The Shirley Sherrod Show Shames All of Us

A race-baiting journalist named Andrew Breitbart (shown here) took less than three minutes of a 43-minute video and tried to embarrass the NAACP with it. In that time, he created a firestorm as surely as a careless Tenderfoot Scout with matches could bring down a forest. He did it with the help of Fox News, who so far has expressed no remorse or culpability in the matter. In this entire process, he nearly ruined the career of a hapless government official named Shirley Sherrod, and the unwitting, cowardly accomplices in this crime were the Obama White House and the NAACP.

This blog is dedicated to communication, but this particular post is about a danger that has long been with us in the U.S. That danger reared its ugliest head ever in the last 24 hours. The danger is communication by zealots who want to further their agenda without facts, yet are armed with the viral power of the New Media. In their own way, they are as dangerous as the faceless, uniformless terrorists who threaten our country.

The Danger of Out-of-Context Edits
To begin, I ask that you watch the entire speech by Mrs. Sherrod.

Mr. Breitbart says he posted a portion of the video as an angry reaction to the NAACP's recent accusations of racism among members of the Tea Party. He says even now that his video that is evidence that the NAACP looks the other way when there is racism among their own. Enter his evidence: Shirley Sherrod, a official of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Georgia, is supposedly shown making anti-white statements at an NAACP event, where the audience "laughed" at what she said.
Any of us might have thought the same if we had watched only this edited clip from the dinner (about 17 minutes into the video), which appeared on the web. This clip purports to show Sherrod's disdain for white farmers and how she did not fully serve them as part of her job.

The Real Reel Story
If you watched the speech in its entirety, you would have learned that Sherrod was ashamed of her racism and learned from it. She did not want her audience to be racist toward white Americans, and she asked them not to be so.
Furthermore, you would have caught some nuances that could not have been captured in the edited version. For example, Sherrod expressed gratitude to God for her position the crowd responded by saying "amen," and then applauding. Furthermore, the crowd acknowledged her when she said that she learned from her experiences that many of the problems of the farmers she served was due to being poor, not their skin color. Finally, she said that she "came a long way. I couldn't live with hate."
Sherrod lamented that there were only African Americans in the room hearing her. "We have to overcome the divisions that we have," she said.
Sherrod went on the exhort the younger members of the audience to work hard and not let life pass them by. More specifically, she encouraged them to go into agriculture, a profession not usually embraced by African Americans. She went on to plead with the young people in the audience to "reach back and help somebody" once they have become successful. "It seems to me that the more, the better we (African Americans) do (i.e., accomplish), the more free we are, the more divided we become."
As a speaker, I did not find Sherrod particularly skilled or articulate. However, her words and her message engaged me, and I believe her speech was heartfelt. It also strikes me that belief in God's grace, personal responsibility, and caring for others less fortunate are virtues to be celebrated, not ignored. But those sentiments did not make it on the air.

The Role of Fox News
This story did not see the light of day until it was aired by Fox News, their disingenuous denials aside. They aired it, and then they exploited it. After all, Andrew Breitbart is a contributor to the network. But as I often do, I watched Fox cover the story today. It struck me in the hour that I watched their coverage of this story, the network's commentators made villains of the NAACP and the White House for jumping on the story, yet they never once commented on the fact that Andrew Breitbart presented an edited, out-of-context snippet of a longer speech. This, after all, was the cause of the story.
Equally damning was their lack of introspection at their own role in the matter. What has been more typical is this smarmy, self-serving review by commentator Charles Krauthammer.

Overreaction by White House, NAACP
Smarting from all the criticism that they have received of double standards, it appears that both the NAACP and the Obama White House did all they could to act quickly and decisively against Sherrod, who did appear to be racist in that selected segment. However, neither body did their homework first. Instead, they acted like hanging-judge and jury, declaring Sherrod guilty without sufficient evidence. This was incredibly naive on both their parts and does not speak well of their judgment. But this is particularly disturbing of the White House, which is the chief administrative body of the U.S. government. For all of the alleged media savvy of Obama and his staff, they made a decision quickly and with little factual basis.
"Members of this administration, members of the media, members of different political factions on both sides of this have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced today. "Without a doubt, Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology." In response, political media expert David Gergen asked on CNN, "Where was the due process?" Indeed, could we expect the administration to make other, more important, decisions in a similar matter?
Furthermore, is this an indication of how thin-skinned Obama and his White House could be? If so, he has many hardships ahead. I suspect that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk smell blood in the water, and they will bait him as often as possible.
Candidate Obama decried the 24-hour news cycle. President Obama allowed himself to be victimized by it.

Upshot
I am reminded of a story that occurred in 1989, when Charles Stuart of Boston, Mass., left a maternity class with his pregnant wife, Carol. Stuart drove his car to Mission Hills, a predominantly African American neighborhood, and he shot Carol in the head and stabbed himself. The black citizens of Boston had their civil rights violated for several days. They were stopped, questioned and accused indiscriminately by the police until Stuart's ruse was uncovered. It was a shameful moment for all involved.
Similarly, a minor, insignificant player named Andrew Breitbart has now dominated the news for 24 hours because we as a people allowed him to do so. We gave this weasel a platform and credibility that he did not earn or deserve. As a nation, many of us should be ashamed of the way we reacted. At the very least, we should be wary, as this is an indication of bigger blowups that may be ahead.

There are other instances like this playing out around the country, questioning the histories of public officials and twisting their words. I have written extensively about the lack of civility in our public dialogue. Now our nerves are becoming so frayed that we are beginning to believe the worst in any of us with the flimsiest of evidence. The slightest intimation of racism, however unfounded, cost a good-hearted woman her job, even if for only a day. It is strikingly, frighteningly similar to the hysteria of the 1950s, where one could be guilty by accusation.

We have been warned. What will we do with this information?