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

[Papageorgio]

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?


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?

I think you have hit this one right out of the park.

 

[Sinatra]

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?

You are quite correct - something is just not adding up here regarding this affair.

Sherrod herself has a tumulteous past with the USDA, the White House's very odd rush to have her resign, and yes, the Rangel story is big - and should be getting the lions share of coverage by now...

 

[clevergirl]

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.

I made factual points. They are facts in evidence. Fox did not force the WH or the USDA or the NAACP to do anything. They all reacted BEFORE Fox ever peeped a word. In point of fact the USDA was warned by Mrs. Sherrod 5 days before FOX ever even got wind of the story.

Imagine a president who is so sensitive and so reactive he requests a woman lose her job without the facts...the fricking president FCOL!

 

[DiveCon]

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.

you have said this over and over and not provided a single piece of corroborating evidence

 

[DiveCon]

[/b]
____

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.

again, you blame fox without a shred of proof
just political OPINIONS

 

[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."

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?

Because she said the woman from the USDA who called her 3 times told her the White House was demanding her resignation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I made factual points. They are facts in evidence. Fox did not force the WH or the USDA or the NAACP to do anything. They all reacted BEFORE Fox ever peeped a word. In point of fact the USDA was warned by Mrs. Sherrod 5 days before FOX ever even got wind of the story.

Imagine a president who is so sensitive and so reactive he requests a woman lose her job without the facts...the fricking president FCOL!

It's disingenuous or just naive to claim that just because they hadn't aired on fox YET that the USDA didn't know that they were going to air, and acted preemptively.

It's also disingenuous or just naive to assume that the decision came anywhere NEAR Obama's desk.

 

[clevergirl]

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

I scrolled through them and did not see a timeline like the one I posted. I thought it deserved its own thread as I had links etc.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

Because she said the woman from the USDA who called her 3 times told her the White House was demanding her resignation.

That's what she said, yes. But it's still hearsay.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

again, you blame fox without a shred of proof
just political OPINIONS

Yup, she's been reading the Fox Nation blog I guess, but refuses to listen to anybody in their own words or read the full transcripts. Some folks just don't care whether there is proof for their opinions I guess, but somebody has to shill for the other side and keep the untruths alive and up front. And on we go.

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

again, you blame fox without a shred of proof
just political OPINIONS

And you defend FOX with your opinion. What's the difference?

What other news sources other than FOX do you trust? You seem to trust FOX.

I do not.

 

[Sinatra]

The Department of Agriculture employee who resigned after a controversy erupted over recent remarks she made is now saying that the White House forced her resignation.

...A White House official told CBS News that the White House did not pressure Sherrod or the Department, contrary to Sherrod's claims.


Now who is lying?

Poor Mrs. Sherrod, or the Obama White House????

One or the other folks...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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

I scrolled through them and did not see a timeline like the one I posted. I thought it deserved its own thread as I had links etc.

So you missed this one?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ine-of-events-wow-its-not-fox-news-fault.html

 

[Sinatra]

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

Because she said the woman from the USDA who called her 3 times told her the White House was demanding her resignation.

That's what she said, yes. But it's still hearsay.

Hearsay you say????

Who did Obama fire this time????

 

[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. (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?

You just want to divert this thread away from your "giggle" claim!

They didn't smear anybody. One used a clip of the lady's own words to illustrate a giggling and approving NAACP as she recounted her discrimination against a white farmer.

I don't know what your MIND saw and heard, but the ONLY place where there was any Giggling was the part where she recounted that he was acting superior to the person he needed help from and she was thinking about how much help she was going to give him. And you have to admit that is quite ironic/funny.

There was NO laughter in the "discriminatory" part Bigotbart thought important enough to REPEAT!!!!
Why didn't he repeat the laughter part if it was so damn discriminatory and racist?????

CON$ seem to imagine hearing what they WANT to hear!!!

 

[Sinatra]

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.

again, you blame fox without a shred of proof
just political OPINIONS

And you defend FOX with your opinion. What's the difference?

What other news sources other than FOX do you trust? You seem to trust FOX.

I do not.

More importantly - do you trust the OBAMA White House so prone to rash knee jerk decisions that directly effect human lives?

THAT is the question you should now be asking yourself...

 

[clevergirl]

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.

I made factual points. They are facts in evidence. Fox did not force the WH or the USDA or the NAACP to do anything. They all reacted BEFORE Fox ever peeped a word. In point of fact the USDA was warned by Mrs. Sherrod 5 days before FOX ever even got wind of the story.

Imagine a president who is so sensitive and so reactive he requests a woman lose her job without the facts...the fricking president FCOL!

It's disingenuous or just naive to claim that just because they hadn't aired on fox YET that the USDA didn't know that they were going to air, and acted preemptively.

It's also disingenuous or just naive to assume that the decision came anywhere NEAR Obama's desk.

LOL...right. The USDA was informed 5 days before any airing by FOX or even Breitbarts blogging...yet, it took them only 24 hrs after the shit hit the fan to actually investigate. Had they done a proper vetting it would NEVER have been a story, Mrs. Sherrod would never have been fired and they could have smacked Breitbart good. Instead we had a bunch of hand-wringing ninneys in charge who "preempted" a 30 second news clip by firing a woman.

Remember the NAACP owned the unedited video.

Mrs. Sherrod herself claimed that the White House was behind her forced resignation...get a clue.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

again, you blame fox without a shred of proof
just political OPINIONS

And you defend FOX with your opinion. What's the difference?

What other news sources do you trust? You seem to trust FOX. I do not.

The difference is that I DID watch and listen to the videos. I DID read the transcripts. I don't always get it right, but I try to make damn sure I have some clue about what I am talking about before expressing my opinion about it. And I NEVER take somebody's opinion expressed in a blog as the gospel truth about anything. I want opinion backed up by something more substantive than prejudice, bias, and ideology before accepting it as the real deal.

 

[Sky Dancer]

again, you blame fox without a shred of proof
just political OPINIONS

And you defend FOX with your opinion. What's the difference?

What other news sources other than FOX do you trust? You seem to trust FOX.

I do not.

More importantly - do you trust the OBAMA White House so prone to rash knee jerk decisions that directly effect human lives?

THAT is the question you should now be asking yourself...

Yes. I trust the President.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Um no still you refuse to place the blame where it really belongs.

If we take his time line at face value as true then it appears to me the slime here was His SOURCE. Who I am guessing was in the NAACP or close to it as they owned the rights to the Video. Which makes me think this whole damn thing was a set up to screw Breibart and the Right wing media. One that worked rather well.

The second person who fucked up here was who ever made the Decision to fire her. We all know who that was, it is just that you Liberals just can not bring yourself to blame him for anything.

Fox deserves some blame for not researching the story well, But not nearly as mush as our Liberal Friends want them to get. This is nothing that their pals in the Liberal press do not do Regularly, and they never seem to be as upset about it when it happens on those Networks, Or Newspapers, or Internet sites.

I know I use this word to much, but it fits so well.


Hippocrates.