Shirley Sherrod: An interesting Timeline of events (wow its not fox new's fault)

[Sinatra]

I missed his original link. Had I seen it I would have posted what I did. Wiki for something like this? Nope.

How convenient!

So Wiki links are 100% accurate? 'K.

Shirley Sherrod, former Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture, was forced to resign[1] after a heavily edited[2] video of her address to a March 2010 NAACP meeting was posted on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website on July 19, 2010


On July 21, 2010, Fox News rejected any claims that they helped inflame the situation with a statement saying "[the network] did not make any mention of this story yesterday on the air until after Shirley Sherrod had already lost her job after Secretary Vilsack had already drawn his own conclusions — conclusions that the president apparently agreed with."[28] While the story was not mentioned on the Fox News Channel until after Sherrod's resignation, the edited video and an accompanying article had been published on the Fox News website prior to her resignation.[29] Later, the White House sought for an official review of the case. Vilsack, meanwhile, sent an e-mail regarding the issue that states "I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner."[30][31] Sherrod was at the CNN Center watching live when Robert Gibbs extended an apology to her.[32] There, she stated that she had accepted the apology and welcomed the review although she felt that this experience was "bittersweet."[33]

Resignation of Shirley Sherrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The White House got the story from Breitbart's blog and forced Sherrod to resign . . . without further investigation. (blows the theory that Fox was somehow responsible).

Fox did not report anything on air about Sherrod resigning until after the fact. (the July 21 date stating that Fox didn't make any statements of the story yesterday . . . that would be July 20. Wasn't it all over the place July 20? Don't they mean July 19?)

Fox website did publish the video clips and article (the one you linked to dated 7/19) prior to her resignation.

____

Yes - that does appear to be how everything went down.

The NAACP made and repeated bogus claims of racism against the Tea Party.

Breitbart posts an edited video clip of what appears to be the NAACP supportive of racist elements in the Sherrod story.

Fox News online posts the edited clip, detailing the source and following up with further details that it was in fact edited and adding the redemptive qualities at the end.

Prior to any substantive reporting by Fox News or any other news agency, the Obama administration freaks out and demands Mrs. Sherrod resign - thus greatly elevating the story from minor to major as it now directly involves the President of the United States.

Obama pisses himself yet again and the world is left scratching their collective heads wondering how in the hell America managed to elect this doofus. Hard to believe a Hillary administration would have acted so stupidly...

 

[edthecynic]

I missed his original link. Had I seen it I would have posted what I did. Wiki for something like this? Nope.

How convenient!

So Wiki links are 100% accurate? 'K.

Shirley Sherrod, former Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture, was forced to resign[1] after a heavily edited[2] video of her address to a March 2010 NAACP meeting was posted on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website on July 19, 2010


On July 21, 2010, Fox News rejected any claims that they helped inflame the situation with a statement saying "[the network] did not make any mention of this story yesterday on the air until after Shirley Sherrod had already lost her job after Secretary Vilsack had already drawn his own conclusions — conclusions that the president apparently agreed with."[28] While the story was not mentioned on the Fox News Channel until after Sherrod's resignation, the edited video and an accompanying article had been published on the Fox News website prior to her resignation.[29] Later, the White House sought for an official review of the case. Vilsack, meanwhile, sent an e-mail regarding the issue that states "I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner."[30][31] Sherrod was at the CNN Center watching live when Robert Gibbs extended an apology to her.[32] There, she stated that she had accepted the apology and welcomed the review although she felt that this experience was "bittersweet."[33]

Resignation of Shirley Sherrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The White House got the story from Breitbart's blog and forced Sherrod to resign . . . without further investigation. (blows the theory that Fox was somehow responsible).

Fox did not report anything on air about Sherrod resigning until after the fact.

Fox website did publish the video clips and article (the one you linked to dated 7/19) prior to her resignation.

Again, CON$ always argue against the straw men they create.

I never said Wiki is "100% accurate." I said the link was deemed to be ACCURATE ENOUGH for the arch-CON$ervative ConHog to post in support of his claims after he read through it, and no other CON$ervative objected to it until AFTER I used it. CON$ always complain about the links non-CON$ use, so I used a CON$ own link. The reality is no link is ever acceptable to a CON$ervative if it doesn't support their propaganda.

 

[Sky Dancer]

How convenient!

