Howard Kurtz: It's 'Debatable' Whether Sherrod Can Call Breitbart a Racist
Aren't we all so very grateful for privileged white men who have never known what it's like to be an oppressed minority to inform us what is or is not racism? It's so nice not to have to worry my pretty little mind about things like this, but just let those smart white guys tell me when to worry.
On Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz is charged with looking at the way the media covers news events of the day. Since it was the major story of the week, it was no surprise that the Shirley Sherrod case came up from discussion.
But, as with David Brooks on Meet the Press, the discussion really wasn't about the failures of the media in covering the case. Both Joan Walsh and Jane Hall try to make that point and get interrupted by Kurtz and Matt Lewis, eager to keep pointing the finger at the White House. In fact, they push even further the same false equivalency theme, with Lewis (who writes for Breitbart's BigGovernment.com) claiming that the real victims are Andrew Breitbart and the Tea Party.
They even go so far to ask if Shirley Sherrod had the right to call Andrew Breitbart a racist and is the media giving her "a pass" for using that kind of language.
WALSH: The woman's father was murdered by a white farmer, and there were witnesses. And the white justice system never found the murderer guilty. She's entitled to talk about race any way she wants to.
LEWIS: Any way she wants to?
WALSH: That's not giving her a pass.
LEWIS: So if you've had a bad experience in your background, you can say just anything you want?
WALSH: Yes, any way she wants to. A bad experience in your background? I'm talking about murder. Murder, Matt.
And the fact of the matter is, the woman turned out to be the antithesis of Andrew Breitbart, who told a story of racial reconciliation and healing and forgiving white people, and going on to help white people --
LEWIS: I just don't think any of us should get --
WALSH: -- and going on to -- the issue in this country --
LEWIS: I just don't think any of us should get a pass to talk about --
WALSH: -- is class as much as race. I'm not giving her a pass. But I think the idea that she shouldn't be able to say Fox or Breitbart is racist preposterous. She gets to say that because it's true, and because from her vantage point it's especially true.
KURTZ: Well, in fairness, it's certainly debatable.
Excuse me, but WTF, Howie? There is nothing fair about that statement. This is a woman who has endured INSTITUTIONALIZED racism her whole life--watching the murderer of her father go free by a white grand jury, who organized and was then denied the ability to create a cooperative for black farmers, who ultimately lost her family farm because of Lester Maddox denying loans to black farmers, who was part of the largest successful civil rights violation lawsuit in the US, whose husband was a leading member of non-violent coordination in Georgia during the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, as the visibly seething Joan Walsh points out. Shirley Sherrod has lived with and tried to rise above the oppression and bigotry that you can't even contemplate, taking responsibility to make the world better for those who come after her.
But privileged Caucasian Howie Kurtz, sitting comfortably in his DC digs with his Republican fundraiser wife, can decide that it's "debatable" whether Shirley Sherrod, who has spent her life trying to help those who are poor and oppressed (rather than navel-gazing on the role of the media), knows racism when she sees it.
Howie Kurtz is earning scorn from both the right and the left for his grasp of the Sherrod firestorm. I'm sure he'll say that it proves he's right, since he's angered both sides of the aisle.
But Howie, it just proves that you're wrong, and EVERYONE can see it. Except you.
Transcripts below the fold:
Let's turn to Andrew Breitbart of biggovernment.com, well-known conservative activist. We invited him on this program, he could not do it. He said he had scheduling problems.
Here's what he had to say with Fox's Sean Hannity about Shirley Sherrod.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW BREITBART, BIGGOVERNMENT.COM: I have not asked that she get fired. I have not asked for an investigation into her.
The whole point was to show that for the NAACP to spend five days on national TV saying that the Tea Party is racist without any evidence, when we can prove that the central argument didn't happen, and the mainstream media won't play it --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: As you know, Joan Walsh, Breitbart kind of fancies himself as a new media guy taking on the liberal press.
How badly has he been damaged by this whole episode?
WALSH: You know, that depends on how the media treats his garbage in the future, Howie. He should have already been discredited because he did the exact -- or not exact same thing. He did a similar thing to ACORN.
