Breitbart's tape is not racist, since it shows Sherrod's redemption. However, the networks re-edited his tape to make him look racist. It appears that he would have a good "false light" suit. Certainly, being made to look like a racist meets (a). They had his complete tape, so acted knowingly, meeting (b).

"One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed."

I agree. Most of the people telling her to sue do not realize the redemption is on Breitbart's tape. The posters that have some legal knowledge (i.e., they at least know the difference between actual malice and malicious intent) think she will hurt herself by suing

I wonder if Breitbart could sue some commentators for product disparagement. He would have to prove that they had a high degree of awareness of their statements' probable falsity, so he might have to notify some. Most of the people disparaging it have not even watched his tape. They based their comments on the re-edited network version without the redemption. The networks would surely had the required awareness, since they had his original tape.

The best example occurred when Chris Matthews caught Howard Dean and Joan Walsh lying through their teeth on the 5 PM show and had to retape it for the 7PM rerun.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-retapes...

Dean finally admitted that he had seen only the Fox version. Joan Walsh said later that she had seen both at the time, so she could be a prime candidate for a suit.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/poli...