Beck on Sherrod: The Flip-Flopping Innocent

reply to post by sdcigarpig

I think you may have missed the point of the thread and the point in the timeline where Beck's radio show aired? Before he backed her, it appears he may have slandered her on air on his radio show.

Hence the flip-flopping on his part between the time his radio show (during which he played the audio of her speech out of context and commented on it quite negatively) aired and the time his TV show aired, where he so valiantly "defended" her.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


I honestly have no idea how the registration on his site works. I'd imagine they want you to register for updates and need info to send it to you, but I'm not certain because I've never registered there. Almost posted before realizing you had to register since it came up in the search without doing so.

EDIT: Oh, wait a minute. Got to looking around his site and you have to pay to subscribe for access to the audio/video archives. That's why it's asking for personal info, it wants to charge you for access. Didn't realize that or I wouldn't have posted the link to it. Sorry! I'll look some more and see if I can find it free anywhere else.


Edit 2: And now that I look at the time stamp on the "Why was Shirley Sherrod Ousted?" link I posted, it was put on his site at 12:10 AM eastern on the 21st. I would assume that means it's the transcript from the July 20th show but it didn't get posted til the 21st for some reason... There's nothing from before it about her on his site, so it would have to be the one you're looking for.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Jenna]

reply to post by Jenna

Thanks. The only audio I've found of his show so far is the one linked above, posted on the Media Matters site. Searches for transcripts are coming up empty too. But again, I happen to have heard this particular segement of his show that day (it was on in a car I was stuck in and our ears perked up because she was in GA, and I happened to be with two friends, one of whom is black, and we had quite the discussion about it all and how pathetic it was). I am 98% positive that what the audio on the MM site shows is what I heard. Always room for some doubt though.


[edit on 7/22/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Having watched the entire clip and not just the "racist part" I still dont think it was taken out of context. The woman still obviously has hatred in her heart for the white race for what happend to her father and even though watching the whole thing makes it "a little bit better" it was still a racist comment and she deserved to be fired for it. That's just my oppinion.

Regardless of that, I simply cannot understand why people care so much about this stupid garbage while the nation is faced with record high unemployment, a destroyed economy, a crisis on our border, and an entirety of 3-4 states on the verge of destruction with this oil spill. Let's all watch what the racist black woman says then switch to Mel Gibson instead. Dont forget about Linsay Lohan. OMG SHES IN JAIL! It's insanity.

reply to post by AndrewJay

Well, not to stray too far off topic, because this is a very small yet critical detail that might make a lot of difference in that so many people are canonizing Beck for his fairness and defense of this woman.

I'm doing this because I think it's important to dissect stories like this down to the minutiae to get at the root of viral slander and libel that is becoming all too common in the media today...from the blogs to the mainstream media and beyond.

So many people take at face value and only hear the sensationalist exagerrations and lies and pick "sides" based on this and propogate the lies further. Furthermore, they rarely get or hear the retractions because most people simply don't follow things this closely. They pick and choose what suits them and then go with that, thereby spreading erroneous, false, and even harmful information even further.

This may seem like a nit in this particular case, but this case is very symptomatic of a huge problem we face daily in how we get and react to information. False information that goes viral and is not tempered can lead people to make the wrong decisions...about things like wars and which candidates to support or even how to judge their fellow humans.

And so again, while this may appear to be trivial, it's not. And that's why I think it's critical to expose the shills in the media for exactly what they are in the hopes that it will make people pause and THINK before they do more harm.

So let's assume the timeline is:
1. clip on breitbart released with the intent to show people in the NAACP meeting applauding her for treating a white farmer with less enthusiasm than a black farmer
2. negative comments on the radio from Beck
3. negative comments on Fox TV from O'reilly
4. NAACP pushes and Sherrod is fired
5. no comment on Fox TV from Beck other than offering the benefit of a doubt and the "need to know the context", and some accusations towards the NAACP, USDA and the White House
6. full tape released and it shows she was telling an anecdotal story where she comes to the conclusion that what she was doing was racist and she ends up helping the white farmer to the best of her abilities, ultimately becoming friends, or at least acquaintances in a positive light with them.
7. NAACP issues a statement blaming Fox for "snookering" them.
8. O'Reilly apologizes
... ad nauseum

The facts that (a) the NAACP had the tape of her whole speach and pushed for her to resign before reviewing the whole tape and (b)Beck did back peddle and revise his opinion, asking to know the whole context within which her comments were made speaks volumes. The NAACP jumped the gun in spite of having information in their possession that would have admonished Sherrod of any sort of guilt yet did not view such material before pushing her out the door. The USDA and likely the administration similarly jumped the gun before the whole story was revealed.