You know, when law enforcement looked into what he did -- he tried to prove that ACORN helped a pimp and a prostitute evade taxes and God knows what else. When law enforcement officials actually looked at what he did, they said he selectively edited, he left out things that would have exonerated the ACORN employees. And, you know, Rupert Murdoch's "New York Post" actually said that he set those people up. You know, the California attorney general said the same thing.
So Breitbart has a history, and yet Fox runs with this crap, and some other news organizations ran with this crap. This is what he does.
KURTZ: OK.
Matt Lewis --
WALSH: This is what he does, and he shouldn't get away with it.
KURTZ: You've written for Breitbart's biggovernment.com. You interviewed him about this whole thing the other day.
LEWIS: I did.
KURTZ: He is refusing to apologize. Should he apologize?
LEWIS: Well, look, I think that Andrew -- everybody here is right that Andrew Breitbart really felt like the Tea Party was given a raw deal, that --
KURTZ: OK. That's his motivation.
LEWIS: Right. KURTZ: But he put out to the media -- it seems to me he was either dishonest and knew that this was misleading or, in fairness, maybe he was duped by the source who provided it.
In your view, should Andrew Breitbart apologize for what he did?
LEWIS: I believe that he was provided with a tape that was edited inaccurately.
KURTZ: Does that --
LEWIS: I don't think it's his fault.
(CROSSTALK)
LEWIS: Look, I don't want to speak for him, but I'll say this -- I think the video mischaracterized her. I think it was wrong that -- but look --
KURTZ: So (INAUDIBLE) him accountable, the person who put the video out?
HALL: He's still saying there was racism in the room, for goodness sake. He's not apologizing.
LEWIS: If I said something today that was taken out of context, and somebody put it on a Web site, I would hope that my employer, before they fired me, would look at the video. I think it is the White House --
WALSH: Don't make this about the White House.
LEWIS: Breitbart cannot fire anybody, Howie. It is not Andrew Breitbart that can fire somebody.
KURTZ: But he could -- he can write something on his site and say, you know what? In this instance I screwed up, I should have checked it out more thoroughly. But he absolutely refuses --
LEWIS: If you actually go back and read, as I did -- I interviewed him on Friday -- if you go back and read his original post, it actually says that Shirley Sherrod -- that the larger context was about her having this revelation.
HALL: If you go with something, you know, in the olden days you were supposed to check it out. All the people who ran with this, who did not independently verify it, bear some responsibility. But he should say --
LEWIS: What about the people who fired her, the people who had the tape and fired her and didn't look at it?
HALL: Yes, but Fox and other people are trying to make this about the cowardice of the Obama administration. They should have stood up to Fox. They should have stepped up and said we'll check it out before we fire her. LEWIS: You shouldn't fire -- you should stand by your employees and not fire them before you look at the --
(CROSSTALK)
KURTZ: Let me get Joan in here.
WALSH: Matt, this is a media show. This is a media show. Let's talk about media culpability.
And if you can't say -- if you're going to sleep tonight after not saying that Breitbart should apologize, I don't know about your conscience. You ran -- you interviewed him and you let him run his mouth saying that this still shows racism in the NAACP.
You didn't challenge him one bit. You gave him --
LEWIS: Well, everybody should go read my PoliticsDaily story and let them --
WALSH: I did.
LEWIS: Because I think I did challenge him. I think you're wrong. But look, you're at Netroots Nation. I would expect you to possibly take that standpoint anyway.
WALSH: Excuse me? I'm not at Netroots Nation. Are you on this planet? I'm in San Francisco. I'm not at Netroots Nation.
LEWIS: OK. Oh, it's San Francisco. I'm sorry.
KURTZ: Let me just talk about Shirley Sherrod --
WALSH: Jesus.
KURTZ: -- who gave about 147 interviews this week. And look, it's impossible not to feel sorry for her.
On Monday, she's pulled over to the side of the road, told to resign. By the end of the week, she's getting a call from President Obama.
Here's what she had to say to Anderson Cooper about this whole matter and about Fox.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHIRLEY SHERROD, FMR. GEORGIA DIRECTOR, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, USDA: I don't think he's interested in seeing anyone get past it, because I think he'd like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That's where I think he'd like to see all black people end up again. And that's why --
COOPER: You think he's a racist?
SHERROD: -- I think he's so vicious. Yes, I do. And I think that's why he's so vicious against a black president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: So, Matt Lewis, she says Breitbart wants to take us back to the times of slavery.
