So this whole dilemma started with her making a misunderstanding and correcting it, and now her employer makes a misunderstanding and correcting it and it's any different? I understand in the second case someone lost their job, but the respective responsibilities held by the guilty party in both cases are relatively equal in consequence. Her fault, although long gone and not the point of her statement, she had all the information and acted racist per her own admittance. The fault of those who fired her was jumping to conclusions and grossly overreacting without getting all the facts. Actually, what the shortened clip implicated is still mostly true... except at that point she had already learned better so it would not be necessary to fire her.
Soo, I find the current state of this is kinda ironic. It just goes to show how little the media is concerned with accurate, fair portrayal of the total situation (both this ordeal and the coverage of her statement), and how much or how little the focus on something completely changes the perception of the viewers. Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems all the blame is on her employers now... in her full remarks she admitted to bigotry, even though it wasn't covered it still happened. Yet, that fact is completely glossed over and the intentions of her remarks are being compared to the actions of her employer.
Personally, I think the opposite of what is being portrayed is a more accurate portrayal. The intentions of her employer were positive and the initial action that started all of this was negative. I think she's just trying to milk the publicity out of it now that she has them apologizing (like we haven't seen that a million times from the NAACP). I would be seriously surprised if she did not take the job when all is said and done. Although if she didn't I could also see how this will give her plenty of visibility to make money elsewhere.