So Wiki links are 100% accurate? 'K.

Shirley Sherrod, former Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture, was forced to resign[1] after a heavily edited[2] video of her address to a March 2010 NAACP meeting was posted on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website on July 19, 2010


On July 21, 2010, Fox News rejected any claims that they helped inflame the situation with a statement saying "[the network] did not make any mention of this story yesterday on the air until after Shirley Sherrod had already lost her job after Secretary Vilsack had already drawn his own conclusions — conclusions that the president apparently agreed with."[28] While the story was not mentioned on the Fox News Channel until after Sherrod's resignation, the edited video and an accompanying article had been published on the Fox News website prior to her resignation.[29] Later, the White House sought for an official review of the case. Vilsack, meanwhile, sent an e-mail regarding the issue that states "I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner."[30][31] Sherrod was at the CNN Center watching live when Robert Gibbs extended an apology to her.[32] There, she stated that she had accepted the apology and welcomed the review although she felt that this experience was "bittersweet."[33]

Resignation of Shirley Sherrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The White House got the story from Breitbart's blog and forced Sherrod to resign . . . without further investigation. (blows the theory that Fox was somehow responsible).

Fox did not report anything on air about Sherrod resigning until after the fact.

Fox website did publish the video clips and article (the one you linked to dated 7/19) prior to her resignation.

Again, CON$ always argue against the straw men they create.

I never said Wiki is "100% accurate." I said the link was deemed to be ACCURATE ENOUGH for the arch-CON$ervative ConHog to post in support of his claims after he read through it, and no other CON$ervative objected to it until AFTER I used it. CON$ always complain about the links non-CON$ use, so I used a CON$ own link. The reality is no link is ever acceptable to a CON$ervative if it doesn't support their propaganda.

Bingo.

 

[Sinatra]

How convenient!

So Wiki links are 100% accurate? 'K.

Shirley Sherrod, former Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture, was forced to resign[1] after a heavily edited[2] video of her address to a March 2010 NAACP meeting was posted on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website on July 19, 2010


On July 21, 2010, Fox News rejected any claims that they helped inflame the situation with a statement saying "[the network] did not make any mention of this story yesterday on the air until after Shirley Sherrod had already lost her job after Secretary Vilsack had already drawn his own conclusions — conclusions that the president apparently agreed with."[28] While the story was not mentioned on the Fox News Channel until after Sherrod's resignation, the edited video and an accompanying article had been published on the Fox News website prior to her resignation.[29] Later, the White House sought for an official review of the case. Vilsack, meanwhile, sent an e-mail regarding the issue that states "I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner."[30][31] Sherrod was at the CNN Center watching live when Robert Gibbs extended an apology to her.[32] There, she stated that she had accepted the apology and welcomed the review although she felt that this experience was "bittersweet."[33]

Resignation of Shirley Sherrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The White House got the story from Breitbart's blog and forced Sherrod to resign . . . without further investigation. (blows the theory that Fox was somehow responsible).

Fox did not report anything on air about Sherrod resigning until after the fact. (the July 21 date stating that Fox didn't make any statements of the story yesterday . . . that would be July 20. Wasn't it all over the place July 20? Don't they mean July 19?)

Fox website did publish the video clips and article (the one you linked to dated 7/19) prior to her resignation.

____

Yes - that does appear to be how everything went down.

The NAACP made and repeated bogus claims of racism against the Tea Party.

Breitbart posts an edited video clip of what appears to be the NAACP supportive of racist elements in the Sherrod story.

Fox News online posts the edited clip, detailing the source and following up with further details that it was in fact edited and adding the redemptive qualities at the end.

Prior to any substantive reporting by Fox News or any other news agency, the Obama administration freaks out and demands Mrs. Sherrod resign - thus greatly elevating the story from minor to major as it now directly involves the President of the United States.

Obama pisses himself yet again and the world is left scratching their collective heads wondering how in the hell America managed to elect this doofus. Hard to believe a Hillary administration would have acted so stupidly...

____

White House official said that President Barack Obama was briefed after Vilsack made the decision on Sherrod – and that the decision was Vilsack’s alone but that the White House backed the decision.


This official also said the White House -- contrary to the Sherrod's charge -- did not pressure the Agriculture Department to fire her.


