Forced to resign due to comments she says were taken out of context, Department of Agriculture former employee Shirley Sherrod says she plans to sue BigGovernment.com's Andrew Breitbart for the version of her comments he released that made her appear to be racist. From a Chicago Tribune story today:
Sherrod was forced to resign last week as director of rural development in Georgia after Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video online. In the full video, Sherrod, who is black, spoke to a local NAACP group about racial reconciliation and overcoming her initial reluctance to help a white farmer.
Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would definitely sue over the video that took her remarks out of context. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since offered Sherrod a new job in the department. She has not decided whether to accept.
For discussion -- how much is incumbent upon a journalist to give the whole story when it affects a person's livelihood and reputation? In this case, did Breitbart do something "sueable" when he published an excerpt of Sherrod's speech that caused her to be fired? Should any journalist be held financially or legally responsible for circulating half-truths or false information that leads to damaging a person's reputation? Is it news or is it libel?