Is that fair? And are the media giving her a pass now for using that kind of language?
LEWIS: I think it's unfair. Look, I don't think it's right.
I think that Andrew Breitbart is a conservative activist. I think he cares very deeply about liberal bias in the media and about attempts to portray -- we're going to talk later, but we know that there are attempts for liberals in journalism to portray conservatives as racists.
I think he's concerned about this. I think this was -- clearly, Shirley Sherrod was misrepresented in that video. We have no doubt about that.
KURTZ: She also talked about Fox News, in effect, being racist.
We're over time, but Joan Walsh, a brief response from you on this point?
WALSH: The woman's father was murdered by a white farmer, and there were witnesses. And the white justice system never found the murderer guilty. She's entitled to talk about race any way she wants to.
LEWIS: Any way she wants to?
WALSH: That's not giving her a pass.
LEWIS: So if you've had a bad experience in your background, you can say just anything you want?
WALSH: Yes, any way she wants to. A bad experience in your background? I'm talking about murder. Murder, Matt.
And the fact of the matter is, the woman turned out to be the antithesis of Andrew Breitbart, who told a story of racial reconciliation and healing and forgiving white people, and going on to help white people --
LEWIS: I just don't think any of us should get --
WALSH: -- and going on to -- the issue in this country --
LEWIS: I just don't think any of us should get a pass to talk about --
WALSH: -- is class as much as race. I'm not giving her a pass. But I think the idea that she shouldn't be able to say Fox or Breitbart is racist preposterous. She gets to say that because it's true, and because from her vantage point it's especially true.
KURTZ: Well, in fairness, it's certainly debatable.
I listened to this this Morning (listening so you don't have to. LOL) and almost choked on my coffee.
Howard Kurtz is an idiot hack!! He is actually the worst asshole on Sunday Morning. even worse than Bill Krystol or Britney Hume.
All you have to know about this show is that he gave Matt Lewis a stage to spew his bullshit and actually agreed with this Lewis freak. Fuck you Howard Kurtz. You are a lightweight piece of shit. (I would tell you how I really flt but they probably would censor it here)
Has not this been the routine for over 20 years now..
Look how the republicans would not take a no for the partisan investigation they wanted into Bil Clinton starting in 1993.
They hounded Clinton his 8 year in office.
I believe the republicans planned for Monica Lewinsky & linda Tripp to trap Bill Clinton when they could not found anything else with their illegal investigation of him.
Why would someone keeps a dress which is stain. How would Lewinsky just happen to find Linda Tripp and sets up a illegal taping of conversations without pre-motives or plans.
Newt was attacking Clinton at the same time was having an affair also. Ooooo thats right Newt was a republican.. They are immune from criminal prosecution..
None
So maybe Breitbart isn't a racist, but he's definitely a lying, scumbag, right wing, sack of shit.
Feel free to add to that list as long as it doesn't include racist.
Oh no, if he walks like a racist and quacks like a racist then he is more than a duck.
Hi Captain,
I agree that he's a racist. I was just trying to point out that even if we concede Kurtz's point for the sake of the argument, there are plenty of other repugnant things that Breitbart is.
I know, I know. ;^)
Breitbart not racist? Don't close your eyes and give this toxic bigot a break.
My little bit of sarcasm is being misunderstood.
Aren't we all so very grateful for privileged white men who have never known what it's like to be an oppressed minority to inform us what is or is not racism? It's so nice not to have to worry my pretty little mind about things like this, but just let those smart white guys tell me when to worry.
Nicole's premise is entirely rooted in racism, to my mind.
Talk about being misunderstood, I guess that makes me the King of "Geez Dude pick the wrong side why don'cha?!"
Here's why its racist, Nicole: Howie of The Kurtz is a d**chebag, we all know this. Evidenced as such. Repeatedly. But his "privledged white status" and someone else's "oppressed minority status" and spouting "pretty little mind" and "smart white guys", seems to, belie your own bigoty. Leave his whiteness out of it. he's an idiot. His position is indefensible. What does that have to do with his color? His gender? What, NAACP only takes black people, cuz "white men who have never known what it's like to be an oppressed" ? blah blah whatever you said.
I'm calling as i see it, that for some, to hear this argument couched in this manner is not progressive minded at all.
