Arianna Huffington & Roy Sekoff (Finally) Say Breitbart Isn’t Racist
[Guest post by Lee Stranahan]
The Daily Caller is burying the lede in their new article with the juicy headline HuffPo To Breitbart: You Lie!
This comes towards the end.
“I want to make it as clear as possible that neither I nor Arianna believe that Andrew Breitbart is a racist,” Sekoff said in his email to TheDC. “If we did believe that, we never would have allowed him to blog on HuffPost — let alone featured him on our front page. The decision about not featuring him on the front page in the future had nothing to do with race, but was based on the nature of his attack on Van Jones, as we’ve always made clear.”
For what it’s worth, Roy Sekoff wrote me this afternoon to say he was misquoted. Here’s his email in its entirety.
Lee — Don’t believe everything you read. I NEVER denied speaking to you. I NEVER denied telling you that I don’t believe Andrew is a racist. I’ve always said that I don’t in any way believe that he is. What I denied – and deny — was ever saying that I wouldn’t publicly defend Andrew because I was worried about how our readers would react. That was the quote that was presented to me by the Daily Caller (as you can see below), and that is what I said was "an untruth.” I resent being called a liar, especially when that charge is based on incorrect and incomplete information.
I’m not going to get into a back and forth accusationfest – I remember what I remember and I repeated it to others. I’m glad that Roy isn’t denying the whole conversation, but remain puzzled as to why he’s denying that he was worried about how Huffington Post readers would react. But let’s take him at his word for a moment and see how it plays out…
For months now, Andrew Breitbart has been attacked over and over on The Huffington Post as a racist, a race-baiter, a defender of racists and on and on and on. Now we know that both Roy and Arianna personally knew these charges weren’t true but didn’t say anything about it. So – why? Roy says he wasn’t worried about reader reaction. If that’s true, then wow – it makes their personal betrayal WORSE, not better. Roy is saying that he knew it wasn’t true, and that he wasn’t worried what the readers would say — and still he published what he knew were lies, and didn’t say a peep.
What held him back? What stopped Arianna? And when Color of Change launched this latest attack on Breitbart, complete with charges of racism, why didn’t they say anything then, either?
If it wasn’t concern about reader reaction, what possible excuse remains? Ideological bias? A complete and total lack of journalistic responsibility? No sense of fairness? I’m all ears – what’s the explanation?
— Lee Stranahan
That’s going to leave a mark.
Machinist (b6f7da) — 3/28/2011 @ 7:20 pmOne must simply but sadly conclude that Van’s feelings are more important to the Huffs than Breitbart’s feelings. The quote “….was based on the nature of his attack on Van Jones” pretty much says it all since that statement was not also balanced with a second comment from them decrying the nature of others’ attacks on Breitbart.
elissa (395208) — 3/28/2011 @ 7:26 pmThey are incoherent but that is not a problem in certain circles.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 3/28/2011 @ 7:32 pmHas Sekoff, gone that far down the rabbit hole, rhetorical question, you had the conversation with
narciso (b545d5) — 3/28/2011 @ 7:40 pmhim, you didn’t hear about it, second hand, Then
again, they’ve published scurrilous lies by the likes of Geoffrey Dunn, Shannyn Moore, et al, so
his shamelessness doesn’t surprise.
For months now, Andrew Breitbart has been attacked over and over on The Huffington Post as a racist, a race-baiter, a defender of racists and on and on and on.
— And the author of one of those attacks that ran as a column on HuffPo?
Shirley Sherrod.
Icy Texan (5a9fe7) — 3/28/2011 @ 7:45 pmOuch
The truth hurts
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 3/28/2011 @ 7:47 pmLet’s compare and contrast these statements by Roy Sekoff:
“What I denied – and deny — was ever saying that I wouldn’t publicly defend Andrew because I was worried about how our readers would react.”
— AND —
“The decision about not featuring him on the front page in the future had nothing to do with race, but was based on the nature of his attack on Van Jones, as we’ve always made clear.”