In her CNN interview, Sherrod said she received “at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign... and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it


Read more: NAACP: Breitbart 'snookered' us - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
____

SO who is lying - Sherrod or the White House?

Hmmmm...

 

[Zoom-boing]

How convenient!

So Wiki links are 100% accurate? 'K.

Shirley Sherrod, former Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture, was forced to resign[1] after a heavily edited[2] video of her address to a March 2010 NAACP meeting was posted on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website on July 19, 2010


On July 21, 2010, Fox News rejected any claims that they helped inflame the situation with a statement saying "[the network] did not make any mention of this story yesterday on the air until after Shirley Sherrod had already lost her job after Secretary Vilsack had already drawn his own conclusions — conclusions that the president apparently agreed with."[28] While the story was not mentioned on the Fox News Channel until after Sherrod's resignation, the edited video and an accompanying article had been published on the Fox News website prior to her resignation.[29] Later, the White House sought for an official review of the case. Vilsack, meanwhile, sent an e-mail regarding the issue that states "I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner."[30][31] Sherrod was at the CNN Center watching live when Robert Gibbs extended an apology to her.[32] There, she stated that she had accepted the apology and welcomed the review although she felt that this experience was "bittersweet."[33]

Resignation of Shirley Sherrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The White House got the story from Breitbart's blog and forced Sherrod to resign . . . without further investigation. (blows the theory that Fox was somehow responsible).

Fox did not report anything on air about Sherrod resigning until after the fact.

Fox website did publish the video clips and article (the one you linked to dated 7/19) prior to her resignation.

Again, CON$ always argue against the straw men they create.

I never said Wiki is "100% accurate." I said the link was deemed to be ACCURATE ENOUGH for the arch-CON$ervative ConHog to post in support of his claims after he read through it, and no other CON$ervative objected to it until AFTER I used it. CON$ always complain about the links non-CON$ use, so I used a CON$ own link. The reality is no link is ever acceptable to a CON$ervative if it doesn't support their propaganda.

Wow, there's just no pleasing you.

I don't think Wiki is accurate enough for things political, as shown by what I believe are wrong dates in the Sherrod/Fox info., their claim that Breitbart 'heavily edited' the video, and mis-information in the Fox Nation info. Is it accurate for other stuff? Depends on the stuff but . . . too easy to manipulate the data, imo.

I noticed you ignored my link showing that Fox Nation is an opinion site.

 

[Zoom-boing]

____

White House official said that President Barack Obama was briefed after Vilsack made the decision on Sherrod – and that the decision was Vilsack’s alone but that the White House backed the decision.


This official also said the White House -- contrary to the Sherrod's charge -- did not pressure the Agriculture Department to fire her.


In her CNN interview, Sherrod said she received “at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign... and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it


Read more: NAACP: Breitbart 'snookered' us - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
____

SO who is lying - Sherrod or the White House?

Hmmmm...

White House.

 

[Papageorgio]

Clearly, the White House made a mistake in this case. They took the bait.

What White House is that again???

You just can't come out and say it can you?? Are you truly that insecure??

C'mon now - SAY IT?

What White House is that again???

Oh come on. The Obama administration made a mistake in this case. Feel better now?

That doesn't mean the adminstration is dangerous or inept in general.

That's YOUR bias.

I voted for the President and I support him. I don't have an investment in seeing him re-elected.

A mistake? Obama has tried to shut out FOX News in every way, he has publicly on several occassions, stated that FOX just stirs the pot, so a story comes out on the dreaded FOX web, and the Obama administration grabs the story, decides to fire the lady.

Seems to any reasonable person that Obama is nothing but an idiot in this case. How stupid does one have to be to bite big time on a story put out by an enemy?

LOL!! I hope he doesn't read any of Bin Laden's lies we could be in big trouble.

 

[Zoom-boing]

What White House is that again???

You just can't come out and say it can you?? Are you truly that insecure??

C'mon now - SAY IT?

What White House is that again???

Oh come on. The Obama administration made a mistake in this case. Feel better now?

That doesn't mean the adminstration is dangerous or inept in general.

That's YOUR bias.

I voted for the President and I support him. I don't have an investment in seeing him re-elected.

A mistake? Obama has tried to shut out FOX News in every way, he has publicly on several occassions, stated that FOX just stirs the pot, so a story comes out on the dreaded FOX web, and the Obama administration grabs the story, decides to fire the lady.