His words. Stick to his words. And actions. He's a bigot, a racist, a clown, whatever, but the argument is specious if you intend as you have to separate me and you and other readers by the gender identities and race hues through which you apparently have seen necessary to couch your argument.
400 years? Wasn't me. Talk to me. Us. Men, White people. Et cetera
just my humble
your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny
Do you not comprehend sarcasm?
duly noted, ma'am
your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny
Now I am disappointed. I was thinking that you recognized an incident full of white privilege, and were writing to point out a specific example of it in action.
I thought at the very least, you were channeling a little Peggy McIntosh.
A really simple idea, if some are disadvantaged, then logic dictates that others have advantages. Even if those advantages are "invisible". In America the advantages add up to white privilege.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
On the other hand, he is a racist... in addition to being a lying, scumbag, right wing, sack of shit.
heh.. yea i said it probably get crapped on again by the C&L scenesters.
at least Sherrod grew out of it.
Breitbart's a right twat, isn't he..
Being angry because a racist farmer got away with murdering her father?
FUCK YOU.
...you didn't! (grow out of your arrogance/stupidity)
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
But I think I follow your meaning.
Sherrod's initial reaction 20+ years ago could reasonably be termed racist - she reacted based on the color of the farmer's skin. Was she justified to be at the very least wary of white folks? Yes, she was. Her experiences certainly would not have encouraged anyone towards racial tolerance. But justified or not, acting on the basis of another person's race is racist.
But as you pointed out, Sherrod is a much better person than that. She took a closer look at herself and changed. Personally, I find that to be absolutely heroic. This is something that should be held up as an example for others.
Breitbart, on the other hand...well, your description of him is nicer than I was thinking, but it'll do.
Complete asshole Lewis actually attempted to equate Breitbart's experiences with Sherrod's father being murdered by a white man. Shitty shows like Kurtz' aren't worthy of having Joan Walsh's presence.
And the way that Kurtz gives Breitbart an out saying that in fairness maybe Breitbart was duped by this tape. BULLSHIT, Breitbart was probably the one who edited the tape in the first place but even if he was not he certainly knew it was edited. See I told you Kurtz was an asshole... or did I say dick? Well both then.
The way that thius Lewis freak tries to blame the White House for this is just sickening. If Breitbart would not have put up this phony vieo there would not have been any problem at all. Period.
..." a new-media guy". I call him an old-fashioned liar.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
For crying out loud look at how he targeted this: against a black bureaucrat, and then when it blew up in his face, he found a way to blame the first black president for overreacting to a provocation that he himself provided....
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
And then the Freak Lewis says that Breirbart cares about liberal bias in the media (excuse me I just threw up a little in my mouth) but Breitbart is a Fox New regular. Oh, never mind. This is just sichening.
He (the freak Lewis) knows that there are liberals in journalism to portray conservatives as racists (he says). ONLY WHEN THEY ARE RACISTS dipshit!!!
Goodnight all.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is...
Pâté de foie gras.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
C- in /french, tho
le tres petit conchon? wait that's pigs
(epic fail)
your name's Lebowski, Lebowski... and your wife is Bunny
What's getting lost in the mix and conflagration of Sherrod's youth experience is NOT her racial bias due to her father's murder, as unjust as the outcome was, but instead the story that is getting lost is the one where she rose out of that bias and overcame her own demons of hate/fear/bias/racism to see that behind skin color, we ALL bleed red.
The question remains...
... WHEN WILL THE MEDIA OPINION MAKERS RISE OUT FROM THEIR'S?
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
It's debatable whether or not Howie Kurtz is an actual journalist.
I think we need to be careful when using the term "journalist". For the most part that title is not earned by those in the media.
However, that said, Howie Kurtz has never been a journalist. He's a columnist for WaPo and an opinion media host on CNN. Nothing he does actually approaches journalism.
Kurtz is, and has always, been an asshat.
These assholes that run the 4th estate should be ashamed of themselves. They are the ones that have failed our country. Politicians will always be fuckwits, but the media is supposed to be there to keep them in check and then report to the people.
Now, DC lobbyists, journalists, and politicians are all in cahoots. Plenty of corporate money for all, as long as you tow the line, like Kurtz does.
is a damn racist. And Fox enables him.
