Tim Barker at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch falsely claimed that the exculpatory portion of Shirley Sherrod’s remarks were not included in the original posting or video originally posted on Big Government. Barker writes:

This isn’t the first controversy created by Breitbart’s heavy editing of videos. In another recent incident, a U.S. Agriculture Department employee was fired over what appeared to be a racist remark made in a speech. It was later revealed that the edited video left out a part of her speech that explained her comment as being part of a lesson on racial healing.

The story appeared in both the print and online version of the paper.

This claim is categorically false and is evident to anyone who took the time to read the actual original post, which included Sherrod’s exculpatory remarks and this commentary from Andrew Breitbart:

… Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help.

The title of the piece is “Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism-2010 .”

The explanation is provided again in Breitbart’s court filings in response to Sherrod’s complaint, freely available here and here:

Some of the ensuing television news reporting of the story on July 19, 2010, was accompanied by video that had been truncated to exclude Sherrod’s final, redemptive remarks that were included in the BigGovernment.com posts, such as 1) the language in the post that ultimately Sherrod’s “basic humanity informs her that this white man is poor and needs help” and 2) Sherrod’s own statement in the embedded video that “That’s when it was revealed to me that, y’all, it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white – it is about white and black, but it’s not – you know, it opened my eyes, because I took him to one of his own.” Rather, some of the subsequent reports included only the statements that she had decided not to assist the white farmer because of his race. (Complaint 70.) There is no allegation that either Breitbart or O’Connor participated in the editorial process of any other news organization in how to present the story or the video.

Tim Barker has done several stories on UMSL and has made every effort to tell the professor’s side of the story, but has made no effort to contact either Andrew Breitbart, Big Journalism Editor Dana Loesch, or the student whistleblower in the case, Phil Christofanelli, for the other side, nor is there any evidence that Barker viewed any footage to support his claim that the videos presented by Insurgent Visuals were edited to present the professors’ words out of context.

Loesch invited Barker onto her daily syndicated show to question him about the false information presented as fact; Barker refused.

Tim Barker owes the St. Louis Post Dispatch readers a retraction and Mr. Breitbart an apology for falsely claiming something that isn’t true in his news piece.

[Ed. note: The PD, and Barker named as well, was in hot water with the alternative weekly a few years ago.]

*Updated to include commentary from court filings.

**Barker responds:

Hi Dana,

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I don’t, however, see a need

for a correction. I have examined again what we wrote in the story,

which references only the controversy surrounding the video clip showing

a portion of Shirley Sherrod’s speech. I never mentioned the original

Breitbart posting, and it’s unclear why you think I did.

Of course, mine is not the final word on these matters. So please feel

free to contact my editor Matt Franck, if you would like to carry this

further.

Also, please let Mr. Breitbart know that I would be more than happy to

interview him for a story on the impact of his latest work.

Thanks,

Tim Barker

Higher Education Reporter

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

—

Hi Tim, I appreciate the quick response.

I didn’t suggest that you mentioned the original posting, rather my point was that you did not reference the original post. If you had, you would understand as I do that your statement is untrue:

“It was later revealed that the edited video left out a part of her speech that explained her comment as being part of a lesson on racial healing.”

The remarks were, in fact, included in both the original excerpt and even underscored with Mr. Breitbart’s commentary. This was even confirmed by NPR and Chris Matthews.

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/

Additionally:

https://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/motion-to-disimss-or-transfer-venue.pdf

https://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/special-motion-to-dismiss-under-anti-slapp-act.pdf

This statement needs correction.

Thanks for your time.