Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (34705)	7/30/2010 1:47:18 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Mea Culpa 360: CNN Anchor Says He Was Wrong to Let Shirley Sherrod Smear Andrew Breitbart Unchallenged By Rich Noyes on CNN On Thursday’s Anderson Cooper 360, anchor Anderson Cooper faulted himself for not pressing Shirley Sherrod when she appeared on the show back on July 22 and claimed that conservative Andrew Breitbart was a “vicious” racist who “would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery.” Cooper now says he should have challenged Sherrod to support such an inflammatory charge with facts: “I believe in admitting my mistakes....I didn't challenge her that night and I should have.” The July 22 interview was one of numerous appearances Sherrod made on CNN after she was fired by the Department of Agriculture on July 19. Cooper asked Sherrod about her phone conversation that day with President Obama, and then about Breitbart. Here’s the transcript of that section of the interview; an extended video clip appears after the jump: CNN’s Anderson Cooper, July 22: ANDERSON COOPER: I want to ask you about the -- the man who first posted this edited clip of you, Andrew Breitbart. He said today -- and I'm quoting him -- he said -- quote -- "If anybody reads the sainted, martyred Sherrod's entire speech, this person has not gotten past black vs. white." Do you think you have gotten past black vs. white? SHIRLEY SHERROD: I know I have gotten past black vs. white. He's probably the person who has never gotten past it and never attempted to get past it. So, he can't see -- because he has never tried and because he hasn't, he can't see what I have done to get past it. And he's not interested in what I have done to get past it. I don't think he's interested in seeing anyone get past it, because I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That's where I think he would like to see all black people end up again. And that's why... COOPER: You think -- you think he's racist? SHERROD: ... I think he's so vicious. Yes, I do. And I think that's why he's so vicious against a black president, you know. He would go after me. I don't think it was even the NAACP he was totally after. I think he was after a black president. COOPER: So, when he says this wasn't about you, that this was just about the NAACP and what he says is their racist -- or their bias, you say you don't buy that? SHERROD: I don't buy it at all. What has he done to -- to promote unity among the races? Tell me. Let me -- tell him to come forward and tell us what he has done. I haven't seen him do anything but try to divide us, you know. Where does he think this will take us? What -- what does he think this will accomplish -- accomplish? I would like to hear him answer that. I would like him to show me how he's not a racist. Here’s what Cooper had to say about that exchange last night: COOPER: I interviewed Shirley Sherrod last Thursday. And in the course of that interview, I failed to do something that I should have. I believe in admitting my mistakes. I looked at the interview again today, and Ms. Sherrod said during that interview that she thought Mr. Breitbart was a racist. She said, quote, "I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery." She went on to say she believed his opposition to President Obama was based on racism. Now, she, of course, is free to believe whatever she wants, but I didn't challenge her that night and I should have. I don't want anyone on my show to get away with saying things which cannot be supported by facts. I should have challenged her on what facts she believes supports that accusation. That's my job, and I didn't do it very well in that interview, and I'm sorry about it. If I get a chance to talk to her again, I will.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (34705)	7/30/2010 1:57:43 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Shirley Sherrod unlikely to succeed in court against Andrew Breitbart By: Kate Tummarello Special to The Examiner 07/30/10 5:25 AM EDT In a photo made from video provided by CBSNews.com, former USDA official Shirley Sherrod is interviewed Thursday, July 22, 2010 on "The Early Show". President Barack Obama on Thursday apologized to Sherrod over her ouster in the midst of a racially tinged firestorm that ensnared the White House, Agriculture Department, NAACP and a blogger. Ousted former federal agricultural official Shirley Sherrod made news Thursday by announcing a lawsuit against conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart who, she claims falsely accused her of being racist against white people. Although it would make for an interesting showdown, media lawyers contacted by the Examiner said that that Sherrod’s case stands little chance of succeeding or even making it to trial. According to Ron Coleman, intellectual property attorney and blogger and general counsel for Media Bloggers Association, “[Sherrod] is a public figure, and she would certainly have to prove actual malice to prevail,” something that would be much more difficult than proving negligence on the part of Breitbart. Andrew Mirsky, an intellectual property attorney based in the District, asserts that Sherrod would have two tasks in such a suit: The first? To prove “That she was actually defamed, and I do think she has a plausible argument on that,” and depending on her status as a public figure she would have to prove either negligence or malice. Coleman, on the other hand, questioned the validity of Sherrod’s defamation claims. “Practically speaking, isn't she likely to have a far more economically rewarding career now than before?” asked Coleman. Since resigning Sherrod has been offered another position in the USDA. Regardless of the viability of her case, both are doubtful the case will actually go to court. “The chances of this actually getting to a trial are very, very slim. And her chances of collecting damages are infinitesimal,” Coleman explained. “Considering that [Breitbart] did, at the end of the day, portray her unfairly, she can hardly be blamed for trying.” Complicating the issue, according to Mirsky, is that Sherrod did say the things in the video Breitbart posted. “This wasn't the classic Photoshop cut and paste job,” Mirsky said, “it was just badly and unfairly excerpted.” Mirsky cited as a possible defense for Breitbart the libel principle of “neutral reporting" under which “a publisher can argue that all they were doing was reporting facts.” Mirsky deemed this defense “weak,” as this privilege also requires that the reporting be fair and balanced. Mirsky agreed on the likelihood of a trial. “It’s very rare to win a defamation judgment in this country,” Mirsky said. “They generally get settled or dismissed well before they go to trial.” While “[Breitbart] might very well love the publicity,” Mirsky explained that, in addition to dealing with the costs associated with a defamation trial, “it may not be in [Sherrod’s] interest for this to be constantly around for the next three years.” As of yet, Breitbart, no stranger to threats of lawsuits after last year’s ACORN controversy, has not commented publicly on the possibility of a lawsuit. Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com