NOBODY 2012
may be the very least of Breibart's many character flaws. Now how many people are sufficiently vile that one can say that about them.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
color on cable news to give our perspectives. We get this privileged crap, from Kurtz, and from others. I don't watch CNN, but I do MSNBC, and I get frustrated watching Dylan Ratigan. I kind of like him, but he sort of whines that the economic message he claims the Tea Party is trying to get out (which he agrees with) is "unfairly" drowned out by criticism of Tea Party racism.
I want to throw things at the TV and tell Dylan that the Tea Party racism is a very significant dealbreaker for this woman of color, and for many others too.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
somewhere over the digital divide, to the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes, but don't they got the gravitas?
i find it excruciatingly painful to watch any of these people shine each other on; stumbling over their words, so they don't say the wrong thing, not near as good as the old humble pie song.
if you've ever talked to people who remember the early 1900's, black man caught in some towns after dark, had a visit with doctor tar and pro. feather,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feat...
before being,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_out_of_town_...
if he was lucky, but then you know, just a bunch of good old boys having fun.
but then, with the country about to go by the board,(Fig. to get ruined or lost) must be time for some razzle dazzle, i call it pornography for the proletariat, only not quite like orwell imagined it. any abusive relationship, enduring over time, generally devolves into constant adrenalin junkie heaven; takes years to get over it, ptsd you see, and this country is still in the throes of the disease.
shows to go me, scientifically speaking, what i get, for talkin bout the proletariat, and thinking dyslexic not wise yoda is.
being programmed for the cross, just not as cuckooo!!!!! as mel, is kind of like not finishing a psychology degree (credit-sm) you learn just enough to screw you up for the rest of your life.
Selectively editing a story about how she moved beyond race to help people regardless of color.
Why? To make it sound like she was a racist.
Why? To prove that our black president and his black appointees are more racist than white Tea Party people.
It's bad enough that Breitbart is defending racists. But to get on the TV and defend this low-life is the lowest you can possibly sink.
he is a racist , however Ms. Sherrod seems above this as in why point out the obvious .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
I am going to be as careful as I can in how I state this:
Mr. Kurtz,
You are Jewish. You should know better than to think that Andrew Breitbart is anything other than a racist thug. And by the way, don't you think, a supposed ethicist on journalism, that you should note during every show that your wife is a fund raiser for Republicans? Don't you think your marriage skews your ethical barometer just a tad? You refuse to use your position to bring truth to the lies that are told every day by the right wing media such as Fox News and Breitbart.com. That, in my book, makes you know better than the Jewish Kapos who helped keep order in the ghettos and concentration camps. I hope you are ashamed of yourself.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
it was life or death , this scum does it for money , ashamed of his self no first he would have to have a soul .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
Kurtz is a pothole. Best avoided.
*
Kurtz has been an idiot and ideologue for a long time... He just continues to prove it daily....
Everyone -- EVERYONE-- holds certain unfair biases of some sort, whether they are consciously aware of them or not. Those biases may have an understandable basis in a person's life experience, or they might have no rational basis whatsoever. Decent, fair-minded people, however, try their best to recognize their biases as much as possible, and to try to overcome them. But anyone who is honest with himself/herself will realize that at a most fundamental level, we can never totally rid ourselves of bias. What we can do is to make a vigilant effort to police ourselves in our dealings with others in order to ensure that we prevent our biases -- both the ones we are consciously aware of and those we are not -- do not affect our dealings with others. We can make sure we do not act on the basis of our prejudices. And that's what's so important about Shirley Sherrod's story.
Ms. Sherrod, whose father had been murdered by a white man who was never brought to justice in the apartheid South, on whose lawn the KKK once burned a cross, who had grown up under Jim Crow and witnessed the horrors of the civil rights struggle first-hand, confessed to having had a kind of bias which any fellow human being should instantly be able to recognize the basis of. The agency in which she was working at the time was set up specifically to assist black farmers, so when this white couple presented itself to her, she was under no obligation, professional or otherwise, to help them. But help them she did, and through the process of performing that act, Ms. Sherrod came to realize her common humanity and common struggle she shared with this white couple and others like them.
What makes Ms. Sherrod a moral giant, in my view, is her willingness to publicly talk so honestly about her dealing with her own biases. That's a conversation very few people are willing to have even with themselves, let alone share with others.
