Bob Schieffer of CBS News 'Face The Nation' is irrationally exuberant over the Shirley Sherrod debacle; he calls on the New Media to adopt the rigorous fact checking of our diligent Old Media but delivers this baffler:
Here's one way: Old Media makes its share of mistakes, but not if we can help it. We still call people involved in a story to get their side; editors fact check; and we never publish or broadcast anything unless we think it's true.
Last week, we saw what can happen when it's done the other way.
A partisan blogger with an agenda - not a journalist - put the heavily edited, totally out of context, now infamous sound bite of Shirley Sherrod on the Internet. Some of the cable folk picked up the story, and demanded the woman's ouster.
No calls to those involved, no checking of any kind - just throw it out there and leave it to the woman to defend herself.Even worse, an administration so anxious to wash its hands of the controversy before the evening news came on didn't check, either, and fired her.
The "cable folk... demanded the woman's ouster"? Who is he throwing under the bus here, Jim Carrey?
Media Matters, hardly apologists for the cable folk at Fox News, prepared this timeline of the flow of the Breitbart story on Monday, July 19, which gives the cable folk a pass.
Breitbart posted his video at 11:18 AM. Around noon, the cable folk at Fox News posted a story at highlighting the Breitbart video and declaring they were seeking comment from the USDA and the NAACP; no demands for an ouster there.
Some bloggers are mentioned by Media Matters, and then we return to Fox News:
1:40 p.m. (approximately): Fox Nation accuses Sherrod of "discrimination caught on tape" before she resigned. Fox Nation linked to Breitbart's Big Government piece and posted the deceptively cropped clips of Sherrod's speech at the NAACP in a post titled, "Caught on Tape: Obama Official Discriminates Against White Farmer":
They say "posted", not "broadcast", and no mention is made of a call for her resignation. The story seems to have been dramatically re-edited, so that link is no longer helpful.
Media Matters delivers props to the Anchoress, so I will too (again.)
3:31 p.m.: Elizabeth Scalia of the blog The Anchoress raises questions about the editing of Breitbart's video. In her post, Scalia wrote, "I am uncomfortable with this 'get' by Breitbart." Scalia further questioned Breitbart's selectively edited video of Sherrod's comments (emphasis in the original):
Finally, a non-Fox broadcaster gets involved:
4:01 p.m. Ace of Spades reports that CBS' NYC affiliate picked up Sherrod story, declares, "Breitbart gets results." "Ace" wrote that a "CBS Affiliate Picks Up Breitbart's Vid of Sherrod's Racist Attitude" and that "Breitbart gets results."
I assume the affiliate did not interrupt their local programming to broadcast anything at 4 PM, nor does Media Matters mention a call for Sherrod's resignation by CBS NYC.
Soon enough Sherrod resigns, and Media Matters reports on the aftermath.
Well. In Bob Schieffer's carefully fact-checked world, the "cable folk" "demanded the woman's ouster".
Media Matters missed that, perhaps, which is a bad job by them. Or maybe Bob Schieffer needs to enhance his careful fact-checking and rejoin us in the 21st century.
FWIW: If Bob Schieffer can't trust Media Matters, here is Howard Kurtz of the Old Media:
But for all the chatter -- some of it from Sherrod herself -- that she was done in by Fox News, the network didn't touch the story until her forced resignation was made public Monday evening, with the exception of brief comments by O'Reilly. After a news meeting Monday afternoon, an e-mail directive was sent to the news staff in which Fox Senior Vice President Michael Clemente said: "Let's take our time and get the facts straight on this story. Can we get confirmation and comments from Sherrod before going on-air. Let's make sure we do this right."
Sherrod may be the only official ever dismissed because of the fear that Fox host Glenn Beck might go after her. As Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack tried to pressure her into resigning, Sherrod says Deputy Undersecretary Cheryl Cook called her Monday to say "do it, because you're going to be on 'Glenn Beck' tonight." And for all the focus on Fox, much of the mainstream media ran with a fragmentary story that painted an obscure 62-year-old Georgian as an unrepentant racist.
Here is David Carr of the NY Times:
After the video was published last Monday by Mr. Breitbart on the Web, she was asked to resign before the cable news channels had broadcast a word about the tape. It was a coup for what Mr. Breitbart calls the “undermedia.”
And Brian Stelter of the NY Times:
Fox’s newscasts did not cover the edited Sherrod video last Monday, nor did Mr. Beck, but the opinion host Bill O’Reilly did call on her to resign.
