The whole story of Shirley Sherrod has to be well-known by now to anyone within reach of a smart phone, the web, a newspaper, a radio or a television.
As has been pointed out, there were quite a few quirky actions and responses by any number of people but the lessons I see are:
- That the Obama White House staffers, not just in this case but in a number of instances, have been too quick to react to news events or developments. It's nice, perhaps essential, in this day of instant viral communication, to respond quickly, but from the White House in particular, one expects measured -- and hopefully correct -- response.
- That the gap between "traditional" media like print news and TV, and more instantaneous electronic means is significant, and measurable. But quicker isn't always better, if the game is only to rush to the scoop without checking facts.
- That too many bloggers (those involved in the breathless race to be the first with some tidbit of information or misinformation) are too inclined to accept whatever somebody posts as gospel, without questioning its source. While these same people might say they mistrust the "traditional media," or think they can do better getting the news "direct," this incident points up the folly of relying on the blogosphere for your news.
- That a nonentity named Breitbart has had his moment of fame but it may be -- should be -- over because it's so clearly evident that he chose selectively what he posted on the internet. Will his making up the truth matter to his fans? Maybe not, if they're the kind described in the previous paragraph. Breitbart's complaint that he's the victim here? Well...let's just say...No way!

