Why was Shirley Sherrod Given Her Job Back?

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, yes her speech was taken out of context, she did come to realize that what she had said and done was wrong, and she apologized.

The fact remains that she used her position to discriminate against a white farmer by not fully doing her job for him, while giving extra care to a black farmer. She should still be fired, she violated the non-discrimination policy of the USDA. Why had nobody in the media brought this up? Even on FOX News (my network of choice) nobody had called for her to resign, they support her getting her job back.

If i fail to do my job, i get fired. She fails to do her job, she gets red carpet treatment.

There's your problem.


Um... yes, they did. O'Reilly definitely did, and probably others as well.


If you call being fired and then demonized in the media "red carpet treatment," then yeah.

She had already resigned by the the time O'Reilly called for her to resign. He apologized the next night to her as well.

After the news came out that her words were taken out of context, everyone apologized to her, and wanted her to have her job back. The obama admin urged her to return to the USDA. The fact remains that she practiced discrimination while on the job, she should be fired! Context or not, she admitted unequal treatment.

Orwell- yes, before they heard the whole story they called for her resignation, but afterwards they took their statements back, sorry, i should have been more clear.

She was fired as a politically-correct knee-jerk reaction of the Obama Administration...violating probably a couple dozen civil service rules in the process.

Hope she sues the dickens off the government for what they did.

It's getting harder and harder to have a conversation with people who believe absolute fiction as fact.


/didn't we have laws to dissuade this stuff pertaining to the right to be able to come on a show and defend oneself with time allowed?

Chad, she did not, in fact, discriminate against that white farmer. Had you bothered to get the full tale, rather than the butchered version used in her attempted character assassination, you would have seen that she realized her error, provided help to that farmer after all, and in the process learned important lessons about the commonality of humanity - the important part wasn't "poor white farmer," it was "poor white farmer."

She was, therefore, fired to avoid bad press which failed to materialize, as her supporters had the smarts to publish the unedited footage of her speech soonest. When the mistake was realized by the Obama administration, they apologized and offered her her job back.

I do think the basic problem here is that, as you confess, your preferred news outlet is Fox - a clearly-slanted "news" provider. At least the other major networks pretend they're trying to give you the whole story; Fox prefers to cater to their demographic, and they seem to have become proud of this. My personal recommendation is that you seek information from as many sources as possible. (I like to start with ABC network news, two different local newscasts, an all-news, no-talk-show radio station, two newspapers, and occasional news breaks from a Canadian rock-music station on my cable. Yes, that means I multitask - I read the papers in the morning during one local newscast, then flip over to the Canuck rock station while reading further online...)

LMFAO You get your NEWS from a network that went to COURT for it's right to LIE?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_wRGvuv6Xw

Unless someone has taken a legal oath to tell the truth they have the right to lie.

Of course if anyone is monetarily damaged by the lie, they could sue to recover the damage. There is no prior constraint against telling lies except in the matter of legal oaths.

ruveyn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Libel and Slander have to be proven after the fact of an utterance. No prior constraint. If the utterance is true (factually true) even though it has the effect of defamation, in American law, truth is a defense.

In the case of a lie, as long as the lie has no monetary consequences it is not actionable. Lying per se (except in the matter of perjury) is not illegal. If it were, satire and fiction could be grounds for legal action.

ruveyn

The resultant loss of her job would qualify as monetary consequences.

She "resigned", She has actually been offered a raise now. There is no monetary damages.

The problem is that EVERY canon of journalistic ethics prohibits publishing that which is false or at least highly suspect.

The court takes the position that the LAW doesn't prohibit it, so they can do it.

A very dark day for journalism.

Let the buyer (or consumer) beware.

ruveyn