Tarnishing Their Brand
Unbelievably, CNN has allowed Al Sharpton to post some kind of religious-political screed on CNN.com.
Why, exactly, would a news organization that wants to be taken seriously allow the facilitator of the Tawana Brawley hoax, the anti-Semitic agitator, profligate campaign spender and debtor and all-around scofflaw to publish under its aegis?
Is CNN unable to locate any other African American who can speak with more authority? Or does it just not believe that Sharpton's history matters?
Why, exactly, would a news organization that wants to be taken seriously allow the facilitator of the Tawana Brawley hoax, the anti-Semitic agitator, profligate campaign spender and debtor and all-around scofflaw to publish under its aegis?
Is CNN unable to locate any other African American who can speak with more authority? Or does it just not believe that Sharpton's history matters?
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:53 PM
2 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I haven't taken CNN or Sharpton that seriously for some time. So in a way, it's a good fit: If they're together, I have fewer places to ignore.
Dittohead, I'll gladly take up your question about what I don't like on issues that he presents. Carol, I'll gladly express it in a civil tone.
Sharpton appeals to fear and anger. He riles up his base by speaking to wrongs and indignities. True leaders, in my view, appeal to our hopes, aspirations, and desires for a better life.
Sharpton appeals to the government (and its money) as the answer to challenges we face. In effect, he advocates government-public to be like parent-child.
CNN and Sharpton are soulmates on this latter point: We the public are cattle, to eat precisely what they choose to feed us and nothing else. Any deviation from their self-proclaimed vision is bigotry (Sharpton) or ignorance (CNN/MSM/NY TIMES) and quite possibly both.
In my view and I would bet in the view of our hostess, the answer to challenges ought to be expressed in terms of self-reliance. We should be taught to fish, not be given a government program to receive more fish. We should be adults, and aspire to be adults, not perpetual children.
FYI - I'm not that big a fan of Bush (pick one) either. 43 in particular strikes me as reckless and immature, a perpetual teen in another sense.
In fact, speaking as a card-carrying X-er (I'm 37), I'm remarkably unimpressed with the leadership of the entire Baby Boom/Vietnam generation.
Lots of changes are to come when I'm president. (Carol, I penciled your name in as my AG. Hope that's OK.)
Post a Comment
<< Home