She resigned between the time Mr. O’Reilly taped his show and when that show was broadcast.
Mr. O’Reilly apologized two nights later, and another Fox News host, Shepard Smith, asked, “What in the world has happened to our industry and the White House?”
To answer Mr. Smith, I would not draw deep lessons about the media from the fact that Bill O'Reilly, on tape, jumped the gun. The real question is, why did the White House and the NAACP over-react without doing any research?
If Ms. Sherrod had not been fired on Monday and instead the NAACP had calmly released the tape, the pushback on Tuesday would have ensured that the initial Breitbart allegations would have gotten as much play as, well, the New Black Panther case, or the ACORN tapes. Which is to say, roughly zero. Some of that pushback would have come from the right, since the Anchoress (linked by Glenn Reynolds and seconded by AllahPundit) wanted to see the full tape. And no one would be drawing any more lessons about New Media than they are drawing from this story about this invasion of Texas by Mexican cartel gunmen last weekend (which was widely, and apparently properly, ignored).
This Sherrod story is only getting attention because the White House over-reacted. But inevitably, our left-leaning media wants to seize the opportunity to remind everyone how important it is to ignore the right right wing media.
caro, looks like this may be the Breitbart speech you were referencing above - I'm going to check it out now.
Posted by: Porchlight | July 26, 2010 at 12:49 PM
I was the one who surmised the tape came from someone the Sherrod's know in Ga..Possibly even someone in the NAACP down there. Her stories are inconsistent but she seems to have been tipped off in advance that someone had sent it to Breitbart.
Posted by: Clarice | July 26, 2010 at 12:56 PM
I suspect Breitbart's source was more credible than CBS's source for Rathergate. But Schieffer wouldn't want to get into that, would he?
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | July 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM
The media narrative on the Sherrod case has become quite deranged. Now they are accusing Megyn Kelly of goading Obama into untoward action because of her investigation of the Justice Department's actions ont he Black Panther case.
This is simply getting weirder and weirder. Instead of holding the President accountable, they are holding Fox accountable.
Posted by: matt | July 26, 2010 at 01:01 PM
"This is simply getting weirder and weirder."
It reminds me of the pretzel contortions they went through back in the blue dress days. ISTM people on our side worried about a smudge on Brietbart's toga might be missing the point.
Posted by: boris | July 26, 2010 at 01:07 PM
Poor McDivot; always getting pwn3d by women.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 26, 2010 at 01:07 PM
If one understands 'narrative' as a twenty five cent word for lie, then it becomes perfectly clear Matt. Was it Susskind who apochryphally came up 'we invent our own
reality,' and put in the mouth of an administration official
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | July 26, 2010 at 01:08 PM
In the spirit of careful and rigorous fact checking, "folk" should watch those Charles Sherrod videos at ReihlWorldView before canonizing Mrs. Sherrod.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 26, 2010 at 01:08 PM
Blame Fox seems to be the successor to Blame BUUUUUsssshhh.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | July 26, 2010 at 01:09 PM
I guess being a marxist isn't as bad as being a racist.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | July 26, 2010 at 01:11 PM
Aint it the truth, Captain
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | July 26, 2010 at 01:11 PM
Journalism really did die in 2008, sorry John Peter Zenger, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | July 26, 2010 at 01:16 PM
We're now linked @ AoS so feel free to indulge in creative profanity.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 26, 2010 at 01:17 PM
This is simply getting weirder and weirder. Instead of holding the President accountable, they are holding Fox accountable.
My guess is that there is a lot of JouornoList pushback going on. How much discrediting can the left wing press take?
A lot apparently from what we have seen.
Posted by: Jane | July 26, 2010 at 01:19 PM
Yay, Seixon. I'd like to say I'm making an effort to learn Norwegian, but it isn't true. So, your blog is safe, for now.
=============
Posted by: Auld Acquaintance. | July 26, 2010 at 01:26 PM
Porchlight, my conversion started with hearing feminists trash Lewinsky and praise Clinton. Kerry and his Swiftboat fantasies confirmed the drift.
==========
Posted by: I'm buried in falling scales. | July 26, 2010 at 01:28 PM
Care for a little new media fact checking of old media?
I touched on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072502756.html>Dionne's column yesterday,but figured in light of this post's subject,I would revisit it. Dionne says:
"stopped no one from voting" is linked in the article -- to a Media Matters piece.
In it,Media Matters links to Abigail Thernstrom's article on NRO which does indeed make such a claim.
