Last night Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Daily Caller‘s Tucker Carlson were apoplectic about a 2007 video in which then-Sen. Barack Obama identified himself as black to a black audience with an “cadences,” an “accent” and “gestures” some blacks use.

Yes, world. Barack Obama is black. This is clearly shocking to some of you, but it shouldn’t be. He’s been open out his blackness for many years. He even wrote a bestselling book about it. The speech and all its blackness shouldn’t be a surprise either. “Obama’s Other Race Speech” – as Hannity and Carlson call it – was covered by numerous mainstream media outlets.

This tape “revelation” is a non-story, but the response by Hannity, the Daily Caller and others who are trying to make something out of nothing is a story.

First, the timing of all this is highly suspect.. and transparent: A five-year-old speech that had been reported and shown is then re-released 24 hours before the first presidential debate? It seems worried Romney supporters are trying to distract voters away from the Republican’s floundering campaign.

And look at what they’re using: Race. In a world without nuance – yes, a black and white world – anytime a progressive brings up race, it’s racism. In that world, calling out racism, is racism. (In the real world, though, talking about race isn’t necessarily racism. Using race as a way to oppress one group while giving another privileges is racism.) A black president who identifies with a black audience is a racist. Why? Because, in that world encased in a conservative bubble that’s immune to facts and reason, it stokes the fear that Obama will take stuff away from working-class white people and give it to poor lazy black people in the form of welfare. It’s the same world where Obama is a secret muslim who wasn’t born in the United States. It’s a world that seeks to delegitimize his presidency by saying he’s not an American.

So, given the GOP’s history of using racism in campaigns, to this year’s race-baiting by Newt Gingrich and even Romney himself, it shouldn’t be news that a tape like this “surfaced.”

In August, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said about the GOP: “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” Making something out of nothing from this tape is an attempt to get a few more angry white guys to vote for Romeny.

Follow me on Twitter.

The video below isn’t a photo-op, but with just a week and a day from that interview to the Iowa Caucuses, Santorum spent a lot of air-time on Fox News talking about pheasant kills.

After beer and guns, is there anything else he needs to say to prove he’s a manly man, and therefore, fit to be the president?

See the video from Mediaite.

UPDATE: It turns out there is video of the hunting trip. Sad for Santorum, though, as The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur points out, the hunting party doesn’t get him the endorsement he wants.

Like me on Facebook, connect with me on Twitter and follow my Tumblr. 

Here’s the entire interview.

Thomas, Nasr, Sanchez and Williams were let go for expressing personal opinions in informal settings or places where they were the interview subjects. Because they put themselves in positions where the public was looking for the them to offer insight, perspective and a bit of their personality, their opining put them in positions to get in trouble with their employers.

Embracing the new media age where journalists and news organizations are trying to get their brands on many different platforms is turning out to be tricky. Some embrace this, but it’s also making it hard to appear impartial, and for some, stay employed. Not all personalities or opinions are likable, and everyone has fears and prejudices. It’s a balance – or tension – between getting more of the personal brand or personality “out there” to help grow the professional brand, while not having either brand offend anyone. It’s like the new digital age is telling them, “Put more of yourself out there, but don’t let anyone see who you really are.”

I’m not condoning what any of them said, but terminating someone isn’t necessarily the way to handle mistakes like these. If media companies want more content, how about having a substantive discussion with the journalist about why the offending remark was made? If a remark wasn’t made out of gross recklessness or unadulterated bigotry, there maybe an opportunity to explore where the remark came from, why it was made and inform the public about the issues surrounding it. News organizations are constantly looking for content to put on air, online and in print. There’s your content.

In the case of Williams, a good idea would have been to have thoughtful discussion about the origins of bigotry and fear how and to overcome them.. and have it on NPR.