Shirley Sherrod was a former USDA Officer working in Georgia. She was fired because of a selective editing of a speech by an "undisclosed source" that ended up on Breitbart Blog (what I'd like to call "New Media") and launched onto Bill O' Riley (conversely, "Old Media"). What happened after that became the firestorm that lasted 3 days on CNN. Mrs. Sherrod was even given a personal text message and private phone call from the President of the United States.

At least that's the bare minimum- if you want to hear more, CNN and others have plenty of information on this because they were who I was watching while I was thinking out the VERY VERY bare bones concept of this article. Even while I write this part one, I'm not sure what parts of this phenomenon I want to cover next, but I do know I want to cover THIS aspect first - because that's where it starts for me and I'll attempt to grow out from there.

Well, actually, what truly got me thinking about this whole business was the CNN story that ran AFTER the Sherrod case that was called "Is Internet culture ruining society" which featured Andrew Keen (Author of "The Cult of the Amateur" - which is an attack on many Internet-based aspects of our world)

Throughout the entire clip, I hope at least one reader is thinking what I am thinking, "Do you seriously believe something that was posted on the INTERNET?!" *cue 1990's laugh track*

---

Besides that, I would like to really break down what happened in the Sherrod Case and explain what makes Keen's assessment look half-baked.

Breitbart Blog is a "New Media" outlet ran by Mr. Brietbart and in the article he posted to his blog, he damned Sherrod and was trying to show that the NAACP is as "equally racist" as the Tea Party Movement. His "source" selectively edited the clip to make Sherrod look like a racist who hated white people. From this "New Media" outlet, it ended up on FOX News' own Bill O' Riley Show in which he calls for her to be let go. The White House jumped the gun, fired her, and THEN Glen Beck aired. (for those not in the loop - Bill is a one hour show on FOX News which is then followed by Glen Beck). Fast turn around, right?

I would like to stop here for a moment and get really into the messy details of this at least on a conceptual analytical level.

First, why was this such a big story anyway? - The reason is simple. We have a black person being called a racist. It would be the biggest high profile occurrence that's hit mainstream awareness in recent history, and in all likelihood, would be the first "black racism" news story in some time. The racism claim is especially interesting given the fallout from the US-DOA due to ongoing lawsuits (white US-DOA agents worked to give whites the advantage in the South, denying blacks key loans and grants).

More importantly, the conservative news-waves loved it. The story was huge news because it gave racist groups the ability to say, "Look! They hate us as much as we hate them!" It also gave the shock-jocks a place to stand and trumpet.

And last, but not least, because of the poor research and action plan from the White House, Sherrod was fired erroneously, which caused a huge backlash for the Obama administration at a time of significant achievement (we're talking about financial reform and extension of unemployment insurance payments here), which gave the conservative shock jocks even more to trumpet about. The Obama administration had to play fix the mess when it should have been expounding on the virtues of its accomplishments in Congress.

As to how the news got to Old Media in the first place; well, that's a completely different story. It's fair to say that if you read something on the Internet you should have it fact checked, vetted, and verified before you move it down the line. This is especially true if you're a big NATIONAL newscast. New Media does have that credibility issue - and for obviously very good reasons. I don't think I need to go into that much further. Old Media however - newspapers, talk radio, and televised newscasts have heft, age, experience, professional writers, and paid editors. The populace has an innate trust of these organizations because they've been reporting the truth for decades!

Here's a question for everyone to consider - this is obviously hypothetical, so you don't need to answer in the forums. Let's say IF this particular article on this particular blog was not aired on national TV, would Mrs. Sherrod have lost her job in the first place? If this article remained in the domain of NEW Media, i.e. the internet, would she have lost her job?

I have extremely high doubts she would have. Once Old Media got involved, this horrid piece of work gained traction and caused a woman to lose her job. This may be the fault of New Media for crafting the article - but it was Old Media that gave it weight. From there Old Media (in the Form of CNN) "rescued" Mrs. Sherrod from the plight that Old Media (in the form of FOX News) put her in.

Andrew and John (from that link I mentioned a few paragraphs ago) now have written themselves into a false premise. They claim that New Media sources need a gatekeeper of sorts. Hold your horses, boys. This "need" for a gatekeeper should have been the vetting process done by Old Media before it went on air. Because that's just good journalism. If you want to take content from the internet and wave it under the noses of the general populace, you better make damn-well sure that you have your information air-tight. This isn't just a horrid case of slander; it's also a case of terrible, sensationalist journalism.

Wanting gatekeepers for internet content is silly. The word "gatekeeper" essentially is a very nice way of saying, "Someone to censor the crackpots," which on the surface sounds like a good idea, but if you consider that idea long enough, the question that pops up is, "What is deemed Crackpot?" I mean, it is the internet, right? Home of blogs, twitter, Facebook, CollegeHumor, and 4chan. Some of it is really out there, and other parts of the world wide web are pretty sane. Another question you have to ask is, "Where do we draw a line for what gets censored and what doesn't?"

Here's another fun question for you - How many times does something like the Shirley Sherrod case happen that doesn't get "fixed"? Let's take this attack on Sherrod into the perspective of other internet events. The biggest known issue of anything related to this story that COULD happen in everyday life is called "Cyber-Bullying".

Cyber-Bullying is a attack on a person's reputation by posting or false-flagging online content as the target to ruin their social life and reputation. This has notably led to several suicides of teenagers. Due to the nature of the attacks a criminal lawsuit against one of the bullies (United States v. Lori Drew) was brought to court. Although this trial did not cause the cyber-bully to earn a conviction, it set the line for a Legislative Response called, "The Federal Megan Meier Cyber-Bullying Prevention Act" i.e. H.R. 1966.

So what went wrong? Keen's "Gatekeepers" at FOX News dropped the ball and didn't properly investigate - they allowed a piece of slander, or cyber-bullying, to go to air that attacked an innocent woman. Old Media (FOX News) perpetuated an attack on someone who was wrangled in political attacks coming from two sides (Tea Party and NAACP) and this person lost her job because of the weight of Old Media and the sensitivity of race issues in the US-DOA (Department of Agriculture). Then, this innocent lady was "rescued" by proper investigation by another Old Media group (CNN in this case), and in the end was given a better deal than her original job. While it's good that she got justice in the end, there are many who end up in situations like these where their reputations and careers are destroyed regardless of whether or not they are cleared in the end. Just because this case was made right doesn't mean that the issues aren't still there.

Mr. Keen has a good head on his shoulders generally, but I have to say the man is missing the point.


Keen wants to censor the internet, but what he should be asking is, "How do we stop erroneous reporting?" Good question, Mr, Keen! So how do we stop erroneous reporting of this magnitude? - Proper investigations, and calling bullshit when we smell it. Inquiry into the subject matter at all costs. You know, that stuff we call good journalism. But as is often the case, politically oriented media outlets feed the general public the slant they want to promote.


Welcome to our Brave New Culture of fast ever-changing lives. As we consume more news and content from New Media, we must remind ourselves that this content is not necessarily the truth - and Old Media must hold itself to the standards of good journalism.

---

---