacks on the basis that it or any of its personnel favor African Americans over whoever else rushed to judgment and took action without the simple steps that would much more likely have been afforded to a non-African American.
It appears that a reasonable grip on worker’s rights and on decency is out the window when it comes to trying to avoid a fight by “caving.”
The most painful part is the betrayal of Mrs., Sherrod by her boss who should have stated, immediately when informed of the accusation, “I believe that Shirley Sherrod is a neither a racist, nor a person who would harm anyone by discriminating. Do not rush to judgment.”
Hasn’t anybody picked up on the blatant sexism in volved in the firing of Shirley Sherrod by the Dept. of Agriculture, and, even worse, in the reaction of the national leadership of the NAACP, who both threw her to the wolves without any investigation or discussion with Ms Sherrod about what she actually said! If it had been an African American man, they would never have done what they did to Ms Sherrod. There would have been immediate howls about racial bias in Agriculture’s failure to give due process in “letting go” a black employee without hearing his side, and the NAACP would have leaped to the defense of an African American man who had been as involved in the the civil rights movement as deeply and as long as Ms Sherrod. Neither Agriculture nor the NAACP leadership bothered to get the facts and immediately demaned that the WOMAN throw herself upon the the pyre, the racist firestorm that had broken out in the media–who also didn’t do any investigating worth the name.
There is a deep and wide history of sexism in the civil rights movement and in the NAACP in particular that is never talked about in public. And within the Democratic Party there is the sexist assumption that any man, including a black man, is a more sure winner of elections than any woman, no matter how qualified. Hillary was expected to run seriously for a little while and then fall back in favor of Obama, and when she didn’t do it, the party threw HER to the wolves, like they allowed Agriculture to do to Ms Sherrod! The sexist comments made about Hillary within her own party during the primary campaign would have raised a firestorm of protest if they had been race-based comments made about a man!
Women who tell the truth right out in public get pilloried and they take it in the neck if they have the temerity to stick up for themselves and not just quietly slink away. Supporters of Ms Sherrod finally made the NAACP leadership actually talk to its GA chapter and get a copy of her actual remarks, and that forced Agriculture to back peddal and apologise. Both apologies, from Ag Dept and from NAACP were lame, and NAACP’s did not actually contain the word “apology”. They should have been the FIRST to stick up for her, and they weren’t.
Women are still being required to throw themselves on their swords in favor of men to advance “the cause”, irrespective whether it is a conservative or a liberal one! Ms Sherrod, whose credentials are impeccable as a civil rights activist and progressive, had her resignation summarily demanded by a black, progressive administration. It is not that the Obama Administration is anti-black–quite the contrary. If they were we would have seen evidence of it much sooner–during the campaign even. What we have seen during the campaign, and continue to see now, is a Democratic Party that is liberal and progressive except when it comes to getting behind a woman who is being unfairly targeted.
It is indeed important to confront the use of racism by the right wing blogger, which created the storm, but we should also confront the sexism in the failure of her bosses and her civil rights organization to defend Shirley Sherrod. Then we need to revisit the disgraceful treatment of Hillary Clinton during the campaign for President. This is truly a matter that literally is more than skin deep!
Racism should be fought, but so should sexism, and need I point out that African Americans comprise only about 20 percent or less of our national population, but women comprise over 50 percent. Why is it that half the population is NOT out in the streets protesting? It is not just the White House or the NAACP or the media that need to apologize to Ms Sherrod (and to Hillary), it is the American people, whose apetite for misogyny, disguised as entertainment, is what fuels the media. If it doesn’t sell advertising by attracting a large number of eyeballs, then it doesn’t make is past one news cycle!If that!
Yes, Ms Sherrod was unfairly villified and abused by the Administration and media, and the occasion for it was a racist blog posted and promoted by a white right-winger with a racist reputation, but the reaction to it that threw Ms Sherrod to wolves was not a racist one (how can the NAACP be racist??) but a sexist one!
That big gray hulk in the middle of the living room is an elephant called sexism. It sat down on Hillary and hardly anyone protested. It has sat down on Ms Sherrod, and nobody is protesting that either. They are all focusing on the MAN in the White House, who happens to be black. This is the sort of magician-like misdirection of which the Patriarchy is very fond! It goes all the way back to Seneca Falls and Susan B Anthony, when the women, having worked even harder than the men for the liberation of slaves, were told to go home and literally tend to their knitting, that civil rights were for men. Anybody got a bag of peanuts??
Great post Julia. I love this point “What we have seen during the campaign, and continue to see now, is a Democratic Party that is liberal and progressive except when it comes to getting behind a woman who is being unfairly targeted.” As you point out women comprise the majority of the population. Why do we continue to take part in such sexist behavior?
one issue which may be getting overlooked is the plight of the small farmers in america generally-let alone in rural ga-white lawyer comes in pretty handy when you need help from a white banker.those southern counties were and are pretty much concentrated oligarchies-the job role pretty much dictates what you can do -whether you are booker t washington,malcolm x,or shirley sherrod. it’s really helpful to have the help of a dedicated public official who knows what she’s doing,who has a realistic caseload,and who actually wants to help people in general,and you in particular-and it doesn’t hurt if you actually have a case either-but its hard to help folks of ordinary means,leave aside poor people,leave aside poor minorities keep their farms,jobs,and houses from the powerful predatory forces which are the real constituencies of all three branches of government.
the dems are run by the rubin wing of that party,the repubs are run by the club for growth-the media they bought is charged with seeing to it that whatever populist impulses exist are psychologized,and racialized so that we get absurd results as in the breibart-sherrod mess-its called divide and conquer-i have white friends who went to college in the south during the last spike in jim crow,who remember distinguished scholars baiting their new african american students from the lectern-now it emanates from the toilet of cable news and am radio-the big people telling the lesser ones who to be mad at,who to blame,and subliminally where THEY CAN GO.-
Part of the problem certainly is the type of nonjournalism that leads to the “feeding frenzy.” This is NOT journalism as they like to call it. I don’t know who is teaching these ‘reporters’ but it ain’t a credible source that should inform us on the real need-to-know.
Either that or straying from their lessons in learning. This is not journalism. It’s not even reporting. They really need to clean up their ACT.
What I am really happy with is that this idea that Sherrod was unfairly targeted- will be the beginning of people seeing how unfairly Sarah Palin has also been targeted.It gives me hope.Think…. if a tape surfaced with Sarah saying she acted in a blatantly/overt racist manner(as her tea party followers scream in agreement)and then as her speech ends ,she admits she now has had a change of heart.Just to know that all of you would be on Sarah’s side…And on the side of her screaming base gives me a belief in “HOPE and CHANGE”!
@michael e: the thing is, it seems extremely unlikely that any such tape will ever surface, as SP does not seem to care much for apologies and/or changes of heart. Rigid and ignorant are probably the nicest adjectives the record suggests for best describing her “thinking”.
Jeremiah
Rigid and ignorant are exactly the words i would use to describe our current regime and this President.That aside.My point is- would your side of the isle cut Sarah the same breaks you routinely give to this bunch ?I will put your answer down as a resounding NO….HELL NO!