Fox News' response to Sherrod fallout: Ignore, whitewash, mislead
Fox News spent much of July 19 and 20 ginning up controversy about the false claim that Shirley Sherrod made racist remarks at a NAACP meeting earlier this year. As the claim unraveled, Fox media personalities disappeared their role in the story, continued to smear her as "descriminat[ory]" in the face of contradictory evidence, and boldly suggested the network did not contribute to the controversy.
Fox's initial reaction: "Racist" Sherrod "must resign"
O'Reilly: "Sherrod must resign," her remarks are "unacceptable." On the July 19 edition of his show, Bill O'Reilly played the edited portion of the tape and said "that is simply unacceptable. And Ms. Sherrod must resign immediately." He also falsely claimed that "the full transcript of Ms. Sherrod's remarks is posted on BigGovernment.com."
Hannity called Sherrod's remarks "[j]ust the latest in a series of racial incitents," called for the NAACP to be "held to account" to repudiate Sherrod. On the July 19 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity asserted that Sherrod's comments were "[j]ust the latest in a series of racial incidents," and stated that "So it's interesting that it took the new media to expose this." He also asked Newt Gingrich if, "in light of the NAACP accusing the Tea Party of being a racist movement last week," he thought "the NAACP should be held to account for the very standard they were demanding from the Tea Party."
Perino: "This video adds fuel to a growing controversy after the NAACP" asked the tea party to denounce racists. On the July 19 edition of On the Record, Dana Perino suggested Sherrod's remarks were racist, saying that "The video adds fuel to a growing controversy after the NAACP approved a resolution condemning the tea party movement for not denouncing racist members."
Doocy: Sherrod "sure sounded racist," is "[e]xhibit A" of "what racism looks like." On the July 20 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said that Sherrod made "a speech to the NAACP that sure sounded racist." Later, after guest-host Aliysn Camerota asserted that Sherrod's remarks are "outrageous and perhaps everybody needs a refresher course on what racism looks like," Doocy responded that Sherrod's comments are "Exhibit A."
Beck plays "videotape of USDA administration official discriminating against white farmers." On the July 20 edition of his radio show, Beck says that they "have videotape of a USDA administration official discriminating against white farmers." He then asks, "Have we suddenly transported into 1956 except it's the other way around? ... Does anybody else have a sense that there are some that just want revenge? Doesn't it feel that way?" After playing the audio of the tape, Beck says, "You tell me what part of the gospel is teaching that."
After the tide turned: Fox "didn't even do" the Sherrod story
Bret Baier absurdly claims Fox News "didn't even do" the Sherrod story. On the July 20 edition of Special Report, Bret Baier claimed "Fox News didn't even do the story, we didn't do it on Special Report, we posted it online."
Beck on Fox: "Based on the facts that we have right now, this is something that I wouldn't air and demand a resignation on." On the July 20 edition of this Fox News show, Beck stated: "I don't think Shirley should have been fired -- or, I'm sorry, forced to resign. Based on the facts that we have right now, this is something that I wouldn't air and demand a resignation on." He added that he "wouldn't air" the tape because "context matters."
Doocy on Sherrod: "What was the big hurry for them to condemn her in the first place?" On the July 21 edition of Fox & Friends, Dana Perino and Steve Doocy falsely asserted that, in Perino's words, "before the news even broke, she had resigned." Perino then stated that "everyone's nerves are raw and exposed on these racial questions, and I think we should all look before we leap." Doocy then stated: "What was the big hurry for them to condemn her in the first place? I don't get it, because the totality of what she said was out there."
Rosen: "Did the White House essentially railroad an innocent woman in this?" On the July 20 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, James Rosen reported that the additional context from Sherrod's speech "appeared to corroborate" her statement that she was telling the story of "how she came to see beyond race," and then asked: "Did the White House essentially railroad an innocent woman in this because they are on edge themselves because of the Van Jones controversy, the Black Panthers Party case, and other controversies?
