About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

What "reporting" did Breitbart do on the Sherrod story?

July 30, 2010 9:07 am ET by Eric Boehlert

Because I sure didn't see any. 

Breitbart received a tape from a "source," sat on the tape for months, never tried to verify the contents, never provided readers with any context, never reached out to the subject of the tape, did no additional fact-finding, and then posted the tape online and labeled the subject a racist. 

Again, where was the reporting? Where was the journalism? Isn't Breitbart now facing possible legal action precisely because he refused to engage in any reporting with regards to the Sherrod story? 

It seems that way to me. So I had to chuckle reading a post at the Breitbart apologist site, Right Wing News, where the legal eagles announced any lawsuit filed by Shirley Sherrod against Breirbart would be a "waste of time." Right Wing News even got a quote from an attorney to back up its claim [emphasis added]:  

The burden for public figures to recover for defamatory reporting -- even when it is false -- is so high that it is effectively insurmountable. There's nothing I've heard so far about this case that would suggest why that general rule would not apply here.

That may be all well and good. But again, we're not talking about Breitbart's "reporting" (even the defamatory kind) because he didn't do any. And no, Breitbart isn't a reporter or a journalist. He's simply a private citizen who smears people. 

But please, if I'm missing something and right-wing bloggers can point out any reporting Breitbart did with regards to Sherrod story before he published his smear campaign, please fill me in. 

Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 30, 2010 9:20 am ET)
      5  
      The other problem with the legal "reasoning" here is that Shirley Sherrod was not a public figure! Breitbart MADE her one!

      No one know who she was before all this. Then suddenly eveyone "knew" her as a racist gov't official. Now half the people STILL "know" her as such, while the other (thinking) half know here as someone who was falsely smeared, but who is now (at best) the center of a media circus.

      But prior to this video she was NOBODY. Just another privte citizen. So it's breitbart who's really in trouble here if the extent of his defesne is "public figure."

      -------------------------------------------
      IMHO
      Report Abuse
      • Author by neon desert (July 30, 2010 9:42 am ET)
        4 1
        He's pretty much already admitted that he released the video to defame her and the NAACP. I would sure think that a demonstrable intent to defame would ease the burden on the accuser, but I'm sure we have better legal minds than mine here to guage the likely impact of that.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by whatIthink (July 30, 2010 10:09 am ET)
        1  
        The thinking is that since Shirley Sherrod was a government official, she was therefore a de facto public figure. Which of course is a bunch of BS. Following that logic, every person that works for the government (local, state, federal) is a public figure. Soldiers, mail carriers, janitors in government buildings, government secretaries, etc. So, following the retarded (and, no, I DON'T mean that satirically), I could say: "Oh, you're a janitor that sweeps the floors in the state house and gets paid by the government? Then I get to say anything I want about you, true or false, because you're a public figure." The pathetic irony is that should an actual public figure who happenes to be conservative, say someone who's name rhymes with Failin, the right wing goes into hysterics.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Ouroborus (July 30, 2010 12:08 pm ET)
        2  
        Well, whether or not she qualifies as a public figure doesn't change the issue as much as whether Breitbart failed to do the necessary legwork to back up his story, which I think is Eric's point. Most decent reporting mentions that the journalist attempted to contact the person/group that is the focus of the piece. If Breitbart had taken the time to call up Sherrod for a statement, he would have been covered, but would have lost the story since the context completely demolishes his point. That's the hazard of his slipshod journalism; all of his work is premised on him not doing necessary background reporting.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (July 30, 2010 10:37 am ET)
      2  
      How "public" of a figure was Sherrod before this happened? I never heard of the woman before Breitbart brought her into the limelight.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (July 30, 2010 12:05 pm ET)
        2 1
        Many people knew of her and even more knew of her husband and therefore her last name.

        She sure wasn't a widely known public figure, but I'm not sure saying that the fact that you and I didn't know her is a good enough argument.

        How public of a figure do you need to be before you're considered a public figure who can't be defamed unless it's incredibly inflammatory?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (July 30, 2010 12:19 pm ET)
          2  
          I didn't mean to sound rhetorical. I genuinely don't know, even though I try to live under the smallest rock possible.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (July 30, 2010 10:37 am ET)
      2  
      How "public" of a figure was Sherrod before this happened? I never heard of the woman before Breitbart brought her into the limelight.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (July 30, 2010 10:39 am ET)
      2  
      This is precisely the problem with the media. Even if Breitbart wasn't laughably dishonest he wouldn't be a reporter. Reporting by definition is telling people everything that happened, not just what benefits your side. The right has used the "liberal media" shtick to destroy any objective standards of reporting.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.
Eric Boehlert's New Book