Seems to any reasonable person that Obama is nothing but an idiot in this case. How stupid does one have to be to bite big time on a story put out by an enemy?

LOL!! I hope he doesn't read any of Bin Laden's lies we could be in big trouble.

They asked for her resignation based on Breitbart's posting of the video clip, not from anything Fox News aired.

 

[DiveCon]

So Wiki links are 100% accurate? 'K.



Resignation of Shirley Sherrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The White House got the story from Breitbart's blog and forced Sherrod to resign . . . without further investigation. (blows the theory that Fox was somehow responsible).

Fox did not report anything on air about Sherrod resigning until after the fact.

Fox website did publish the video clips and article (the one you linked to dated 7/19) prior to her resignation.

Again, CON$ always argue against the straw men they create.

I never said Wiki is "100% accurate." I said the link was deemed to be ACCURATE ENOUGH for the arch-CON$ervative ConHog to post in support of his claims after he read through it, and no other CON$ervative objected to it until AFTER I used it. CON$ always complain about the links non-CON$ use, so I used a CON$ own link. The reality is no link is ever acceptable to a CON$ervative if it doesn't support their propaganda.

Wow, there's just no pleasing you.

I don't think Wiki is accurate enough for things political, as shown by what I believe are wrong dates in the Sherrod/Fox info. and mis-information in the Fox Nation info. Is it accurate for other stuff? Depends on the stuff but . . . too easy to manipulate the data, imo.

I noticed you ignored my link showing that Fox Nation is an opinion site.

Wiki can be accurate, but in politics its hard because so much of it is based on opinion

 

[clevergirl]

1. The White house called for Sherrod's resignation "before" Fox discussed the story.

2.*Sherrod alerted her superiors at the USDA 5 days before she was asked to resign.

3. The NAACP had proprietary rights to the full video.

5. Brietbart had been told he could have the video in April and only requested it from his source "after" the NAACP pulled the race card canard against the TEA Party.

6. The video Breitbart recieved was already edited by his source.


Now could/should Fox have waited...yes, and O'Reilly stated as much and apologised to Mrs. Sherrod.

Should Brietbart have contacted Sherrod for comment before posting on his blog? Yes, and I bet he is much more careful going into the future.

Who though reacted without the facts that took the biggest toll on Mrs. Sherrod?

It was those who had power over her. The WH who is ultimately culpable for her firing; the USDA who had 5 days to investigate; and the NAACP who owned the video.

*Sherrod, who was appointed to the USDA position in 2009, said she first heard of the possible controversy when someone e-mailed her last Thursday to taunt her about her comments. She immediately forwarded the e-mail to the USDA so the agency would be aware. She was told that someone would look into it.

She said it wasn't until Monday that she heard back, and by then, she was being asked for her resignation.

Asked if she felt she had an opportunity to explain, Sherrod said, "No, I didn't. The administration, they were not interested in hearing the truth. No one wanted to hear the truth."merged

 

[Sky Dancer]

You make some good points however the ultimate responsibility lies with the slime Breitbart and FOX for running the inaccurate story. They created the mess. The White House was attempting to clean up the mess that wasn't actually there.

 

[Sinatra]

____

White House official said that President Barack Obama was briefed after Vilsack made the decision on Sherrod – and that the decision was Vilsack’s alone but that the White House backed the decision.


This official also said the White House -- contrary to the Sherrod's charge -- did not pressure the Agriculture Department to fire her.


In her CNN interview, Sherrod said she received “at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign... and the last one asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it


Read more: NAACP: Breitbart 'snookered' us - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
____

SO who is lying - Sherrod or the White House?

Hmmmm...

White House.

___

I believe you are correct.

Wonder what position Sherrod is now being offered so she will march quietly along and not cause anymore damage to this fiasco of a White House?

 

[Foxfyre]

How convenient!

So Wiki links are 100% accurate? 'K.