Personally, I feel that if the NAACP is not racist and wants to reclaim its reputation and remain a viable organization promoting civil rights, it needs to change its charter / mission statement, and change its name to "National Association for the Advancement of the Common People".

I've got more to say but am having difficulty in organizing things into coherent thoughts.

There were a lot of dumb moves in this entire situation. And to get to any semblance of the truth each would have to be analyzed as objectively as possible with the little information we actually have.

The very simple point here, in this topic, again, is that there was rush to judgement in the media (the term here including Breitbart and all the radio and televised stories about this) and that this was irresponsible.

Some of the facts we will never be privy to and will only be able to speculate on...but we should always make it very clear it's opinion or speculation and nothing more. The media needs to do this, but so do we as the receivers of their information, as they have proven time and time again they cannot be trusted as reliable sources and also are irresponsible with peoples' reputations and lives.

Were there other factors and agendas at work? Probably. Some apparently obvious and maybe some not so obvious. But that doesn't excuse what the media did to this woman.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity...
The very simple point here, in this topic, again, is that there was rush to judgement in the media (the term here including Breitbart and all the radio and televised stories about this) and that this was irresponsible.

...

Were there other factors and agendas at work? Probably. Some apparently obvious and maybe some not so obvious. But that doesn't excuse what the media did to this woman.

Rush to judgement in the media?
Yes.
Rush to judgement in the NAACP and government?
Yes, to the point that unsubstantiated fear caused someone to lose their job.

Who has apologized without assigning the blame elsewhere?

reply to post by abecedarian


I guess I have to be a bit more blunt. That is not the topic here. There are a few other topics in which you can discuss these points.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Couldn't be more on topic, in my opinion. Yeah, maybe Beck flip-flopped and stood behind Sherrod. Any responsible person would change their opinion when faced with the facts.

Yet the NAACP flip-flopped too. At first condemning the woman JUST LIKE BECK and others, then recanting their position. Yet the NAACP doesn't think THEY did anything wrong in spite of the evidence that their reaction was a knee jerk response, and in spite of them having evidence contrary to the accusation that had they reviewed before issuing a response would've resulted in an entirely different opinion from the NAACP.



All I see in your insistance in keeping this "all Beck" is your unwillingness to accept that someone else also did the same thing, which detracts from your effort to marginalize Beck... and Fox networks; they have stepped up and done the right, responsible thing while the NAACP and the government only passes on the blame.

[edit on 7/22/2010 by abecedarian]

My analysis is an attempt to address one of the many points of this issue. Hence the title and the OP. It's a very simple point, and what the NAACP and what the administration may or may not have done is irrelevant to this point. Again, many other threads on ATS in the past week have addressed some of these other issues and have become free-for-alls where nothing was accomplished but a lot of shouting. Thanks for understanding.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Fine. Beck flipped/flopped. And he did the right thing in doing so.
Sadly, the other involved parties can't come clean like he did.

Feel better?

reply to post by abecedarian

I'm still not convinced he flip-flopped. But if he did a very wrong and irresponsible thing to begin with, and that is key here. Some wrongs are hard to undo.

Other parties have also apologized and even offered her a new job. I have not yet gotten to the NAACP angle. The source on that one is harder for me to get a hold of. Maybe you should start a thread on that particular chronology and sequence of events, as factual and objective as possible, and devoid of the sensationalism. That would get us even closer to the big picture of what happened in this situation.

Originally posted by abecedarian
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

Fine. Beck flipped/flopped. And he did the right thing in doing so.
Sadly, the other involved parties can't come clean like he did.

