Monday, March 26, 2012

On the Reverend, Al Sharpton

Look, folks, I fully understand the frustration and anger that Mr. Sharpton feels over the shooting of that young kid down in Florida. But I also understand that this same Mr. Sharpton also needs to make a decision, and soon. Namely, Sharpton needs to ask himself, is he an activist, or is he a journalist? I mean, right now, you've got the fellow rabble-rousing at these rallies during the day and then covering these very same rallies at night. That cannot continue. He either has to be the story or the story-teller (a little something called journalistic ethics). He can't be both. Hopefully, there are still at least a few honorable people over there at NBC and they can rectify this - SOON.

14 comments:

w-dervish said...

Don't hold your breath Will. btw, he isn't a journalist. He's a commentator.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

He's still providing coverage (just like Hannity did with the Tea Party) and you can't cover yourself. MSNBC (move on over Fox) has lost all semblance of credibility at this point

w-dervish said...

I think MSNBC probably anticipated this kind of thing happening and welcomed it. Personally I have no problem with it. And I certainly wouldn't compare this to Fox's Tea Party coverage.

Rational Nation USA said...

Will, your point is well taken, understood, ad spot on.

But don't hold your breath.

dmarks said...

WD: "And I certainly wouldn't compare this to Fox's Tea Party coverage."

Of course. Ideological differences explain this, and it has nothing to do with any supposed difference in the nature of the coverage.

dmarks said...

A commentator is a journalist who doesn't do as good a job at hiding his/her bias.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Of course. Ideological differences explain this, and it has nothing to do with any supposed difference in the nature of the coverage.

Wrong. It has to do with nature of the difference in the stories. One is a possible hate crime, while the other has to deal with the wealthy elites funding an astroturf movement. The stories are completely different. MSNBC/Sharpton comes down on the side of the victim, while Fox sided with the plutocrats (the opressors).

dmarks: A commentator is a journalist who doesn't do as good a job at hiding his/her bias.

Wrong. A commentator SELLS their program by advertising their "bias". That's why people tune in; because they like the opinions of the commentator. They aren't "hiding" anything. They are very upfront about it.

dmarks said...

"One is a possible hate crime, while the other has to deal with the wealthy elites funding an astroturf movement."

True on the hate crime. However, we have yet to even mention an astroturf movement in this discussion.

But I am aware that you have a problem of using "astroturf" as a meaningless insult for grassroots movements you happen to dislike. Without any regard to the meaning.

w-dervish said...

You must have redefinded "grassroots" to mean "funded by billionaires"... sorry dmarks, I'm going with the real definition... I reject all dmarks redefinitions.

dmarks said...

"You must have redefinded "grassroots" to mean "funded by billionaires"

That certainly does not apply to the Tea Party movement.

I know many many people in this movement. Not one of them was given anything by a billionaire. What percent of Tea Party members have been paid by billionaires? Any idea? In fact, billionaires might not want to give them anything. This group is so strongly against TARP, the auto industry handouts, and the other government gifts to the rich and corporations.

You really know so little about this movement.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Most of the Tea Party people are good and decent people. Most of the 99% people are good and decent people. Most of the people protesting this Trayvon Martin situation (Sharpton and Jackson DO seem to love the camera, though) are good and decent people. I think that everybody probably everybody needs to take a breath here.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Not one of them was given anything by a billionaire. What percent of Tea Party members have been paid by billionaires?

The average protestor wasn't paid. I didn't claim any were. That isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about Billionaires paying for advertising, setting up venues for protests (permits, stages, jumbotrons, cleanup, etc) and buses with expensive paint jobs (to transport Tea Partiers to protests).

Come on dmarks, are you really this naive? Or this much in denial because you agree with the Tea Party ideology? I think you're the one who knows very little about the Tea Party. The Tea Party is the biggest astroturf movement in history.

Also, I never said Tea Partiers weren't good and decent people (although some of them are racists)... my argument is that they're dupes.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I think that there's more than enough dupishness to go around, wd. Between big business, big labor, big government, and renegade bitches like George Soros and the Koch brothers, guys like you and I - we don't have half a snowballs chance in hell.

w-dervish said...

Those in the 99 percent movement (and the people who support the movement)... they REALLY know what's going on.

And "big labor" represents the workers, they aren't "duping" anyone.