Shirley Sherrod, former Georgia State Director of Rural Development for the United States Department of Agriculture, was forced to resign[1] after a heavily edited[2] video of her address to a March 2010 NAACP meeting was posted on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website on July 19, 2010


On July 21, 2010, Fox News rejected any claims that they helped inflame the situation with a statement saying "[the network] did not make any mention of this story yesterday on the air until after Shirley Sherrod had already lost her job after Secretary Vilsack had already drawn his own conclusions — conclusions that the president apparently agreed with."[28] While the story was not mentioned on the Fox News Channel until after Sherrod's resignation, the edited video and an accompanying article had been published on the Fox News website prior to her resignation.[29] Later, the White House sought for an official review of the case. Vilsack, meanwhile, sent an e-mail regarding the issue that states "I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner."[30][31] Sherrod was at the CNN Center watching live when Robert Gibbs extended an apology to her.[32] There, she stated that she had accepted the apology and welcomed the review although she felt that this experience was "bittersweet."[33]

Resignation of Shirley Sherrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The White House got the story from Breitbart's blog and forced Sherrod to resign . . . without further investigation. (blows the theory that Fox was somehow responsible).

Fox did not report anything on air about Sherrod resigning until after the fact. (the July 21 date stating that Fox didn't make any statements of the story yesterday . . . that would be July 20. Wasn't it all over the place July 20? Don't they mean July 19?)

Fox website did publish the video clips and article (the one you linked to dated 7/19) prior to her resignation.

____

Yes - that does appear to be how everything went down.

The NAACP made and repeated bogus claims of racism against the Tea Party.

Breitbart posts an edited video clip of what appears to be the NAACP supportive of racist elements in the Sherrod story.

Fox News online posts the edited clip, detailing the source and following up with further details that it was in fact edited and adding the redemptive qualities at the end.

Prior to any substantive reporting by Fox News or any other news agency, the Obama administration freaks out and demands Mrs. Sherrod resign - thus greatly elevating the story from minor to major as it now directly involves the President of the United States.

Obama pisses himself yet again and the world is left scratching their collective heads wondering how in the hell America managed to elect this doofus. Hard to believe a Hillary administration would have acted so stupidly...

And now the question is why? Why did they freak out?

They have repeatedly denounced Fox News as biased, anti-Administration, highly partisan, dishonest, and corrupt. So all of a sudden now, a post on a Fox News blog is sufficiently believable to fire somebody from a high level post?

They have repeatedly, without exception, taken the immediate side of all leftists criticized by the right and only throw them under the bus when the evidence and public opinion is so overwhelming that the 'defendant' becomes a political liability. So all of a sudden they change that tactic?

They have repeatedly dragged their feet before coming to a decision about almost every key issue or every person that requires an executive decision. So why was this story handled expeditiously and apparently without any investigation or thought?

Any other time this would have been pretty much a non story or maybe kicked around on the message boards for a couple of days and then forgotten. But the story broke on Monday. It is now Friday and it remains one of the most active threads. Why?

And why is the mainstream media focused entirely on Fox instead of on the story of the firing? Nevermind. I know that one.

But the other story that broke this week and has received almost no coverage is that the Congressional ethics committee has found probable cause that Charles Rangel, suspended chair of the powerful Ways & Means committee and the most influential member of the Congressional Black Caucus, may be guilty of numerous ethics violations. His case will now be 'tried' by a second ethics group. What little coverage there has been has been buried under the Sherrod story.

I wonder if there is a connection?

 

[Papageorgio]

Oh come on. The Obama administration made a mistake in this case. Feel better now?

That doesn't mean the adminstration is dangerous or inept in general.

That's YOUR bias.

I voted for the President and I support him. I don't have an investment in seeing him re-elected.

A mistake? Obama has tried to shut out FOX News in every way, he has publicly on several occassions, stated that FOX just stirs the pot, so a story comes out on the dreaded FOX web, and the Obama administration grabs the story, decides to fire the lady.

Seems to any reasonable person that Obama is nothing but an idiot in this case. How stupid does one have to be to bite big time on a story put out by an enemy?

LOL!! I hope he doesn't read any of Bin Laden's lies we could be in big trouble.

They asked for her resignation based on Breitbart's posting of the video clip, not from anything Fox News aired.

Not according to sky dancer, I'm in agreement with you, no one is that stupid, especially Obama that is why her thesis is so stupid.

 

[Big Fitz]

Pilgrim, seriously, this has already been proven wrong in other threads.

O'Reilly ran this story before anyone else, period.

Sheppard Smith has already publicly attacked his own network for this crap.

FoxNews is perhaps not criminally culpable, but O'Reilly certainly owes Ms Sherrod an apology, and Breitbart should be criminally investigated.

