Video courtesy: naacpvideo In the new media ecology, dissembling thankfully, took a head-shot.
By J. Letness
TheUrbanFly
July 22, 2010
MINNEAPOLIS – Welcome to the push-button simplicities of the on-demand and
all-be-damned world of click-through politics. That our species is
always behind the curve on the effect of its tools was again
demonstrated this week with the apparent outing of Georgia state
director of rural development, Shirley Sherrod as a racist in a clipped video first published by Andrew Breitbart.
On the basis of this viral video, Ms. Sherrod was denounced by US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and the NAACP. When the video was quickly exposed as grossly decontextualized to the point of presenting Ms. Sherrod in a completely opposite lite, the excuses, equivocations, denials and finger-pointing began to fly. What was clear among the debris was the fact that the new media had remorselessly chewed up some big reputations.
For the Cautionary Tale folks, there is fodder enough in this story on many fronts. But the only thing that is really new here isn't the too-easy abstraction of information into smear, nor the inverse relationship between sane reaction and sensational exposé, but the breadth and speed that such news can travel, and more importantly, unravel.
Here we meet the real-time crisis of content creation, content curation, and Internet media as cheap commodity. The job of the commercial news media in America and around the world is to deliver eyes with wallets to the media company's sponsors and advertisers. Thus the tribal response to "Gotcha" journalism. But the ad-biz, or what's left of it, still fuels the engine, and for the purposes of publishing content that pays, what better way to sell click-throughs than to rile up partisan bile. (Just last week this paper ran an editorial analysis of the "apology" to BP by US Representative Joe Barton (R-TX). We were careful to publish the Full clip of Barton’s' opening remarks, not the "short" version which made it appear as though he was cravenly rushing to the aid of a bully.)
Insipid, not insidious, is the word that comes to mind about the Breitbart video as a reactionary attempt to divert attention away from the NAACP's complaints about racist tendencies at TP rallies. Some of the samples the NAACP have published and criticized are so preposterous and overt as to be worthy of the suspicion of being the work of agent provocateurs.
Forgetting for a moment the stultifying effect of the of the sort of fringe racism that traditionally dogs nativist movements like the Tea Party, just how did the Breitbart video expose Ms. Sherrod as racist in the same vein as Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams? Or more accurately, just how racist were her actions, reported by herself as occurring many years before, in a speech she had to know was being recorded at the time?
As "Gotcha" moments go, this was pretty lame stuff. When I first saw it my initial reaction was, so what? The Breitbart clip sounded more like a teaching moment about the wisdom of biting the hand that feeds you. For me, as far as smear campaigns go, this ranked somewhere on the order of exposing Dawn Wells (MaryAnn of Gilligan’s Island) as a pot smoker.
And then there is Williams, again, making defaming racist remarks then laughing them off as satire. How does he accomplish anything but shift the TP movement's political agenda of valid concern over rapidly expanding Federalism off the policy pages and into the scandal sheet. To their credit, The National Tea Party Federation has taken the cue, Williams has talked his way off the NTPF dinner table. But how does the Breitbart/Fox contribution stem the debilitating perception that racism is rotting out the core of this movement of genuinely concerned citizens? The NTFP has a lot more work to do if they wish to avoid going the way of the Know Nothings of the 1850's.
And now, the scoreboard. As for the Breitbart/Fox bunch, the reward for being clever ends up making them look at best as overpaid high school students, at worst, cynical dissemblers. For the BigOrg entities and the squeaky cleans who manage their knees jerking, just another day in a life of being too big and out of touch. What though, could we legitimately expect? It is in fact, We The People who are the Government.
Video courtesy: media matters4america Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack, in righteously denouncing Ms. Sherrod's supposed racism in his original statement sounded eerily similar to Joseph McCarthy rooting out communists. To be fair, he claimed a mandate to address past abuses the USDA has been accused of, and to his credit, he accepted the fact of his mistake and maybe more importantly, was one of the few in positions of power to sound a converts' refrain about the realities of the new media.
Curiously, for the NAACP to fall back on the bizarre excuse of being "snookered" into denouncing Ms. Sherrod leaves one wondering how that is a sensible alternative explanation to the truth that they didn't do their homework – especially on a video from their own files. They may wish to review the contents of their excuses folder.
For Ms. Sherrod, a Rosa Parks moment? And possibly, an opportunity to reopen the cold case file of her father's murder. When Camus questioned Christianity on the basis of the absurd premise of justice emerging form the centrally unjust event of the crucifixion, could something like this have been what he was referring to – from beyond the grave no less?
Ho Hum. More hand wringing, and another moment that will assuredly become a lost file in our collective amnesia. As usual in our over-served society, the whirlwind that blew-up around Ms. Sherrod, the USDA, NAACP, NTPF, and the Brietbart/FOXNews combine took on a Shakespearean dimension, "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". A spot-on analysis of our post-historical culture media environment from a 17th century playwright.
It also brings up the issue of due process. As an employee of the federal government, why was the White House, Vilsack, Pres. Obama, etc., so quick to jump on ANYTHING that a dishonest blogger with a vendetta against this administration does?? Just knowing his reputation, why was Ms. Sherrod not summonsed first?
And where are the advisors who knew more about Sherrod and could vouch for her?
I hope the President stands up to these right-wingers without stooping to their level.
It was a smear campaign that blew-up spectacularly in the perps’ faces. In the story, I concentrated on analyzing the landscape of the new media ecology and sifted briefly through the immediate debris.
For all the Breitbart video’s ill-intentions, the opposite effect was achieved. Fox/Breitbart was discredited (although, certainly not among their faithful), Ms. Sherrod was spectacularly vindicated (all for the cost of one bad day), NTPF was forced further to address the looney racism that is undermining the movement (What NAACP was advocating for), BigGov did what BigGov does anyway, but at least they back-peddled when confronted with reality (ask the Vets who still suffer the effects of Agent Orange for an alternative response). Sec. Vilsack’s caveat about knee-jerk reactions at the end of his mea-culpa sounded a completely unexpected piece of insight – albeit an insight one would have expected them to have already possessed.
And lastly, a small triumph of rationality and sobriety over the usual din of shrill prurience, gossip, and celebrity mongering.
