So what it comes down to for Kurtz, as an "objective" media critic, is that any charge of "racism" is apparently tantamount to slander and cannot be levied against any person whatsoever. The final question is to Matt Lewis (who does yeoman's work trying to obscure the issues surrounding the matter of Ms. Sherrod's firing and public treatment by FoxNews and Andrew Breitbart): should Shirley Sherrod get away with calling Andrew Breitbart a racist?
What, is that now equivalent to "child molester" and "dope peddler"? Seriously? Shirley Sherrod, a woman with a sterling civil rights record, overstepped by calling Andrew Breitbart what he so clearly is? Even if we disagree on who is and who is not a racist, seriously, Mr. Kurtz?
E.J. Dionne explicitly links Glenn Beck to the NAACP's charge of racism in the "Tea Party" movement. Does that make him a racist, too? Or is it okay, because he's a journalist?
He does an even better job on this topic in print. Indeed, I disagree with Mr. Dionne in only one thing, a minor matter of definition, or perhaps it's just emphasis. He writes:
And there can be no more shilly-shallying about the fact that racial backlash politics is becoming an important component of the campaign against President Obama and against progressives in this year's election.It's not "racial." It's racist. Pure and simple.
When do we get to start that conversation on race in this country?