However,also at NRO,Peter Kirsanow,who also sits on the Civil Rights Commission,http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MThjNjZmMGYyMDVkNzUyNzQyNDVkZTY3Yzg4MTFhYzI=>takes Thernstrom to task for that claim:
I have not seen Therstrom respond to Kirsanow. Kirsanow's appeal to the sworn testimony is enough to convince me that he is telling the truth. But for now,let's just put it in the disputed column.
For Dionne to state unequivocally that no one was prevented from voting is,at best,deceptive to his readers - presenting the matter as if it is undisputed fact.
Bob Schieffer would be so ashamed. But he's on a permanent mental vacation,so he has no idea what's going on in the New Black Panther case.
Not to worry,I am ashamed of Dionne enough for both of us.
Posted by: hit and run | July 26, 2010 at 01:48 PM
Never mind that this is a story about a tiny group of crackpots who stopped no one from voting.
If my tiny band of bank marauders tries and fails to rob the Wells Fargo on the corner, do I not have to face charges?
Posted by: Porchlight | July 26, 2010 at 02:09 PM
Who is McDivot?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 26, 2010 at 02:18 PM
I wonder if I could intimidate voters sufficiently that they would not testify that I had intimidated them [say by kidnapping children or something worse] would I escape the law?
Posted by: MarkO | July 26, 2010 at 02:25 PM
It's a nickname for Obama and his propensity
for golf
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | July 26, 2010 at 02:29 PM
Sorry DoT; it was a term that I think was somewhat common in usage in the past to refer to a submediocre golfer. Although since I can't find it in Wiki maybe it was a very regional/local expression.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 26, 2010 at 02:49 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | July 26, 2010 at 03:18 PM
--Has anyone else noticed the terms "folk" "folks" being used to describe those of us the elite has determined are beneath them?--
Barry has always had quite a propensity for invoking the folksy term "folks". Let's him sound like he identifies with the masses without actually, you know, knowing any of them. I don't think he has any idea how condescending it sounds.
The rest of the circus is just following the lead clown.
Posted by: Ignatz | July 26, 2010 at 03:20 PM
The terms "folk" "folks" are being used in a cynical reference to O'Reilly. His tag line is that he looks out for the "folks."
If you don't think this was deliberate, think again. It's disparaging,
Posted by: MarkO | July 26, 2010 at 03:27 PM
The rest of the circus is just following the lead clown.
When BOzo drops his 'g's (ie. Folks are talkin') I'd expect Harry Reid to say that he's choosing to employ a Negro dialect. Or I'd say he's sounding like a fucking idiot.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 26, 2010 at 03:36 PM
He even did a "you betcha" there is nothing genuine about him
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | July 26, 2010 at 04:15 PM
Talkin' like a typical Colombia/Harvard grad doncha know. Just sayin' Cpt.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | July 26, 2010 at 04:22 PM
"Folks" is geneder neutral, without sounding too pc. I doubt Obama is using it for any reason other than that.
Posted by: Appalled | July 26, 2010 at 04:28 PM
"Folks" is geneder neutral, without sounding too pc.
As opposed to all those gender-laden PC terms like "people", "voters", "Americans", "citizens", etc.?
Posted by: jimmyk | July 26, 2010 at 04:34 PM
No, he's "using it" because it's printed that way on the teleprompter.
Posted by: Strawman Cometh | July 26, 2010 at 04:34 PM
Who is McDivot?
I like Sir Shanksalot better. It sounds like a character combination between Monty Python's The Holy Grail and Caddyshack.
Posted by: PDinDetroit | July 26, 2010 at 04:39 PM
It's a term used safely only by one of the 'folks' and Obama clearly aint' that.
===================
Posted by: Come to think of it, he's as unfolky as they come. | July 26, 2010 at 05:26 PM
How many voter intimidation cases did the Bush administration fail to prosecute? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
Nov. 8, 2006, Austin American-Statesman:
``In Arizona, Roy Warden, an anti-immigration activist with the Minutemen, and a handful of supporters staked out a Tucson precinct and questioned Hispanic voters at the polls to determine whether they spoke English.
``Armed with a 9mm Glock automatic strapped to his side, Warden said he planned to photograph Hispanic voters entering polls in an effort to identify illegal immigrants and felons. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund reported the incident to the FBI.''
Bush never prosecuted the guy. And this was clearly a case of voter intimidation and clearly a case that had potential to actually affect outcome.
