warning Hi, we've moved to USCANNENBERGMEDIA.COM. Visit us there!

Neon Tommy - Annenberg digital news

Sherrod's Resignation Creates Backlash Toward Rapid-Quick Media

Kelly Baron |
July 28, 2010 | 8:36 p.m. PDT

Staff Reporter

The recent scandals surrounding Shirley Sherrod’s speech at an N.A.A.C.P. event in Douglas, GA, have been permeating the World Wide Web thanks to Andrew Breitbart, creator of the conservative website BigGovernment.

Sherrod, head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s rural development office, was forced to resign after the leaking of an edited video of her speech,which Breitbart highlighted on BigGovernment as evidence of her discriminating against a white farmer she was meant to assist.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons

The highly edited video was everywhere in the news—both online and televised. Our new “WikiLeaks” minded community jumped on the video like a pack of hyenas, starving for the opportunity to showcase some moral superiority. But after the unedited video was released, the tides changed quite quickly.

The full, unedited video showed that Sherrod’s speech was quite the opposite of racist. The entire point of her speech was to urge the importance of overcoming one’s prejudices for the greater good.

But the truth came too late—her resignation was complete. Tom Vilsack, the White House Agricultural Secretary, apologized profusely for his haste in ordering Sherrod’s firing. She later received phone call from President Obama, assuring her that Vilsack “was sincere in his apology.”

Don’t expect to see any news of a similar phone call coming from Breitbart—in his words: “It’s warfare out there.”

In my words: This is absurd.

When presented with a video that we learn is over-edited, and a commentary that is so falsely accusatory, the question arises: Wherefore art thou, journalistic integrity?

While the giant world of the blogosphere is a wonderful and beautiful thing for artists, news addicts and free-speech lovers alike, we have to ask ourselves: If news that is as seemingly propagandist as this can shake our media foundation so easily and so quickly, where do we turn for solid sources? And more disturbingly—and importantly—how much of this is the fault of our own update-addicted culture?

As our own Callie Schweitzer recently pointed out in her article on “WikiLeaks," in this Internet-dependent world, the first break of news is everything. Beyond that, it is only a vast pool of sloppy seconds.

But what this recent scandal has shown us is the news that can immediately make someone a household name can also be highly slanted and unreliable. How can we expect to trust quick-fire news when slip-ups like this can lead to innocent people getting fired?

Consider that for a moment. Consider losing a prestigious job in the United States government over a blatantly false, manipulated piece of news that one of your superiors believed. And consider that the man behind the manipulation shows no remorse, and writes everything off in the name of the politics game.

I’m sorry to pull out this card, really I am, but honestly—is this America or isn’t it? Is it “innocent until proven guilty,” or “innocent until I check my RSS feed in the morning”?

If anything, at least we can learn that the need for good journalism is by no means obsolete. We are obviously very much in need of legitimate and capable reporters who can deliver news to us in a reliable fashion.

To think that Andrew Breitbart still has a job at the end of this ordeal. Warfare indeed. 


To reach staff reporter Kelly Baron, click here.

Follow her on Twitter: @kellybbaron



 

Buzz

Craig Gillespie directed this true story about "the most daring rescue mission in the history of the U.S. Coast Guard.”

Watch USC Annenberg Media's live State of the Union recap and analysis here.

 
ntrandomness