Feel better?

Is correcting one's first view on a subject (on air) with new evidence really a flip/flop?

I think the term has been used throughout with negitive conitations and I don't think it fits in this case.



[edit on 23-7-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero

Semantics. And it wouldn't negate the damage done or the fundamental irresponsibility, which, if I'm remembering the show correctly (pretty much what's in the audio at the link) was pretty bad.

"Ooops, I drove recklessly and killed a child, but if I immediately turn around and say I'm sorry 100 times, it'll make it all better."

People in the spotlight have a greater responsibility to THINK before they slander.

To his credit he did get the word out to MOST of the same people who listen to his show. But neither he nor any of the other people who fell into the trap had much of a choice. They got busted. Live on national TV. However to try to deny they fell into the trap? Naw.



[edit on 7/22/2010 by ~Lucidity]

First off....really using something posted by media matters as anything remotely resembling proof is just plain old fashioned ridiculous...yeah I really trust ole george soros. Secondly...I listened to the Beck radio show on the day in question, and I do not recall hearing anything at all about the Sherrod incident, I could be misaken, allthough I believe it would have stuck in my ear seeing as though I know her son. On the first day it broke, I heard not a peep from Beck on the radio nor TV. The second day I heard him staunchly defend her, as well as the third day. If you want someone to blame for the whole mess...blame the WH and NAACP.

I am pretty sure you are mistaken.
Check it out..... Put Sherrod in the search box at the bottom of the page.

www.glennbeck.com.../390088/980274

[edit on 22-7-2010 by tspark]

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by abecedarian

 

I'm still not convinced he flip-flopped. But if he did a very wrong and irresponsible thing to begin with, and that is key here. Some wrongs are hard to undo.

Other parties have also apologized and even offered her a new job. I have not yet gotten to the NAACP angle. The source on that one is harder for me to get a hold of. Maybe you should start a thread on that particular chronology and sequence of events, as factual and objective as possible, and devoid of the sensationalism. That would get us even closer to the big picture of what happened in this situation.

No need to start a new thread.
Your thread here is an obvious "cut, copy, paste" selection of events in time and every attempt to put things into context is responded with some accusation of off topic or such.

Here's NAACP response:

...
With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias.
...

Prior to that NAACP statement, Sherrod stated:

The former Agriculture Department official also said she never heard from the NAACP to hear her side of the story prior to its statement on the video. “The NAACP has not tried to contact me one time, and that’s why this happened,” she said. “I would have appreciated having the NAACP at least contact me … to try to get the truth about what happened.”
“I have done more to advance the causes of civil rights in this area than some of them who are sitting in those positions now with the NAACP,” Sherrod continued. “They need to learn something about me. They need to know about my work. They need to know what I have contributed through the years.”

I saw no audio clips pertaining to the Sherrod incident.

edit to add. Dont misunderstand me, I am not blindly supporting Beck, as anyone can be wrong, and he makes his fair share of mistakes and such. I just can not see how one could lay the blame for this at his feet. He was right in this case and should be given the credit for it as he takes his lumps when he is wrong (or should at least).

[edit on 22-7-2010 by SM2]

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

Semantics. And it wouldn't negate the damage done or the fundamental irresponsibility, which, if I'm remembering the show correctly (pretty much what's in the audio at the link) was pretty bad.

"Ooops, I drove recklessly and killed a child, but if I immediately turn around and say I'm sorry 100 times, it'll make it all better."

People in the spotlight have a greater responsibility to THINK before they slander.

To his credit he did get the word out to MOST of the same people who listen to his show. But neither he nor any of the other people who fell into the trap had much of a choice. They got busted. Live on national TV. However to try to deny they fell into the trap? Naw.



[edit on 7/22/2010 by ~Lucidity]

so he makes a mistake, corrects himself, and he's still on the bad side?
and the naacp and the obaminastration, with an arguable even brighter spotlight, only have to get her another job after reacting just as quickly, just as wrongly, and arguably with more force, and they're given a bye?

[edit on 7/22/2010 by abecedarian]