The last thing anyone in the public eye indulging in anything that could prove controversial should do is to stir up the people at Private Eye magazine. And the next last thing is to admit that they can’t stand up their recent accusations. But minor Sleb Tracy Ann Oberman has done just that, following her rant against Ash Sarkar of Novara Media.
She now admits the rant ...
After Ms Oberman’s tirade against Ms Sarkar earlier this week, where she asserted “Don’t play the race card with me @AyoCaesar you have stirred up more antisemitism than nearly any woman on here you personally and Novarra [sic] have lied libelled and trolled many Jewish people. You’re a hypocrite. But enough attention your way”, Solomon Hughes, who writes for the Eye and other media outlets, responded.
... at her was just opinion
Hughes is nothing if not measured and objective. He told simply “No doubt people can be all kinds of horrible on Social Media about Palestine/Israel, & don't use this as a prompt to be horrible to Tracy [Ann] Oberman, but the claim Ash Sarkar 'stirred up antisemitism' is both untrue and ridiculous.( As is the mention of 'The Race Card’)”.
Ms Oberman failed to take the hint - that this was a reasoned enquiry - and sniped back “Would you like to discuss the context of that tweet Solomon or just take it out of context for click bait? I’m sure you know better than that”. Hughes’ Twitter following is around one tenth of Ms Oberman’s; the suggestion was therefore patently ridiculous.
Hughes kept the discussion reasoned: “'Context' can't make something that is untrue true, Ash Sarkar hasn't 'stirred up ' anti-Semitism. I've linked to the original tweets so anyone can follow through and see how this conversation developed”. Fair comment.
But Ms Oberman had decided that this was a pile-on, however improbable the numbers made it, and so continued “Solomon - pretending not to incite a pile on - especially by a journalist of multiple publications isn’t very - nice? Ethical? I’m not sure what the journalistic code is. Im [sic] not a politician or a pundit I’m just a jobbing actress. Why would you want to throw haterz my way?” Then she dropped the ball.
“I personally do believe that Ash / Novarra [sic] has stirred up race tension. I think not supporting the IHRA is racist. Saying that Palestinians should define Jewish Racism is igniting upset. You may disagree but to incite a pile on isn’t very Guardian or Buzzfeed?”
Compare and contrast: “You have stirred up more anti-Semitism than nearly any woman on here personally and Novarra [sic] have lied libelled and trolled many Jewish people” versus “I personally do believe that Ash / Novarra [sic] has stirred up made tension”. Also, “I think not supporting the IHRA is racist”. These are opinions, and no more.
We know this as she adds “You may disagree”. If Ms Sarkar did contact her lawyers, they will be all over this: it is effectively an admission that Ms Oberman cannot stand up her claims. Also likely to be all over her case will be Private Eye: after her less than temperate response to Sol Hughes, she then told Guardian editor Kath Viner “I’m going to drop you a message. Thanks”. Looks like she’s trying to dob Hughes in to the boss. It won’t work.
Tracy Ann Oberman just dug herself in deeper with Ash Sarkar. Then she invited the Eye to investigate her. This campaign may progress not necessarily to her advantage.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at