The holdouts: Sherrod was still "discriminating" against the farmer
Hannity doubles down, says Sherrod "still admits discriminating," suggested he's unfairly "getting blamed." On the July 20 edition of his show Hannity asserted that "She still admits that she was discriminating against this white farmer." He added that "I'm getting blamed and Fox News is getting blamed, but it's the White House that made the decision before we ever aired the tape."
O'Reilly's ignores context, still claims "What [Sherrod] said is ridiculous." On the July 20 edition of his show, O'Reilly was still claiming that "What [Sherrod] said is ridiculous," and stated the real story is "the news blackout" on the Sherrod story, and how "the establishment press tilts left and is reluctant to do damage to a very liberal president."
Doesn't matter a lick what happened AFTER Breitbart, his benefactors and Fox [if those two are different] started this ball rolling. They are responsible for what happened AFTER.
Makes as much sense.
That's a fallacy of an argument. You're comparing two things that shouldn't be compared. The hurricane itself was not coming from a source that could make a decision to be the "proximate cause". Unless, of course, you think the hurricane made a willful decision to attack New Orleans. (Now, if we're talking about Bush being held responsible for the terrible RESPONSE to the hurricane? Yes, he is the proximate cause because of what he didn't do both before and after it happened.)
The Sherrod video was something that could have easily been prevented with some research by the Fox News team, and the video was doctored with malicious intent in mind. Therefore, yes, we can blame Fox & Co with the proximate cause argument.
peace
Dumb response, right on. What I posted above is the legal definition of proximate cause which is used in civil trials.
Is Bush to blame for the lack of response and assistance AFTER Katrina? Yes.
If you're going to parse a statement, please make sure you parse it correctly.
Is the WH to blame for caving to Breitbart's video? Yes.
Correct.
A PRIVATE business disaster and NOW you want the government, and more importantly, THE PRESIDENT, to FIX IT?
You loonies need to get your rants together.
You scream "less government", "we don't need the government" and NOW you want President Obama to strap on an dive suit and stop the oil leak?
And then if President Obama strapped on that dive suit, and didn't stop the leak, you'd be ranting that he should have left it up to the experts!
YOUR hatred of ANYTHING President Obama is pitiful and beyond pathetic!
This needs to be beaten to death.
Yeah, I think they're going to beat it to death. Maybe even people like you will get it.
Actually, there were some other very important things which happened yesterday . . . there was no reason for them to be on this site because they have nothing to do with the misinformation found on faux conservative "news" outlets; therefore, we're not talking about them here.
In the end she turned a "white v black" into class warfare instead.
It wasn't about "black v. white it was about poor v. those that have." What kind of helpful statement was that?!
Initially, though, she didn't help like she should have because the farmer was white.
You left out that part.
She learned from her initial error. She realized that initially helping them less forcefully was wrong. That's a good thing that she learned to behave in a different way.
But no, I don't think we're all bigoted in some way. I agree that most everyone is, but I think that many people aren't.
The previous poster failed to mention that she didn't initially treat the white farmer the same as she would have treated the black farmer, and it took her seeing the white attorney not give his all to the white farmer to realize that she needed to help ALL disadvantaged, poor farmers, not just black ones!
She had a character flaw that she fixed, and that's great. But people need to stop denying/ignoring the fact that she HAD that flaw!
And it was because that previous flaw was uncovered that she got told she had to resign.
I say we first expose her, then mock her, and finally, stop throwing troll treats over the fence at her.
What you've ignored is the fact that she indicated that the farmer was, in her opinion, trying to act superior to her.
There's nothing in her comments that indicated she had decided to systematically give white people less consideration. This was her reaction to a particular situation and a particular person.
This is the account of a woman describing views she held decades ago who was able to grow beyond that as a human being and beccme a better person. You could take lessons from her because you're obviously proud of your ignorance and your poor grasp of the facts. It's easier for you to just blindly accept FOX News' Race baiting slant on it.
BTW, do you know this woman's history? Her father was murdered by the Ku Klux Klan . . . that would tend to cause some hard feelings, don't you think?
source-CNN
I haven't found anything about the Klan being involved, please cite your source!
Whenever someone uses the term elitist, just substitute 'uppity' because that's what it is code for.
