Carolyn Nielsen op-ed column for The Seattle Times
(I just sent it out. This is the raw version. Hopefully, it might run a week from this Sunday)

When the media met Shirley Sherrod, it was in a video purporting to show the then-USDA manager admitting she used her influence to stick it to the white guy. Indignation, predictably, ensued. 
But when the full tape surfaced, showing that Sherrod’s story was selectively clipped from a larger narrative about overcoming her own sense of prejudice to become an advocate for underprivileged farmers of all races, that indignation quickly evolved into sanctimonious news-media finger pointing. Taking comments out of context is a journalistic felony. Editors’ failure to verify the tape before broadcasting it cost Sherrod her job and a great deal of anguish.
The rotten-apple-in-the-barrel media outrage is justified, but also hypocritical. 
It has been only a year since another woman of color was accused of racism and questioned as to whether her ethnicity would get in the way of her job. The selective editing that triggered those accusations was perpetuated not by one person with a vendetta, but by the very people who now find themselves appalled at the Sherrod scandal. There are two key differences:  Sonia Sotomayor kept her job, and the news media never acknowledged the smear campaign it waged under the guise of objectively examining her record.
When President Barack Obama was considering Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court, the news media seized upon a 2001speech she made to law students. Actually, it seized upon 32 words in the 4,000-word speech: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” The so-called “wise Latina” remark became a dominant feature in news coverage. The New York Times, for example, mentioned the “wise Latina” remark more often than her qualifications, judicial record, and issues positions combined. 
What began as a play on a gendered statement that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusions, was plucked from a paragraph that continued, “I…believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable… nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give.”
This is not a radical statement; it is simply an assertion that bringing to bear the collective insight of people who have different lived experiences creates well-examined outcomes. But taken out of context, the one-sentence phrase throws down the gender- and race- gauntlet. 
In his 2006 confirmation hearings, Justice Samuel Alito also raised the issue of influence of lived experience when he said, “Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant … I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender." Alito was heralded as empathetic, Sotomayor was called a racist. 
Similarly, when former President George W. Bush broke color barriers by appointing Alberto Gonzales as the nation’s first Latino attorney general and Condoleezza Rice as the first African American woman to be secretary of state, the media touted this as a sign of progress and the public perceived it as proof that Bush embraced diversity. But when an African American president put forth a Latina nominee, she was immediately framed as anti-Anglo.
Sotomayor’s opponents raised the rhetorical banner of racism, but the news media ran with it, failing to question the assumption that diversity equals bias rather than benefit. Perpetuating a race-based accusation lifted from a speech for which the full text was widely available is an equally, if not more egregious, journalistic sin than failure to verify a videotape before airing it. 
Instead of looking at these larger issues, news media outlets held fast to a narrative questioning whether Sotomayor could “overcome” her ethnicity, not whether she should be asked to. A New York Times article stated, “But her critics, including some Republican senators who will vote on her nomination, have questioned whether she has let her ethnicity, life experiences and public advocacy creep into her decisions as a judge.” Another New York Times article headlined, “The Waves Minority Judges Always Make,” said, “President’s Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the Supreme Court, where she would be the first Hispanic and the third woman, has raised questions about how her background would affect her decision-making.” It’s difficult to recall an Anglo man ever being asked if gender and ethnicity would negatively affect his decision making. 
During Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, considerable amounts of ink and airtime were devoted to questioning whether Sotomayor would apologize for her “wise Latina ‘gaffe’” or take back her words. This is akin to asking Shirley Sherrod to apologize for the out-of-context comments captured on that video tape. Doctoring a tape to foment racism and editing a comment to reflect controversy may come from different intentions, but they cause the same harm.
In the furor over the Sherrod video, the news media is ignoring its duty to introspectively examine its own inability to question assumptions about race and ethnicity.

Western Washington University journalism professor Carolyn Nielsen is a former reporter and editorial page editor. Her academic research focuses on news coverage of diversity issues, including coverage of Sonia Sotomayor. 
 

Carolyn Nielsen
Assistant Professor
Western Washington University
Department of Journalism
(360) 650-3244
[log in to unmask]
NOTE: I usually respond more quickly to e-mails than to phone calls.
________________________________________
From: FOR THE MINORITIES AND COMMUNICATION DIV. OF AEJMC [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carolyn Nielsen [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Sherrod speaks to young journalists

http://blogs.abcnews.com/campuschatter/2010/07/shirley-sherrods-lessons-to-young-journalists.html

I'll be sharing this with my class tonight.