I doubt Ms. Sherrod would claim to be totally free of bias. No one who is at all self-aware would presume to make such a claim. But she sets an example for all of us in terms of refusing to become a slave to such biases.
Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York
I agree with most of what you wrote. Then, however what about Mark Kurtz being such a slave to his biases? Doesn't he get to held accountable to anything he says?
I wasn't defending Kurtz' commentary in any way. If anything I was pointing out the absurdity of his claim that because Shirley Sherrod once had a certain bias that she overcame, that she is somehow rendered morally unfit to criticize the _actions_ of Breitbart. Ms. Sherrod held a bias that she did not act upon, and in fact countered, in order to help the couple which had presented themselves to her. Breitbart, on the other hand, published a selectively and misleadingly edited video clip in order to stoke racist resentment, giving not one wit about the collateral damage caused either to race relations generally or to Ms. Sherrod particularly. For Kurtz to suggest that the holding of an internal bias (by Ms. Sherrod) is in any way the moral equivalent of Breitbart's _actions_ undertaken deliberately to fuel racist fears is simply outrageous.
Mark P. Kessinger
New York, New York
there is nothing that is debatable , if she wants to call bartfat a racist so be it , that does not make it so ( in this case he is ) and so what if she does and he is , what a stupid attempt at basic logic .
every time you throw a little mud , you lose a little ground .
The issue is ultimately which opinion you agree with: the people racist or they are not. And the outcome of the debate is inconsequential and a waste of time. As the adage goes, "Opinions are like a**holes; everyone has got one." We need to focus on issues of policy where there is some ultimate consequence to the debate.
Candideinnc
Matt Lewis is just another right wing bomb thrower. He tried to slam Walsh for being at Netroots Nation and when Walsh said she was not at Netroots Nation that she was in San Francisco he goes "oh, San Francisco!". Whether it's parroting "Chicago style politics" or "East coast politicians" or slamming other Americans in cities like San Francisco all these right wingers have is division. Nixon started it with the Southern Strategy and right wing hacks like Lewis have perfected it. Hate, discriminate and divide. The 3 pillars of the right.
hate to say it, but kurtz being jewish, does not give current administation an eave break on anything becaus of their relationship with israel
Idiot. MSM Whore.
I am sick and tired of the MSM trying so damned hard to please the conservatives. They need to be the institution that fact checks Fox and Conservatives everywhere. Quit imitating Fox and be your own show. You may not like or agree with Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow, but at the very least they are not trying to copy Fox news. Fox news needs no help spreading their lies and inuendo. Screw the ratiings and tell the truth, your ratings will grow with time. Walter Cronkite and Edward R Murrow would be ashamed of our news persons at this time.
Spineless, dickless, ignorant Reslug racists, like Kurtz, will never understand.
Fux Noise is no news org. It's a racist platform for braindead Reslug idiots who don't care about the any real facts, just lies, hatred and deceit.
Here we go with the "liberal media" nonsense again. Sure, the media is liberal, to everyone but liberals, that is.
Republicans and Conservatives are protrayed oftentimes as racists not because of the liberal media myth, but because they do things like Andrew Breitbart did, which 'happened' to target an African-American woman as its victim.
If Republicans don't want to be called racist, then they should stop acting like racists.
It's really that simple.
Kurtz is a racist, and a liar. When caught at white male privilege, liars deny, then scapegoat, then they invalidate, or attempt to invalidate, their opponent. He's done all of the above, serially, in the interview.
Republican MSM man denying he's racist is like a New National Socialist denying he's anti-Semitic.
If TV comedians ignore these guys, they are too stupid to recognize prime comedic material on the hoof.
I would say Kurtz is less a racist than a enabler of racists (small difference, though there is one). He has to act as if he's somehow impartial, knowing full well that that only enables the Breitbarts of the world.
He doesn't have the nerve to act on those ideas, though.
Breitbart is a hack and a fraud and an asshole who can't take reponsibility for his hackery. At first, he said he released the video to show that an Obama administration official (Sherrod) was a racist. Then, when that was debunked, he said it was to show the racism in the NAACP. Now, he and the right-wing are trying to blame Obama for not standing behind her. My head is spinning.
I like how White people are validating a black woman's right to complain against oppression.
Comments are closed on this entry