Your text to link here...
And since Insannity broke the story on his 9:00 show that she had resigned a short time before, it is safe to assume that FOX had already aired the video.
Nice recitation of Fox talking points, though, groupie.
I know it appears that FOX NEWS' approach is to "Ignore, whitewash, mislead", but if you go to Ailes' Commandments, Volume II, Page 29, you'll find:
"Rule 346 - If a significant story we have either originated or heavily promoted turns out to be partially or completely false, every show covering the story will perform the following steps in the order given:
1 - Duck
2 - Dodge
3 - Bob
4 - Weave"
We will be talking about this subject for a month!! Kind of like that issue with professor Gates.
Boy, non-stop. Merely incites further racism as people continue to be shown snippets.
It is almost as if Ms Sherrrod (she MUST sue) has memorized the SAME questions asked by the so-called "journalists," regarding this matter. Over time it gets rather stale, however, little mention of Breitbart and the INTENTIONAL duplicity on his part, coming from major news networks, just Ms Sherrod's constant effort to "try to clear her reputation," (when her record SHOULD speak for itself).
She is a courageous woman and I DO HOPE all the TRASH in this country, start "re-educating" themselves.
The question should be: Why were they so ready to oust a long time member and employee?
For the record--this website puts out just as many misleading "sound bites" as any of the conservative websites
Because at one time in her life, she had discriminated against a white farmer. She didn't give him the full force of her efforts. She would have treated a black farmer differently than she treated that white farmer.
And a few months later when she saw that the poor white farmer was being disadvantaged by the white attorney, she realized that her job, her responsibility, her mission was to help ALL poor, disadvantaged farmers, not just give the black ones her full effort and the white ones a response that would pass muster!
I don't think they should have fired her over that, since she DID redeem herself with the later behavior, but the determination was made that since she had held that belief at one point in time that her credibility would be questioned in future interactions and therefore the credibility of her employer would be questioned!
Look at the time line. Ms. Sherrod was just on Morning Joe this morning going over the events. She said it was around 2:30pm on Monday when she first learned she'd be put on administrative leave, and then shortly thereafter, she was told "they" wanted her to resign, and she ended up doing so.
Beck didn't cover the story. To cite Brett Baier's report about her actual resignation as proof that FNC covered the story? That's just beyond absurd.
O'Reilly pre-tapes his show at 5pm. By the time his segment on Sherrod airs, she has already resigned. Hannity goes live at 9pm. Again, she's already resigned. On The Record airs at 10pm. She's already resigned.
You know full well that the charge being propagated by the left is that somehow FNC's pressure lead to the White House/Administration forcing her resignation. And you know full well--given the facts of the time line-- that that charge is utterly and totally unfounded.
No amount of Fox News bashing is going to change that. Facts are facts, and on this story, you're tilting at windmills. You and others owe Fox an apology for spreading this nonsense. And you call yourself a watchdog? You're nothing more than partisan hacks spreading around disinformation that you accuse others of.
How lame.
Nothing lame in the reporting, groupie. Fox was the first "media"(?) outlet which posted the story from Breitbart's site and it was BEFORE Ms. Sherrod resigned.
A clue . . . Fox isn't a "conservative" media outlet . . . it is a Republican Party propaganda machine. Nothing conservative in its message . . . if you believe it is, you are no conservative, just a groupie.
If President Eisenhower came back and saw what has happened to the Republican Party, he'd never stop throwing up.
While a paranoid Agriculture Department over-reacted, looking at the right-wing orgy that ensued because their pundit heroes megaphoned the issue with all their strength, maybe their paranoia was warranted.
I would not be surprised that this whole thing was a setup as another attempt to discredit Fox and bring them down. Soros will do anything to squash any dissent and to increase his power, just as he did when he raided jewish families for their wealth and posessions at age 14 during WWII with no remorse. And that's your guru.
Furthermore, while the documents Rather used were not originals, Rather and the people who created them continued to assert that they were true. This tape shows exactly the opposite of the truth, and these guys simply didn't care because it supported their position. They are total hypocrites.