Of course then there's the big blowhard Rush Limbaugh tactic: When all else fails, go on the attack, no matter how ridiculously wrong you are...

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - TRENDING: Limbaugh says Fox News ‘caved’ in Sherrod coverage - Blogs from CNN.com

Breitbart breaks the story late morning.

Whitehouse asks her to resign around 5pm.

O'Douchebag reports on it at 8pm.


And it's still Fox's fault that she was fired? Fox has a time machine now?

Sorry, no... that time machine's owned by NBC/Universal. Maybe Fox managed it through a deal with their Sky News affiliates they were able to rent this one from the BBC.

 

[Sinatra]

1. The White house called for Sherrod's resignation "before" Fox discussed the story.

2.*Sherrod alerted her superiors at the USDA 5 days before she was asked to resign.

3. The NAACP had proprietary rights to the full video.

5. Brietbart had been told he could have the video in April and only requested it from his source "after" the NAACP pulled the race card canard against the TEA Party.

6. The video Breitbart recieved was already edited by his source.


Now could/should Fox have waited...yes, and O'Reilly stated as much and apologised to Mrs. Sherrod.

Should Brietbart have contacted Sherrod for comment before posting on his blog? Yes, and I bet he is much more careful going into the future.

Who though reacted without the facts that took the biggest toll on Mrs. Sherrod?

It was those who had power over her. The WH who is ultimately culpable for her firing; the USDA who had 5 days to investigate; and the NAACP who owned the video.

*Sherrod, who was appointed to the USDA position in 2009, said she first heard of the possible controversy when someone e-mailed her last Thursday to taunt her about her comments. She immediately forwarded the e-mail to the USDA so the agency would be aware. She was told that someone would look into it.

She said it wasn't until Monday that she heard back, and by then, she was being asked for her resignation.

Asked if she felt she had an opportunity to explain, Sherrod said, "No, I didn't. The administration, they were not interested in hearing the truth. No one wanted to hear the truth."

Well laid out.

The Sherrod commentary - and certainly the NAACP supportive reactions, did make it a story given the most recent attacks by the NAACP against the Tea Party movement and their baseless charges of racism.

The most idiotic error was the White House pissing all over itself and forcing Sherrrod to resign.

And now we have the question of Sherrod stating that it was the White House who wanted her to resign - and the White House saying it did not do so.

So who is lying?

If it is the White House - that makes it an even bigger story...

 

[edthecynic]

So Wiki links are 100% accurate? 'K.



Resignation of Shirley Sherrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The White House got the story from Breitbart's blog and forced Sherrod to resign . . . without further investigation. (blows the theory that Fox was somehow responsible).

Fox did not report anything on air about Sherrod resigning until after the fact.

Fox website did publish the video clips and article (the one you linked to dated 7/19) prior to her resignation.

Again, CON$ always argue against the straw men they create.

I never said Wiki is "100% accurate." I said the link was deemed to be ACCURATE ENOUGH for the arch-CON$ervative ConHog to post in support of his claims after he read through it, and no other CON$ervative objected to it until AFTER I used it. CON$ always complain about the links non-CON$ use, so I used a CON$ own link. The reality is no link is ever acceptable to a CON$ervative if it doesn't support their propaganda.

Wow, there's just no pleasing you.

I don't think Wiki is accurate enough for things political, as shown by what I believe are wrong dates in the Sherrod/Fox info., their claim that Breitbart 'heavily edited' the video, and mis-information in the Fox Nation info. Is it accurate for other stuff? Depends on the stuff but . . . too easy to manipulate the data, imo.

I noticed you ignored my link showing that Fox Nation is an opinion site.

That people are allowed to post their opinions in the comment section does not change the fact that FOX controls what topics are posted for comment. It is merely a vehicle for them to test the public reaction to the topic on order to see if it gets the desired effect before they invest any valuable air time on the FOX Gossip TV Channel.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There are already about a thousand existing threads about this. There's no need for another one.

 

[Sky Dancer]

So Wiki links are 100% accurate? 'K.



Resignation of Shirley Sherrod - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The White House got the story from Breitbart's blog and forced Sherrod to resign . . . without further investigation. (blows the theory that Fox was somehow responsible).

Fox did not report anything on air about Sherrod resigning until after the fact. (the July 21 date stating that Fox didn't make any statements of the story yesterday . . . that would be July 20. Wasn't it all over the place July 20? Don't they mean July 19?)

