--- In [email protected], Mike Dixon <mdixon.6...@...> wrote: > > See 17:28 in video.
The only audience response at 17:28 is a chuckle. There are no "cheers," no "applause" anywhere in the portion of the address where she talks about the farmer. And in any case, they aren't chuckles of approval of racism, they're chuckles of sympathy at her conflict, of understanding how she felt. OF COURSE she wasn't going to feel like going out of her way to help the farmer when he'd been acting so superior. Her tone of voice at that point is wry and self- mocking, strongly suggesting that *she* didn't approve of having had the feeling she described. And when she goes on to recount her epiphany-- "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." --you can hear people in the audience going, "Mm-hm," "That's right, that's right." The audience *does* approve of her recognition that it isn't about race, it's about being poor. And as to Breitbart's revised charge that the audience didn't know she was going to describe an epiphany, and that therefore they were approving of her pre-epiphany racism not realizing she was going to end up renouncing it, here's how she introduced the story about the farmer: ----- SHERROD: God is good. I can tell you that. When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people -- and to black people only. But you know God will show you things and he'll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people, you know. AUDIENCE: All right. All right. ----- In other words, Breitbart is lying about the audience's expectations as well. She told them *in advance* she had undergone an epiphany, and they very clearly approved of the outcome before she'd said a word about the farmer. You and Breitbart haven't got a leg to stand on, Mike. Shame on you for defending him. BTW, William Saletan of Slate.com has a piece that goes through the entire transcript of her farmer story noting every one of the specific audience responses. Check it against the tape: http://www.slate.com/id/2261552/pagenum/all/#p2 Earlier, you wrote: > --- In [email protected], Mike Dixon <mdixon.6569@> wrote: > > > > What I found amusing was on The View this morning. > > Andrew Breitbart was accused of *editing* the > > video he posted to exclude exculpatory evidence > > that Ms Sherrod was not racist. However, The View > > did that very thing. They showed the same clip > > but edited out the applause, laughter etc of NAACP > > members as Ms Sherrod admitted she did less than > > she could have to help the white farmer who > > came to her for help because she thought he was > > trying to show that he was superior to her. "The View" showed a heavily edited-down version of the video Breitbart posted; it was just a few highlights. The full Breitbart video was too long. (Whoopi apparently didn't realize this when she introduced it and misspoke when she said it was the same as his. If you watch the tape, you can see that someone on the production staff tries to correct her, but she doesn't understand what the person is signaling to her.) They didn't "edit out the applause" because there was none to edit out. And they didn't "edit out" the one chuckle, they edited out the whole chunk of the speech that generated it, along with several other chunks. It was an abbreviated version of the Breitbart video, but it didn't misrepresent anything. So Breitbart's smear of "The View" goes down the tubes along with everything else he's claimed. (I'm pretty sure you were just parroting what he said in the quote immediately above; you didn't realize they showed an abbreviated version of his video. But he surely did. And now you do too.)