Posted by: bunkerbuster | July 26, 2010 at 05:33 PM
Spunkmeyer, warbles in for a bit, he was the
drop ship pilot, iced by the Alien
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | July 26, 2010 at 05:35 PM
where I come from "Shanksalot" is quite a compliment...lol but I'll let you kids hone your put-downs undisturbed...
Posted by: bunkerbuster | July 26, 2010 at 05:36 PM
when is GM going to come out with a FOLKSWAGON?
Posted by: Chubby (formerly Parking Lot) | July 26, 2010 at 05:38 PM
" As a former Dem voter I am always fascinated by conversion stories."
Porchlight,
I would suggest an investment in storage devices. The next three years will provide countless iterations on the "BO Stinks" theme with epiphany achieved based upon a never ending cascade of mis and malfeasance. If you choose CDs, I'd suggest "Barry Lied, the Democrat Party Died" plus appropriate volume headers as they pile up.
Make sure to include your own story at the beginning - the boxed set will make a great 15th birthday present for the kids. Who knows - it might keep them off the wrong path.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 26, 2010 at 05:43 PM
It's
Global WarmingGlobal CoolingClimate ChangePosted by: Neo | July 26, 2010 at 05:46 PM
OK, bb, that was funny.
=============
Posted by: Laughing with you instead of at you. How novel. | July 26, 2010 at 05:55 PM
Now I'm laughing at you, bb. Was your comment about the voting place hassling supposed to justify the DoJ squelching their win against the NBP?
===================
Posted by: You know, they prosecuted and won, don't you? | July 26, 2010 at 05:58 PM
Presumably, the same culture of careerists at the DoJ investigated both cases. One was not prosecuted and one was prosecuted, won, and then dropped because of White House political interference.
And you are trying to imply equivalence of the two cases? Try again.
==============
Posted by: You are so easy to laugh at and so hard to laugh with. | July 26, 2010 at 06:01 PM
Re: BR's hint this morning. I expect Fox is so intimidated by Glenn Beck that they are holding up the broadcasting of the racist speech.
==================
Posted by: Duck, goose, duck, goose...... | July 26, 2010 at 06:05 PM
Has anyone told the leftists that Pres Bush has left the WH. What a great person and to think, he even had a US birth certificate. Something the present occupant apparently can't or won't produce.
Posted by: Pagar | July 26, 2010 at 06:11 PM
So, when BillO called for Shirley Sherrod to resign, he did so as a private citizen and not as FOX employee?
Nice try.
Posted by: Sparky Satori | July 26, 2010 at 06:12 PM
Speaking of the NBP:
New Black Panther Party Leader Video: ‘We Will See Caskets and Funerals in the Community of our Enemy’
Posted by: glasater | July 26, 2010 at 06:20 PM
when BillO called for Shirley Sherrod to resign the NAACP had already done so.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 26, 2010 at 06:24 PM
try to keep up .. by time O'R aired she had already resigned.
Posted by: Chubby | July 26, 2010 at 06:27 PM
This totally off topic, but the other day I advised that you could follow a murder mystery story before it became international headlines by clicking on the
http://www.panama-guide.com/
LUN.
The suspects have been captured,
In addition, US authorities believe one of the murder victims is a drug dealer who has been missing for thirty years.
This case may be getting much bigger. Check the site for updates if it interests you.
Posted by: Pagar | July 26, 2010 at 06:40 PM
Greg Sargent is the other young 'supergenius' hired by the Post, 'splitting atoms, with his mind, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | July 26, 2010 at 06:48 PM
Welcome to my world, Shirley! I'm just surprised that you joined me so quickly. I didn't become radioactive until many months went by. You become inconvenient in less than a week.
Posted by: Cindy Sheehan | July 26, 2010 at 06:49 PM
Read the rule book, Shankapotamus. I heart those ETrade infants.
Posted by: larry | July 26, 2010 at 06:55 PM
Honestly what is wrong with these people, are they just clueless, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | July 26, 2010 at 07:18 PM
"o pay for these measures, lawmakers may consider raising taxes on the the oil and gas industry."
Narciso
No body in power in Washington DC, seems to understand that every penny of tax on any corp comes from taxpayers.
Posted by: Pagar | July 26, 2010 at 07:26 PM
Bah, Brownback. Why should he be clueless, n?
=============
Posted by: And he thought he could be President. | July 26, 2010 at 07:32 PM
Honestly, Kim, one shouldn't even to explain this to them
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | July 26, 2010 at 07:41 PM
Well, the Repubs did hold pretty steady; Graham actually did the right thing.
==============
Posted by: And the Northern Lites shown. | July 26, 2010 at 08:03 PM
Pagar--thanks for that update on the Panama murder mystery. It was pretty interesting.
