Jul 23, 2010
Que Sherrod, Sherrod…
UPDATE: Shirley Sherrod files lawsuit against Andrew Brietbart for defamation.
whatever will be may not be. Case in point: Shirley Sherrod. First, Andrew Brietbart’s Big Government Blog posts an edited video of a speech made by Sherrod to a NAACP chapter in Georgia. The blog was was supposed to demonstrate racism on the part of Sherrod. However, after watching the entire speech, I’m stumped. First, why did said blogger do what he did especially if the event is on tape? Second, this woman is not stupid and clearly can hold her own. Her real-world experience about dealing with a white farmer is subsequently described as a lesson in the “haves and the have nots”. This is what prompted her to want to help poor people with her mantra being “God helped me see that it’s not about black people, it’s about poor people”. She frequently references God and his grace (why aren’t the atheists screaming about that?). She talks about the importance of things like home ownership, helping your community, having a good credit record and entrepreneurship. In fact, she sounded a lot like Bill Cosby.
So why fire the woman? Why be so quick to judge? Was this the final straw in a series of poor employee performance? The rush to judgment in this case gives me great concern about decision making on Capitol Hill. The fact that the President had to take the time to apologize to Sherrod means he’s not doing what he was elected to do - govern this country. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack didn’t do himself any public relations favors by firing someone without knowing all the facts, or (and here’s an idea), talking directly to the person. And here’s the kicker – Vilsack offers her a “new unique position” at the USDA. So how much did that cost? I remain stumped.
Shirley Sherrod deserves three virtual Cups of Joe for handling the situation with much poise and aplomb.
The virtual Cup of Joe Award from EveryDayPR spotlights our pick of the week for a public relations performance – good, bad or ugly. If you’d like to make a nomination, contact shart@hartpr.com or www.Twitter.com/susanhartpr.
First let me say: I love your headline! This was such a fiasco and so many processes failed. I don't agree that the President failed to govern our country by letting his Administrator manage a departmental issue though. The Mayor doesn't micro manage personnel issues in the city until they hit the press, Phil Bredesen doesn't. I imagine there were national issues Mr. Obama was working on while Sec. Tom Vilsack failed to do his job well.
If the President failed to appoint a bright Administrator, then that's a separate problem. I know from my work that when your base is more grassroots than Top Down, the communications process is not the same. Different rituals prevail.
Shirley Sherrod was a victim and handled herself so graciously.The President cared to call her personally and as a head of state, he was doing his job. Government has protocol, just like any culture of business and it struggles to remove prejudice & barriers to justice, just like all businesses should. Struggle is not always pretty.
Good points, Lynn, especially regarding the communications rituals in an organization's structure. And, yes, victim is the right word for Ms. Sherrod. Thanks for commenting!
Susan,
First, I give you ten points for a clever headline!
What a sad story. I agree with what Mike Barnacle said on Morning Joe this morning, that he's saddened that no editor said "I want to see the full tape first."
I think journalists, the public, and government officials MUST take into account the source, and remember that many bloggers do have an agenda and you have to understand what that agenda is prior to running something based on someone else's reporting.
Wait, as a young journalist working under an old style city editor who drank, smoked next to the "no smoking sign" and called me more vile names than I can recall, I seem to remember being told vehemently to NEVER base my reporting on another person's work. I could go into an entire litany of issues with this. But then again, I was trained by an editor who felt getting it right was more important than having it first (but he preferred both).
But wait. Before I fire someone, HR has always advised me to make sure I actually have an understanding of the situation, have investigated it personally.
And yes, let's distract the President from focusing on the economy, jobs, unemployment, oil spills, terrorism and all the other things, so he can apologize for a mess that should never have happened, and sure as heck should have never reached him.
From reporting to personnel management to Presidential involvement, this whole thing has been a bad joke.
And Mrs. Sherrod has been the undeserved victim.
Well said, Clay! Seems like few, if any, members of the media, administration, and others stopped to ask for the full video before issuing such a public knee-jerk reaction. Tsk, tsk, tsk….
Mrs. Sherrod stands to be the story of our times. Her story in the speech chronicles the change in America over several decades (and the journey away from racism still continues). Her view that it is the 'haves versus the have nots' reflects a still existing dichotomy in viewing the world. It is not racism, it is "haveism." It is good to help the poor. The rich are bad. That's a good half truth.
The selective editing of the video by an intemperate internet personality highlights three things. How easy it is to communicate to a wide audience. How easy it is to communicate misleading information. How much people like to reinforce their biases.
The rush to judgment in firing Mrs. Sherrod shows that despite what we know about managing human resources, there are always managers who get caught up in the moment and live to regret it. The fact that Secr. Vilsack apologized speaks to the better nature of ourselves, in line with what Mrs. Sherrod learned in her own life.
The statement that the President apologized shows that we probably don't get the details right – Mrs. Sherrod stated on TV herself that 'the president did not apologize.' He was sorry for what happened and wants her to stay with the Ag Dept., but apparently stopped short of personally apologizing.
There is a lot to be learned here.
Good clarification, Don, about the President's apology. I guess I'm naive enough to think that if you're a managerial member of the White House staff, you should know how to manage, how not to jump the gun and how not to assume someone's guilty before being proven innocent. Thanks for your insights!
Susan- A member of the President's Cabinet is a political appointee and is not a managerial member of the White House staff. Those would be schedulers, policy wonks, communications gurus, Chief-of Staff, aides and such. Secretaries of XXX (in this case Agriculture) are strategically appointed supporters. We all hope political appointees are experts in their area, but most often they are not. They rely largely on a professional staff (& why wasn't Vilsack listening to his?) The Chief must give appointees some authority, or at least an appearance of having some, and then live with the results. Does that change your perception any?
Lynn,
I knew I should have paid more attention in Civics class. Your clarification doesn’t really change my opinion in the sense that I believe the situation is a managerial one (as in manager of people who report to you). If Vilsack had professional staff advising him against terminination of Sherrod, I didn’t know that. If that’s the case, I’m delighted to know some level heads were available, just not in a prevailing way. In my professional experience, the best management training I ever received was while working in the nonprofit sector. So I was hoping that government decision makers had at least the same level that I got while working for charity. Great info, Lynn!
You crack me up, Susan! Great subject line!
AND YOU ARE AVERY SMART LADY, TOO. I ALWAYS ENJOY YOUR COMMENTARY
[...] and sloppy. The decision reminds me of this year’s earlier gaffe by the feds in firing Shirley Sherrod when decisions are made without taking into account the big picture or corporate [...]