Carolyn Nielsen
Assistant Professor
Western Washington University
Department of Journalism
(360) 650-3244
[log in to unmask]
NOTE: I usually respond more quickly to e-mails than to phone calls.
________________________________________
From: FOR THE MINORITIES AND COMMUNICATION DIV. OF AEJMC [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carolyn Nielsen [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 12:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sherrod and Sotomayor- both victims of selective editing

I still support the idea of a resolution, but I've also taken up my pen in a "think globally, act locally" theme and want to put it out there to encourage other MACers to do the same. I pitched an op-ed about Sherrod (and Sotomayor) to The Seattle Times (my nearest large newspaper) and they've agreed to run it as a Sunday centerpiece on the op-ed page. Communicating among ourselves and our organization is important, but let's use our expertice, experience, and energy to communicate with the masses, too.
Cheers,
Carolyn
PS I can hardly wait for the nasty online comments... (my other area of research).


Carolyn Nielsen
Assistant Professor
Western Washington University
Department of Journalism
(360) 650-3244
[log in to unmask]
NOTE: I usually respond more quickly to e-mails than to phone calls.
________________________________________
From: Pearlie M Strother-Adams [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 3:46 PM
To: Carolyn Nielsen
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sherrod and Sotomayor- both victims of selective editing

Indeed, very well said, Carolyn.  In fact, there have been several similar incidents during the Obama administration where media needed to be called on the carpet.  In each instance the harm was intentional; however, I do believe the Sherrod incident was more clearly contrived and dark in its intent.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Nielsen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:47:20 PM
Subject: Sherrod and Sotomayor- both victims of selective editing

My observation here doesn't speak directly to Sherrod, but to another recent issue that is parallel in that it deals with taking comments out of context and results in the creation of fear, ethnic/racial tension, and perceptions of bias.  (This is part of the research I will be presenting next month in Denver).

In the coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor last summer, the general-market news media took one line from a speech she had delivered, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” completely out of context in a way not much different than what was done to Sherrod's comments. Her comment was taken out of context to indicate she felt she would make better decisions than a white man. She was called a "racist" and a "reverse racist." Media outlets asked whether she would apologize for her "wise Latina gaffe." When taken in context, the statement was not a "gaffe," but was a simple (and not remotely radical) endorsement of diversity as a benefit to the judicial system. (See entire context below.)

Selective editing then allowed the general-market news media to question whether she could "overcome her ethnicity" to be an impartial judge, something never asked of Anglo candidates. Coverage followed suit, focusing on her lived experience as a burden to be checked at the door, rather than a benefit to the court's worldview. Sotomayor was confirmed, rather than fired, which is likely why that selective editing never caused any media self-reflection, indictments of The New York Times, or talk shows about the harm of taking comments out of context. Nonetheless, general-market newspapers got away with the exact thing about which they are now pointing fingers. Doctoring a tape to foment racism and editing a comment to create controversy may come from different intentions, but they cause the same harm.

I am outraged by the Sherrod incident. I am outraged by the news outlets that failed to check their facts. I am outraged at the lengths to which people will stoop to create a narrative of fear about race. I want to tell Shirley Sherrod that as a journalism professor, I will pledge to tell every single one of my students about what happened to her in the hopes of creating future journalists who will do better. But I am also outraged at the news media's selective finger pointing and lack of self-reflection.

The entire context of that phrase was this:

...Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.


Carolyn Nielsen
Assistant Professor
Western Washington University
Department of Journalism
(360) 650-3244
[log in to unmask]
NOTE: I usually respond more quickly to e-mails than to phone calls.
________________________________________
From: FOR THE MINORITIES AND COMMUNICATION DIV. OF AEJMC [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jennifer Woodard [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 11:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Diversity at Work - Use Authentic Experiences to Talk about Race, not Formulas and Stereotypes

Exactly!  For change to take place, people need to be called out, not given
passes!  What he did in editing that tape, defaming her character, and
causing her to lose her job was malicious.  He's being very quiet right now
trying to see if this will blow over, and I hope she sues him so much that
he has to get rid of that Website that spreads lies and hatred.