« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Soledad O’Brien critic of Joel Pollak’s criticism of Derrick Bell’s Critical Race Theory.

Also: this is Wikipedia's problem, in a nutshell.

Background: Soledad O’Brien managed to look like an utter idiot on CNN on Thursday when Breitbart.com’s Joel Pollak casually eviscerated her over the concept of critical race theory (CRT).

(pause)

OK, deeper background: CRT is more or less identity politics run through an academic gobbledygook filter; some of its adherents have made some somewhat… incautious comments about white supremacy and the sham nature of the American civil rights movement.  This all matters because Breitbart.com’s got footage of Barack Obama as a college student introducing Derrick Bell (H/T: Ann Althouse) – a man who once argued that American whites would happily sell American blacks to space aliens if offered enough in exchange*.  Admittedly, we all do stupid things in college – and if the media had brought up Obama’s collegiate antics in 2008 (or 2004) it’s fair to say that it only might have caused, to use a term from my kids’ favorite show, ‘confusion and delay’ for the Obama campaign.  Neither of those should have been a consideration for the media when it came to doing their jobs – but, hey, we all know that these people think that ‘doing their jobs’ means ‘keeping conservatives out of office.’

At any rate: O’Brien got humiliated, a bit (one rumor is that she was fed the answer, but I suspect that Breitbart.com is right and O’Brien’s just a fan of Bell’s)- and then people started mucking about with the Wikipedia entry on CRT, apparently to make its definition match O’Brien’s.  An examination of the entry’s Talk page indicates that there was what those folks calls an ‘edit war’… and the fact that there’s specialized jargon describing the situation tells you a lot, right there.

Now, I don’t really care about CRT, per se – and Bell in the end was just another academic whose contribution to academic thought, for good or ill, is complete. Fifty years from now he and I will be equally obscure**.  And it seems that the edit wars have ended in a temporary revert, in the hope that people will have forgotten about the controversy in a couple of weeks.  Still: this is the problem with crowdsourcing reference materials: people with vested political, financial, or simply power-related (the three are often linked, too) interests can manipulate the process, and the most common countermeasure seems to be to hope that somebody notices.

Oh, well, at least Wikipedia’s still good for movie plot summaries.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Protip for CNN: if you’re going to have somebody on to accuse a conservative of being afraid of black people, get one with the mother-wit to check to see if his target is, I don’t know, married to an African-American.  Literally, in Julia [Pollak's] case: she’s a recent immigrant from South Africa whose family was active in the anti-apartheid movement.  Which is a polite way of saying that Jay Thomas is a blithering idiot.

*This concept was later turned into a remarkably odious short movie that aired on HBO in the Nineties.  As I recall, it was one of three short movies: of the other two, one claimed that the Virgin Mary was actually a loa being enslaved by the Vatican; and that if you gave urban African-American[s] automatic rifles for an uprising that they’d instead just shoot each other with them – which gives you an idea of the intellectual heft of Bell’s argument, or at least allows for a good, healthy guilt-by-association charge.

**Yes, that was vicious of me.  It’s intentional.  To paraphrase SM Stirling: my country hates slavery, including the word itself.  The suggestion that we would sell a tenth of us in order to make the rest comfortable is offensive, and someone should have thrown that observation right back into Derrick Bell’s face.

(Text since lightly edited to remove typos.)

COMMENTS

  • jon11

    astonishingly ignorant…

  • Crash71234

    soledud can’t write.

    To say she’s as stupid as a stump is an insult to stumps.

  • renl57

    …you should have seen some of the articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica in past decades.

    The Britannica had a notorious left-wing slant as far back as the 1960s (Ayn Rand wrote about that once).

    At least with Wikipedia, there is a chance to provide some balance if you have your facts right. The editors at Britannica weren’t responsible to anyone.

  • Common_Cents

    I’m actually glad CNN has brazenly taken off the mask of faux neutrality. They are becoming much bolder and brazen. They will fool less people as time goes on. Keep it up.

  • Scope

    was written by Tom Maguire. Soledad did in fact make a total fool of herself with that interview, but her “circle the wagons” team was out in full force this morning. They made light of the Breitbart revelations as being rediculous, and not worthy of anyone’s attention. That is exactly how they protected Obama in the 2008 election. Just excuse the information as inconsequential, and mock and redicule those that bring any facts forward. It worked in 2008, as many voted for the historic first black president, including those that were suffering from white guilt, and felt the need to atone for their past sins.

    Go back to the Holder justice department, early on in the Obama administration where, according to J Christian Adams told the stories about the racial statements made by the blacks in that department, including looking at Obama’s picture and saying that finally they get a voice. Someone high up in the Justice Dept threw out an already won case against the Black Panthers for 2008 voter intimidation. Most recently, I am reading that Holder has now appointed someone to his department that is sympathetic to the Taliban.

  • Tbone

    However, the concept of selling liberals to space aliens should pursued. A dime a dozen sounds about right.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Keep the fun people here. The aliens can have all the humorless dorks they want.

  • roscopico

    As a matter of fact, I’d contribute.

  • runner12

    professionalism (if she had any) was hilarious and disturbing at the same time. Pollak owned the argument from start to finish, leaving Ms. O’Brian looking competely foolish.

    I love it when Leftist journalists get exposed for the dishonest journalism that they practice on a daily basis.

  • earlgrey

    As always I wonder how this plays with independents. I mean I thought they sounded like a bunch of high school bullies, but I have given up on trying to understand the average american.