— Apparently Sekoff isn’t worried AT ALL about how HuffPo readers will react to his banishment of Breitbart to the Internet ghetto for daring to be critical of a radical Socialist rabble-rouser.
Yep. He knows his readership all right.
Icy Texan (5a9fe7) — 3/28/2011 @ 7:57 pmHeh!
It does make it worse, Lee.
We really, really care what Breitbart says about other people off of Huffington Post, but we don’t give a flying f*ck what people say about Breitbart on Huffington Post.
‘Splain that Lucy.
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/28/2011 @ 8:06 pm“I want to make it as clear as possible that neither I nor Arianna believe that Andrew Breitbart is a racist,”
Well, that certainly is a relief.
I’m always touched when Dems or their mouthpieces announce that they’re satisfied that people who aren’t associated with the Democrats aren’t racists.
It really means a lot coming from supporters or members of the party that championed race-based slavery and invented Jim Crow.
Not.
Dave Surls (5c7053) — 3/28/2011 @ 8:07 pmlook at all the happy happy smiley smiley white white white people what run AOL take your time it’s hard to see them against that white background
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/28/2011 @ 8:16 pm“I want to make it as clear as possible that neither I nor Arianna believe that Andrew Breitbart is a racist,”
“And some of the friends of our best friends are black people.”
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/28/2011 @ 8:23 pmThe thing is, the Political Left got to have it both ways for so long (and by no means just on Racism, although that’s a glaring example) that they thought it was Natural Law. They had controlled the terms of debate for so long that they had become as intellectually bankrupt as the tired old Republican Right they harried out of the picture at the beginning of the 20th Century.
Now THEY are the tired old establishment, and they can’t deal with it. Which is a pity. The Country really needs two political parties with ideas and energy, and right now we have about half of one divided between the Republicans and the Democrats.
C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 3/28/2011 @ 9:00 pmWhen did it become racist to put a mirror in front of liberals?
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 3/28/2011 @ 9:09 pm#10, that is some serious cracker shit. Looks like an HBS 2000 facebook.
Torquemada (2a42d3) — 3/28/2011 @ 9:11 pmArianna Huffingglue is still deluded.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/28/2011 @ 9:12 pmGotta say, I do know how it feels to have people not step up and defend ya…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/28/2011 @ 9:28 pmC. S. P. Schofield at 9:00 pm – More than
tenfifteen (man it sucks getting old) years ago I had a college proffesor who used class materials which baldly stated that the KKK was founded by Republicans. He obviously did not expect to be challenged on it and when I did the obvious first line of defense was that I was a racist, or at least seriously misguided. At the next meeting of the class I had much more than enough information to destroy his arguments such as they were.This is the type of argument that liberals in certain areas, in this case “higher” education, do not expect to even have to have.
Slightly more pernicious is the more subtle agument that I had with another proffesor. It was his claim that the Dredd Scott decision was “pro-states rights” as a tactic to discredit that philosophy. He had no real argument about how a decision that denied a state the right to declare a resident free, enforced by the Federal Government, could be called “pro-states rights”.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 3/28/2011 @ 9:40 pmWhat a silly embarrassment for AOL. Didn’t they have someone checking up on Arianna’s little clubhouse, what the kind of controversies they might involve themselves in if it they bought it for 315 million smackers?
Geez. AOL deserves to finally just go out of business.
DeepElemBlues (a78b16) — 3/29/2011 @ 4:47 amLee-
You may need to ask Patterico or others to help you interpret happyfeet for awhile. (Don’t ask me, I don’t always follow him).
Comment by Have Blue
MD in Philly (f0e1bd) — 3/29/2011 @ 5:22 amMore than
tenfifteen (man it sucks getting old) years ago I had a college proffesorIf you’re not careful, it gets worse. One day you’re fifty and you wonder what happened to 31->49.