Fox website did publish the video clips and article (the one you linked to dated 7/19) prior to her resignation.

____

Yes - that does appear to be how everything went down.

The NAACP made and repeated bogus claims of racism against the Tea Party.

Breitbart posts an edited video clip of what appears to be the NAACP supportive of racist elements in the Sherrod story.

Fox News online posts the edited clip, detailing the source and following up with further details that it was in fact edited and adding the redemptive qualities at the end.

Prior to any substantive reporting by Fox News or any other news agency, the Obama administration freaks out and demands Mrs. Sherrod resign - thus greatly elevating the story from minor to major as it now directly involves the President of the United States.

Obama pisses himself yet again and the world is left scratching their collective heads wondering how in the hell America managed to elect this doofus. Hard to believe a Hillary administration would have acted so stupidly...

And now the question is why? Why did they freak out?

They have repeatedly denounced Fox News as biased, anti-Administration, highly partisan, dishonest, and corrupt. So all of a sudden now, a post on a Fox News blog is sufficiently believable to fire somebody from a high level post?

They have repeatedly, without exception, taken the immediate side of all leftists criticized by the right and only throw them under the bus when the evidence and public opinion is so overwhelming that the 'defendant' becomes a political liability. So all of a sudden they change that tactic?

They have repeatedly dragged their feet before coming to a decision about almost every key issue or every person that requires an executive decision. So why was this story handled expeditiously and apparently without any investigation or thought?

Any other time this would have been pretty much a non story or maybe kicked around on the message boards for a couple of days and then forgotten. But the story broke on Monday. It is now Friday and it remains one of the most active threads. Why?

And why is the mainstream media focused entirely on Fox instead of on the story of the firing? Nevermind. I know that one.

But the other story that broke this week and has received almost no coverage is that the Congressional ethics committee has found probable cause that Charles Rangel, suspended chair of the powerful Ways & Means committee and the most influential member of the Congressional Black Caucus, may be guilty of numerous ethics violations. His case will now be 'tried' by a second ethics group. What little coverage there has been has been buried under the Sherrod story.

I wonder if there is a connection?

Breitbart and FOX made a mess, or so it seemed. The WH attempted to clean it up before finding out the mess was invented.

It is a big story that the adminstration ran with Breitbart and FOX. It is a big story that Breitbart and FOX played dirty tricks with the Sherrod tape.

I'm not surprised about Chuck Rangel's ethics charges. This has been in the wind for some time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1. The White house called for Sherrod's resignation "before" Fox discussed the story.

2.*Sherrod alerted her superiors at the USDA 5 days before she was asked to resign.

3. The NAACP had proprietary rights to the full video.

5. Brietbart had been told he could have the video in April and only requested it from his source "after" the NAACP pulled the race card canard against the TEA Party.

6. The video Breitbart recieved was already edited by his source.


Now could/should Fox have waited...yes, and O'Reilly stated as much and apologised to Mrs. Sherrod.

Should Brietbart have contacted Sherrod for comment before posting on his blog? Yes, and I bet he is much more careful going into the future.

Who though reacted without the facts that took the biggest toll on Mrs. Sherrod?

It was those who had power over her. The WH who is ultimately culpable for her firing; the USDA who had 5 days to investigate; and the NAACP who owned the video.

*Sherrod, who was appointed to the USDA position in 2009, said she first heard of the possible controversy when someone e-mailed her last Thursday to taunt her about her comments. She immediately forwarded the e-mail to the USDA so the agency would be aware. She was told that someone would look into it.

She said it wasn't until Monday that she heard back, and by then, she was being asked for her resignation.

Asked if she felt she had an opportunity to explain, Sherrod said, "No, I didn't. The administration, they were not interested in hearing the truth. No one wanted to hear the truth."

Well laid out.

The Sherrod commentary - and certainly the NAACP supportive reactions, did make it a story given the most recent attacks by the NAACP against the Tea Party movement and their baseless charges of racism.

The most idiotic error was the White House pissing all over itself and forcing Sherrrod to resign.

And now we have the question of Sherrod stating that it was the White House who wanted her to resign - and the White House saying it did not do so.

So who is lying?

If it is the White House - that makes it an even bigger story...

How would she know if the White House asked Vilsack to fire her, or if he did it on his own?