The controversy surrounding blogger Andrew Breitbart was one of Summer 2010's blockbuster stories. In July 2010, U.S. Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod -- the Georgia State Director of Rural Development -- was forced to resign after Breitbart, a conservative stalwart, posted excerpts of an address Sherrod made to the NAACP earlier that year.
The video that Breitbart posted purported to show Sherrod describing how she refused to provide meaningful help to a financially struggling white farmer because he “was trying to show me he was superior to me.” Breitbart posted the excerpt in response to an NAACP resolution urging “Tea Party” leaders to “repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches,” in an attempt to show that NAACP members and affiliates were, themselves, racist.
Shortly after Breitbart exposed the seeming-bombshell, however, it was revealed that his video was only an excerpt of Sherrod's statement, which in its entirety showed that she did not discriminate, but rather helped the farmer save his farm.
Of the farmer, Sherrod said in the full address, “We became very good friends, and that friendship lasted for some years. Working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who haven't. They could be black, they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to help poor people -- those who don't have access the way others have.”
And the farmer's family described Sherrod as a “hero” for helping them save their farm.
Damage already done
But by the time the full address was exposed, the damage to Sherrod was largely done. She had been forced to resign from her position at the Department of Agriculture. And although Secretary Tom Vilsack offered her another position, she was ambivalent about whether she would accept -- and eventually decided to move on from government life.
Despite reports at the time that the incident could have wide implications, both culturally and individually for the players involved -- a representative headline from The Week asks, “Will Shirley Sherrod be Andrew Breitbart's Downfall?” (short answer: no) -- the world largely forgot about the Breitbart-Sherrod incident by the time fall rolled around.
But now the controversy is back in the headlines with the news that Sherrod has decided to sue Breitbart for defamation.
Implications for bloggers, media
And while that suit may well have merit -- even considering that Sherrod likely constitutes a “public figure,” which makes proving defamation much more difficult -- it also has wide, and unintended, implications for bloggers in an increasingly technology-centered world.
That is, will bloggers be held to the same standard as reporters for, say, The New York Times or CBS Evening News? What constitutes a “blogger” -- someone who writes for a larger outfit, or someone who keeps their own journal on Wordpress? What about comments attached to an article on a blog or online newspaper?
If Sherrod doesn't prevail, it could serve to embolden bloggers to make similarly false and misleading claims in the future, furthering the trend of new media to filter information in an attempt to reinforce preexisting opinions.
Floyd Abrams, a well-known media rights lawyer, told the Florida Sun Sentinel that Sherrod has a tough row to hoe.
“[Sherrod] has to demonstrate not just that he did it, but that he knew what he was doing was false [or] would leave a false impression about what she had said,” Abrams said, “or [that he] had some serious doubts about what he was doing.”