And the link on what is currently going on in Honduras is very upsetting...
Posted by: glasater | July 26, 2010 at 08:59 PM
Thanks glasater, I try to put up links that have meaning and interest to others at JOM.
The Honduras situation is really not getting much coverage as far as I can tell. The Obama efforts could easily tip the country in to the Chavez camp and Americans not even know what is going on.
Posted by: Pagar | July 26, 2010 at 09:12 PM
Since this seems to be the thread for South and Central American updates, LUN for Colombia doing what Preznit Smart Diplomacy and the Vichy State Dept won't do about Oliver Stone's mancrush and human fart machine Hugo Chavez.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 26, 2010 at 09:33 PM
Columbia has been a beacon of hope in the troubled world of Latin America. I just hope and pray they can hold on.
Posted by: Pagar | July 26, 2010 at 09:43 PM
Good Morning,
Reading a comment on an Instapundit linked Riehl World Blog came upon mention of an interview by Don Imus of Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss in November 2008, shortly after the Election of Obama. Tried to track it down but on YouTube its been pulled due to "This video has been pulled due to terms of use violation" whatever that means. Anyhow, I did not recall it, but since TM's Post is about gross stupidity in the Media, I don't think you can find a better example than this:
"Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …
Imus: Well. What is his IQ?
Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable
Imus: What is his IQ?
Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?
Imus: What is his IQ?
Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably - he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.
Imus: That’s not what I asked you. I asked you what his IQ was.
Historian Michael Beschloss: You know that I don’t know and I’d have to find someone with more expertise …
Imus: You don’t know.
Historian Michael Beschloss: What do YOU think it is?
Imus: I don’t know. Well mine is 164. I don’t know what that means but it’s a little higher than normal I guess.
Historian Michael Beschloss: Well it’s way beyond genius which does not surprise me.
Imus: It surpprised a lot of people when we took it.
Historian Michael Beschloss: Well it doesn’t surprise me."
Don't know how I missed that. Link.">http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2008/11/mike-beschloss-don-imus-and-barack.html">Link.
Posted by: daddy | July 26, 2010 at 09:56 PM
Porch,that is it. I will go back and listen again.
Posted by: caro | July 26, 2010 at 10:19 PM
I'm a convert too--I volunteered for McGovern in '72 (though in my defense I was only 12). My parents were FDR Democrats, we boycotted grapes, the whole deal. As a college sophomore I read Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, and I had a roommate who was a devout libertarian and a debater, and could shred any feeble defense I could make of leftish views (which I was increasingly doubting anyway). (I think his main motivation for being libertarian was the desire for drug legalization, but that's another story.) I may have voted Democrat in '78, but by 1980 I pulled the lever for Reagan and never looked back.
Posted by: jimmyk | July 26, 2010 at 10:48 PM
Well I was never really liberal, but I didn't really concern my self with politics in my teen years, I was more space exploration and
science fiction buff, in high school, I really
got interested in history and government, what
we laughingly used to call civics. It wasn't till college that one really developed a political identity in relation to my professors
Posted by: narciso the harpoon | July 26, 2010 at 11:00 PM
My other roommate and I looked at each other, and simultaneously had the same thought. Yes, that's right, the "stupid sorority" was phi beta kappa.
So yes, I know sweet naivete. Sweet naivete was a good friend of mine. And you, Mr. Imus, are no sweet naif!
So for my third year in college I shared an apartment with another 3rd-year and a 4th-year. The 4th-year was a very bright, but charmingly naive, pre-med. In April she came home puzzled and told the two of us that she had gotten the strangest letter -- it was an invitation to join some sorority. And she was graduating in 2 months -- why would she want to join some stupid sorority at this point?Posted by: cathyf | July 26, 2010 at 11:07 PM
Schieffer is a doddering fool. Have you ever listened to his short radio commentaries? They're pathetic. The writing and thinking he employs are about on the level of a 9th grade honors history student. It is a mystery as to why Schieffer has any kind of decent reputation-- even in the degraded world of network television news.
Posted by: Brian McKim | July 27, 2010 at 02:14 AM
Does anyone have a cite that would convince a reasonable and prudent person that Obama has a higher-than-average IQ?
Sometimes hard to remember: The country is ColOmbia.
Posted by: larry | July 27, 2010 at 09:38 AM
daddy we linked to that in my AT article about how damned stupid Obama is.
Posted by: Clarice | July 28, 2010 at 11:45 AM