  • Jack_Savage

    The liberals will all volunteer to go. I mean, what’s an anal probe or two compared to the cruelty of the GOP. Hardly worth mentioning.

  • runner12

    immature, especially when her own colleague had to talk her off the ledge.

    Ms. O’Brian may have single-handedly opened many average Americans’ eyes to the media bias on the Left.

    Maybe we should send her some flowers with a note of thanks. /sarc

  • Locked and Loaded

    I say some Alinsky-style ridicule is in order. The next sane person to go on with her should reference her behavior in this interview, and then we can watch her come all unhinged again.

  • northeastred

    Has completely set up the left and the MSM by leading off with something so innocuous as this Obama hug and introduction of Derrick Bell. That’s barely worth mentioning, but let the left get itself all hot and bothered trying to defend Obama. Then, I hope Breitbart drops the bombshell, just like he did with Weiner. The damning evidence that could not be denied, and there’s no where to go but resign. I’m convinced Andrew has some Ace of Spades up his sleeve that he’s going to drop on ignorant progressives who don’t understand a thing about Critical Race Theory, and when they see Obama’s communist card, Breitbart will be the last one laughing at how Obama hugging Professor Derrick Red Bell doesn’t mean anything!

  • earlgrey

    You are so right.

  • earlgrey

    Don’t know how that happened.

  • senoritabonita

    “In this world of sin and sorrow there is always
    something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice
    that I am not a Republican.” — H. L. Mencken

  • AndrewHyman

    Wikipedia basically has a monopoly on the top search results for an incredible number of topics. So it’s ineresting to consider how that organization is governed. And make no mistake, Wikipedia is not some “just the facts ma’am” encyclopedia. Rather, for many controversial subjects, it’s an information filter that Wikipedia’s government greatly influences. Yes, they have a government.

    There are editors at Wikipedia, and then there are administrators. Many of the editors and administrators are excellent, but some of them collude, and use the Wikipedia government to slant information, mostly by pursuing editors who they choose to bring actions against (sometimes taking only token action against those with whom they agree about article content).

    There is no mechanism for ensuring equal treatment of editors at Wikipedia, and their ultimate authority, the “Arbitration Committee” (aka “ArbCom”) is often a rubber-stamp for whatever lopsided or unsubstantiated action their administrators may take.

    The ArbCom says what the facts are, and what the rules are. There is no involvement of ordinary editors as “jurors” or the like. And since anonymity prevails, there is no problem with slanderous, or libelous, ArbCom decisions.

    ArbCom itself is heavily influenced by Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. In this pyramid-like structure, enormous influence is wielded, and ordinary editors are kept out of fact-finding decisions during the adjudication of disputes by ArbCom. While bureaucracy may be inevitable in such a large enterprise, there is a centralization of power that coexists with more inclusive power mechanisms. In other words, ordinary editors can participate in policy-making and elections at Wikipedia in a large number of ways, and this tends to conceal the more top-down aspects of the operation.

    What Wikipedia needs most is to create a jury system so that randomly-chosen editors can perform many functions that are currently performed by cliques. That includes (at least) fact-finding during disputes, and ought to include many other functions as well.

    Wikipedia is supposedly a non-profit, non-political entity. It is certainly a good first-stop resource on many topics. But its governance needs to incorporate basic elements that have been used in civil governance for thousands of years, such as randomly-selected juries.

  • johnwerneken

    The inherent ignorance stupidity and perfidity of “political activists” lnows no bounds does it. ROTFFLMFAO

  • Locked and Loaded

    nt

  • jazzycmk

    …. watching Pollak skewer O’Brien, she did manage to get in one valid shot.

    There is really not much of a bombshell there. While I wholeheartedly agree that we should have seen this in 2008, and it should have been discussed, the fact that it’s coming out now is just not going to resonate.

    If Jeremiah Wright didn’t resonate, this won’t. We had Wright g-damning America, yet the meda and too many in the general electorate swallowed Obama’s explanation that in 20 years of sitting in Wright’s church he had never heard him speak like that, and he was just as shocked as the rest of us. Doesn’t come close to passing the sniff test, but there it is.

    One video of Obama embracing a radical professor while at Harvard is not going to cause many people to change their minds about him.

    But kudos to Mr Pollak. He stayed amazingly cool. I especially like that he never tossed up the fact that he is married to a black woman when accused of being a racist by Jay Thomas. I loved where Jay said “I’m not accusing you of being a racist”, and Joel, incredulously replied, “You just asked me if I’m scared of black people?!?!?” How much more of a racially charged comment can you make?

  • Common_Cents

    I hope too there is a steady drip of all kinds of vetting that the media never did on Obama.

  • Common_Cents

    Yes, Redstaters and political junkies are aware of some of the obama baggage but the average person is not. Just because some baggage is reported a couple times in maybe a couple outlets in the public domain doesn’t mean it is widely viewed. O’Baggage could be sitting out in plain view and the Democrat Propaganda Media will ignore it or defend obama by alinskying the source.

    This stuff needs to be pounded out there repeatedly before it has a chance to “resonate”.

  • jazzycmk

    ….but the timing doesn’t work. This coming out now will be greeted with a shrug. Or people will think it’s a desperate attempt, considering that the Bama has been President for 3+ years now.

    Granted, that didn’t stop the MSM from trying to derail Bush’s re-election campaign in 2004, with forged documents no less, but we all know there is a double-standard.

    Short of having Obama on video going off on a CRT-related rant, I just don’t see the probative value of this effort, save for conservatives saying, “See, we told you.”

  • Pingback: Handy orten