MD in Philly – The older we get, the faster, stronger, smarter, etc., etc., we were. At least that’s the way they seem to me. Heh!
daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/29/2011 @ 6:02 amThey did what they did because thats how leftists operate; no enemies to the left and go after opponents using Alinsky tactics in order to make them toxic so that they shut them up. You should know that by now.
Anything else they say on the matter is merely arm flapping and finger pointing trying to dodge the questions of intellectual honesty and hypocricy in their treatment of him as opposed to their favorable treatment of any number of screeching moonbats who have said much much worse, but are excused because their politics are correct.
Do you get that part, Lee?
SGT Ted (5d10ae) — 3/29/2011 @ 6:40 amAs far as I’m concerned being called racist by the left can usually be seen as a badge of honor in recognition of that fact that Breitbart (for example) is more effective than most in pointing out the peccadilloes on the left.
I’d like to thank the Academy …
quasimodo (4af144) — 3/29/2011 @ 7:20 am==What a silly embarrassment for AOL. Didn’t they have someone checking up on Arianna’s little clubhouse?==
Well, perhaps they did check. But what did they ask and whom who did they check with? You remember back when the WaPo was “asking around” for a reliable conservative voice, and little Ezra vouched for his bud Dave Weigel. And remember how well that turned out, too?
elissa (a32b69) — 3/29/2011 @ 7:20 amOk, He never said he wouldn’t [defend B. from all the “racist” crap out of fear off reader reaction] He just didn’t defend him.
Never said he wouldn’t, he just didn’t. For some reason he just let those remarks stand unchallenged.
Or just that it was more important to let the “racist” stuff hang in the air to discredit characterization B. made of Jones?
Does he not have any idea that this necessarily means he was afraid of reader reaction to any defense of Breitbart, even if to conservative readers that they will be smeared thusly if they attack Jones ? Clearly allowing such attacks to stand has a purpose. Of course in context reader reaction is referring to left-leaning Van Jones liking types. Wouldn’t want them getting the message that the race card is unplayable. You need that card.
SarahW (af7312) — 3/29/2011 @ 8:49 amColor of Change, and Congressional Black Caucus. Both names make me cringe.
kansas (7b4374) — 3/29/2011 @ 10:58 amKansas, when I see the words Color of Change I automatically think of Benetton, their “colors” slogan, and those crazy kids wearing those crazy knit caps in Benetton ads.
elissa (a32b69) — 3/29/2011 @ 11:07 amThis back and forth about what was said and wasn’t said is completely ridiculous. I’m tired about hearing it. “WHITE NOISE”. Yet the hypocrisy about what is currently posting at the Huffington Post is competely open for everyone to see. They banned someone who HAS something to say. Andrew doesn’t need them. He never should have helped Arianna get her millions; however, I wonder why didn’t he at least get something for his efforts.
THWLS (c1edfb) — 3/29/2011 @ 11:30 amRemember – this is the party of “the end justifies the means”, of Alinsky’s “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”!!
No better example IMHO!
My question is why we’re bothering to play their stupid “race-card” games?
Personally, my response to such an ad-hominem is (online) “F*** YOU.” Period.
In real life, it’s a punch in the mouth. Not a full-on beating, just a knuckle-sandwich.
Personally, I think this is much of what’s wrong with our society today — the reason for the utter death of civility — nobody’s afraid of getting punched in the mouth.
It’s time we take our country back. Step one is to stop engaging with The Enemy.
I will not argue with them, I won’t associate with them — I seek to shun them entirely.
I won’t do business with them, or with anyone who does. I won’t even share a pew with them in church.
If they wish to have a debate, that’s fine – but call me foul names and earn a knuckle-sandwich.
Collaboration with The Enemy is a serious offense – and it’s long past time we started acting like it.
Their goal is the utter destruction of my children’s birthright as Free People – the end of our Republic!
And we’re supposed to be “nice” to them??!!
Not me.
Never again!
Dedicated_Dad (73dbf6) — 3/29/2011 @ 11:36 pm