Shirley Sherrod and Disclosure: Consequences of the Modern 24-hr News Cycle

I was recently listening to an interview with Van Jones where he discussed the recent Shirley Sherrod fiasco and how it relates to the (much commented on and) perceived heightened speed with which information is passed on via our modern, highly developed communication techniques--what I'll call the modern 24-hr news cycle. And for some reason I was immediately drawn to a comparison with the novel "Disclosure" by Michael Crichton. I remember reading the book in hardback, at a tender 14--before I was old enough to see it in the theater--and walking away thinking that the book was about sexual harassment. But thinking back on the story (of which, I must admit, I now recall more from the movie than the book!) I now realize that it was about the consequences of accusations, and the power of the order of events--sometimes even overpowering truth itself.

For those who don't recall (either the novel or) the Levinson film, I won't provide a detailed recap, but just the highlights (and spoilers!): Michael Douglas' character was sexually harassed by his newly appointed female boss (also a distant ex-girlfriend), played by Demi Moore, who promptly accused him of sexual harassment the next morning before he had come to terms and decided to report it. As a result he was facing being fired, losing all of his stock options, and a rather bleak future... until he was able to provide an audio tape of the whole thing proving that she was actually the guilty one. In the denouement of the book, however, I seem to remember that he ends up losing out on a promotion he was expecting to receive because of the entire fiasco. Thus, his career had been adversely affected simply because all of this had happened to him and because the accusation preempted the presentation of the evidence.

It is easy to see parallels to the Shirley Sherrod case--she was accused of wrongdoing, and shortly thereafter evidence was provided which proved precisely the opposite of the accusation, exonerating her in rather short order (a day or two). And yet she was punished anyway... Why? In this case it wasn't exactly preemption, but because the accusation reached the broader public prior to the complete evidence, her image (and thus that of the administration) was tainted. A lawyer might describe it with a common saying: "You can't un-ring a bell."

Many have referred to this entire fiasco as a "teachable moment", but yet various interest groups believe there are different lessons to learn. I think the major, overarching, lesson to be learned is not an ideological one, and has nothing to do with politics (per se): We must carefully calibrate our 'filters' for news such that we do not rush to judgment before hearing all of the facts. In this modern age where news is passed from media outlets via Facebook, Twitter, Buzz, and other rapid-fire media sharing methods, it is often tempting to immediately pass on a salacious story in the hopes that you are the first one to "break the news" to most of your friends, especially if the news seems to provide support for views you may hold. But as popular media outlets appear to become increasingly partisan by the year, we must always consider the source (and it's bias) and remember to withhold judgment until understanding all of the facts.

While this is especially true for journalists, we all have a responsibility to do so if we are going to participate responsibly in the 24-hr news cycle by passing on information about current events by digital means. It's called digital responsibility, and it's high time we started advocating it!!!