HPRgument Blog — July 30, 2010 6:06 am

Breitbart/Sherrod: Sound and Fury

By Alex Sherbany

The Breitbart/Sherrod saga feels like so much political drama. It is a kind of spectacle custom-made for Politico reporters and political junkies — mildly entertaining, for a little while, but signifying virtually nothing in the end.

Witness, for instance, some of the ridiculous accusations that have been thrown around in the past two weeks.

In the last fortnight: 1) The NAACP called the tea party racist; 2) Andrew Breitbart called the NAACP racist; 3) Shirley Sherrod called Republican opponents of Obamacare racists; 4) Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack called Shirley Sherrod racist; 5) many in mainstream media called Andrew Breitbart racist; 6) Howard Dean called Fox racist; and, 7) it was revealed that liberal journalist Spencer Ackerman proposed calling Fred Barnes and Karl Rove racist.

Thus, through a confluence of bizarrely unlikely events, the vicious act of falsely accusing people of racism became a laughingstock. It went from being a career killer to a punch line; from villainy to vaudeville; from knife in the back to pie in the fact.

Breitbart and Sherrod, the central figures, have both been unfairly demonized. This is obvious in the case of Sherrod, whose name has been cleared (and even enhanced) in the wake of the false charges.

But the accusations against Breitbart – that he is a racist, a craven liar, or a “dirty trickster” of some sort — have if anything only intensified. And while he clearly should not have posted the edited video, in hindsight, his critics are all too willing to assume that he knew the video was doctored and published it with malicious intent.

I met Breitbart in person for an interview about the Tea Party in May. My guess, based on his obvious frustration with charges of “Tea Party racism,” is that the cut of Sherrod he got was almost “too good to check.” In that case he should have been more careful. But it is one thing to criticize someone’s lack of prudence as a publisher and quite another to impugn that person’s character. (Maybe next time the media will be more careful when dealing with an activist news source, whether Breitbart or HuffPo.) 

No matter — I’m willing to bet that this episode will be forgotten by next week, when we go back to 24/7 coverage of midterm election predictions and the next installment of the Charlie Rangel Show.

Related posts:

Obama Mad Libs
Biden and Gibbs Mad Libs
Social Studies Walkout: Video
Google Sells Out
Tags:
Author: Alex Sherbany '11 was the Managing Editor for the Harvard Political Review from 2009 to 2010.
  • Sam Barr

    Alex,

    What more could Breitbart have done to earn something harsher than “he should have been more careful”?

    If Shirley Sherrod wants to bring a libel suit against him, then she would have to prove that he aired the clip in bad faith, i.e. he knew his conclusions were probably false and that the tape was doctored. This is the very high standard that applies to libel plaintiffs who are public officials. If Sherrod successfully argued that her comments were made privately and did not have anything to do with her government work, then a lesser standard would have to be met. She would merely have to show that Breitbart acted negligently, i.e. he should have done some due diligence and figured out the truth. You know, like a journalist.

    So, those are the standards in a court of law. You seem to think that public commentators should have to prove actual malice (the higher standard) before they go around condemning Breitbart with words stronger than “he should have been more careful.” I don’t see why that should be. Actual malice is a extraordinarily speech-protective standard, because it’s very hard to prove that someone knew their publication was probably false. But we’re not in a court of law here.

    Breitbart’s refusal to correct his accusation of racism and his refusal to apologize to Sherrod say a lot. His claim that this was about the NAACP being racist, not Sherrod, shows that he is callous with regards to the individuals who might get hurt by his, if we are being generous, lack of due diligence. His “correction” of the original video, in which he adds only that Sherrod was telling a story from before she was a USDA official, shows that he probably saw the full clip at some point and still did not correct his most inflammatory statements.

    This guy doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. He is a professional instigator. Your speculation that he thought the Sherrod clip “too good to check” doesn’t change that. If you’re right, his behavior is still reprehensible. In fact, if proven, that sort of attitude might fall under the “actual malice” standard: not because he knew his statements were false, but because he was reckless with regards to the truth. In other words, he didn’t care if they were false.

    Now, you can parse whether people who say false things and don’t care about the truth are “liars.” Maybe I should have said that Breitbart is a “craven spreader of reckless falsehoods”? Would that have suited your oh so delicate sensibilities?

custom writing