Oprah's Crash Moment

Kitty's interpretation of the Oprah/Hermès scandal in Paris (where Oprah was denied access to the Paris store) just doesn't make sense. First, she dismisses Oprah's claims for racism and introduces several op-eds claiming Oprah was really upset for not getting celebrity treatment:

"Race was definitely the reason Oprah cited when she was barred from Hermès in Paris. She and Gayle arrived at the luxury retail store fifteen minutes after closing and expected to be admitted because they saw shoppers inside...Later Hermès said the store was preparing for a special event that evening."

"I saw it," said Gayle King, "and it was really, really very bad...We are calling it her Crash moment." (Page 385)


Kitty Kelly then juxtaposes Oprah and Gayle's version of the story with commentators' opinions criticizing their account (because obviously these reporters were there) (Page 386-387):

"An editorial in the Montreal Gazette accused Oprah of being quick to 'play the race card."

New York Times: "Oprah may have been denied a prerogative of elite status in our new gilded age--being waited on in luxury stores after hours--but had she been the victim of racism?"

Law professor at Stanford: "If the reason for Oprah's humiliation was the incident at Hermès triggered memories of her past experiences with racism...in that sense, Oprah was humiliated because of her race."


However later, Kitty Kelly mentions twice that the store had allegedly been "having problems with Northern Africans," which also may have played some influenced in Oprah's disbarment. Kitty uses this allegation to criticize Oprah for having been "unforgiving of racism but pardoned the President of Hermès after his Paris store barred her entry because of alleged "problems with Northern Africans." (Page 427)

Get your story straight Kitty! Either criticize Oprah for being upset that she didn't get her celebrity treatment and argue there was no actual racial profiling evident OR criticize Oprah for claiming racism unnecessarily but then pardoning Hermès. When you offer two separate spins on the same occurrence, both not only contradictory of each other but also hypercritical, you just look crazy.