Cabloid Pundits Skirt "Racism" Accusations in Fucktard Criticism of "thePrez"

On Crooks & Liars today, Amato posted a vid from the Howie Putz...er, Kurtz Sunday show, and asks:

"Why is it so hard for the media to discuss the obvious racial overtones of so much of President Obama's opposition?"

To which I tried to reply, paraphrasing Upton Sinclair 75 years ago:

It is very difficult to get someone to acknowledge that which their paycheck depends on their ignoring (or denying)...

(White, because in Murka there is no other kind) 'racism' has animated every Murkin foreign and domestic policy since the Founding. The SCUM always portray (White--because in the USofA there is no other kind of) racism as individual acts of bias, bigotry, and discrimination. But those are only the symptoms of the deeper permissiveness and the systemic sympathy for racial repression.

It's an (obviously) really uncomfortable, but crucial fact, because it means that NO "White" persons' accomplishments are NOT tainted by their debt to practices which deprived "other races" from competing fairly for the "prizes"--social goods, like wealth, status, housing, etc--"whites" pretend they won fair and square. "If true," it challenges the defining belief at the core of "whiteness" that their "race's" achievements are simply--but no less than--the result of hard work, and industry, "good values," and Christian belief, thereby implying their innate "superiority" over those who have not been so "successful." It's hard to admit that, for a lot of folks...

Millions of 'whites' in Murka, I believe, STILL grow up believing their "race's" accomplishments result not from already occupying positions of (relative) privilege and favor, but from their innate superiority--it's the dark side of "exceptionalism."

The CorpoRat media NEVER acknowledge the "systemic," endemic nature of racism in USer politics, in USer culture, because their bosses forbid them to acknowledge it... Regard how Howie Kurtz frames it. Not about the fact of racism, but about the COVERAGE of it, which is at "fault."

Why is it so hard for the media to discuss the obvious racial overtones of so much of President Obama's opposition? The right-wing fanatics are not even trying to cover it up and still the media try to avoid the obvious by framing it as a pundit problem.

Howard Kurtz wonders why the media is having problems these days with Americans in terms of perceptions about their accuracy. (Pew: Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low)

I understand that calling someone a racist is no small thing, but facts are facts, and I can't deny what I see with my own two eyes. Can you? Can the media? (John Aravosis had a great post last week with plenty of visual examples.)

Instead of Howard Kurtz really taking a look at the racist underbelly that has risen to new heights at the town halls, he frames it like this:

Kurtz: So are the pundits and the press inflaming this debate about race?

To the media, the debate isn't about the racism that is actually happening on the ground and in front of our eyes, but whether it's the media's fault for actually covering the racist a-holes that have taken over the Republican Party.

When a Michael Steele tries to say that it's only one in a hundred who carry around racist signs about Obama at the psycho town halls, that's a LIE. All you had to do is look at the teabagger protests in DC. Even Andrea Mitchell was stunned.

The truth of the matter is that reporting the reality of racism makes those Bosses/Owners look bad, especially after they went to the time and expense of letting a tame Negro get elected President, almost exclusively to paper over that inherent, throbbing blemish on the wonderfulness of the USofA and the Murkin way of life.

Ewww, esse`...

(edited for content and clarity at @1200 hrs, mdt. W.)...