Ever since MSNBC signed radical activist Al Sharpton as a weeknight host in 2011, the subject of media ethics has been beside the point. A “news” network that hires a man who notoriously spread the Tawana Brawley rape hoax in the 80s – and paid $65,000 in damages for it – doesn’t imply “news” is their top concern. Instead, MSNBC surely thought it could quiet any concerns about the racial diversity of its hosts by hiring one of the most inflammatory Black activists that could be found.
This partnership began after a round of sugar-boost profiles. On “60 Minutes,” longtime CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl oozed Sharpton was an Obama insider, “a trusted White House adviser who’s become the president’s go-to black leader.” Tongues wagged that MSNBC was doing Obama a favor, or that Sharpton was rewarded for supporting Comcast’s bid to buy NBC Universal in 2010.
For 13 years now, MSNBC has never shown a shred of interest in media ethics when it comes to Sharpton’s “day job” as a race hustler, no matter what the cause of the day was, from Trayvon Martin to George Floyd. The only time MSNBC restricted Sharpton was when they demoted his “PoliticsNation” show to weekends in 2015.
No one thinks Sharpton is a ratings draw. He perpetually loses to Fox News, and often to CNN, in his early-evening time slot on weekends. Popularity is not the point.
Back in 2010, MSNBC briefly suspended hosts Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough for donating to congressional candidates. Sharpton never had to worry for one minute about appearances of political conflict. There appear to be no rules for Rev. Al.
Democrats who want his endorsement all rush to his National Action Network conferences to seek his blessing. In the last competitive Democratic presidential primary campaign in 2019, 13 presidential candidates (including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris) made the pilgrimage to NAN.
This was underlined again when MSNBC claimed it was “unaware” that Sharpton’s National Action Network was given $250,000 in September and October by the Kamala Harris campaign before Harris accepted a softball interview on October 20.
Harris was extremely stingy in granting interviews to national media, even to fiercely allied networks like MSNBC. It’s not hard to imagine that the donations to Sharpton helped her feel more comfortable that he would “play ball” with her and not ask anything difficult. (Harris also accepted an interview from former CNN pundit Roland Martin, whose company received $350,000 in Kamala campaign cash.)
In a press release announcing his Harris interview, Sharpton didn’t speak of the donations, but gushed “Vice President Harris has been a friend of the National Action Network for more than 20 years, and I’m excited to welcome her on “PoliticsNation” this Sunday for what will no doubt be a robust discussion on the future of Black America.”
It wasn’t “robust.” Sharpton asked Harris five cozy what-say-you questions, not counting supportive statements about her passion. He decried Trump for calling Harris a “s—t vice president,” and worried about what we’re teaching young people. The New York Times and others boosted Kamala’s answer that Trump “demeans the office” with his crude talk….as opposed to MSNBC types constantly calling Trump a “fascist.”
Sharpton’s final softball was this: “Today is your birthday, and we all reflect on our birthdays, what our life would mean. You called me on my birthday. Thanks again. What do you want, 50 years from now, history to say about Kamala Harris?”
Four days after the Harris interview, Sharpton was in Michigan campaigning for Harris at four stops. Was MSNBC “unaware” of that activism? He routinely hosted “nonpartisan” events boosting Harris and warning about returning Trump to office.
Media ethicists warned about MSNBC’s entanglement. But entanglement has its benefits. Among the base on MSNBC, Sharpton is still seen as a “civil rights icon,” not as a truth-mangling embarrassment.
