Amateur Hour and Professional Standards
I’ve held off commenting on the Shirley Sherrod episode until now, because I wanted to make sure most of the major elements had surfaced.
When the Breitbart clip and resulting propoganda first broke, I was immediately suspicious because of where things originated — a partisan group with a history of questionable tactics, and a proven record of editing video to support a specific agenda.
To say the initial reactions from the administration, the NAACP, and much of the mainstream media were disappointing, is to let these groups off with minor slaps on the wrists. They deserve a proverbial whack on their snouts, followed by “bad dog!”
“Unprofessional” is one word I’d use. “Amateurish” is another. “Incompetent,” “negligent,” “unsuitable”, “naive,” “sloppy” and “half-assed” are some other words I’d suggest, and that’s only because I’m trying to be safe for work.
There’s a lot I want to say about the political and racial implications of what’s happened, but that’s a detour from the basic facts as they appear to be:
Shirley Sherrod, a woman who’s had a tremendously difficult background that might break many of us, worked hard to get to a position where she could help members of her community. She fought through her own biases and prejudices and was rewarded for it with a federal appointment, one that enabled her to do even greater good and on a larger scale.
Then she was targeted by an agenda-driven group, and a video of a speech she gave was edited, taken out of context, and spun to serve craven political purposes.. The group behind all this pushed claims of racism by Ms. Sherrod, and nearly every group that could and should have done some fact-checking… didn’t.
Their first reactions were FAILS. Working professionals that should know better took the edited clip at face value, failed to do basic vetting and verification, and the woman wound up being hounded from her job, her reputation smeared.
Things are now looking better for Ms. Sherrod — the full video and complete context is now out there, and if anything, she looks far better than even her personal narrative would suggest — and she’s reviewing multiple job offers, including her former post.
But those groups that first reacted have a lot of explaining to do.
As a former journalist, magazine editor, and now video producer, I’d like to offer a few tips and questions these groups should ask themselves — and they’ll work well for anyone else that has to deal with “shocking, controversial” online content .
1. Carefully review the clip in question. Do you see any edit points? If not, look again. If you do see edits/transitions, WHY? What’s been cut out, and why would anything be cut/edited/trimmed?
2. Where’s the raw/full clip? If you’re going to make any judgements, or if there are any possible negative repercussions, get the original clip.
3. Remember to keep context in mind. Personally, if there’s any question about context, possible edits, or any manipulation at all, you need to do your job and make sure the original, authoritative source has been vetted thoroughly.
4. Once you have the original/full/raw clip… REVIEW IT. (It turns out that a few of the groups in question had this clip in hand shortly after the controversy began, but it was too much effort to sit down and watch it. That’s just shameful and unprofessional).
5. If for some reason this original material isn’t readily available, consider that a red flag. Hold off on any next steps until the source material is available.
Yes, it’s more work, but doesn’t this action involve people’s lives, careers, and reputations? It’s just basic double- and triple-checking
If the tables were turned, how would YOU like this to be handled?
Pavlov’s dog reacted quickly, but so what? You’re not a trained dog. You’re a working professional, right?
James Hyatt 