Ok, so when you wrote “Taking the content at face value, it exactly supports the claim in the headline” you meant that the article superficially implies that Sharpton gets paid not to protest.
Cool.
If everything the article says is true, then we know that corporations make contributions to Sharpton’s group. But nothing in the article says why the corporations made payment – it sort of tried to imply that the payments were to stop protesting, but that’s about it.
Exactly.
Again, it was written in contradiction to someone who claimed that “at worst” it showed him to be “basically a lobbyist”.
Context.
Context indeed.
I don’t think it is context - more like “assuming facts not in evidence”.
Sharpton accused them of racism. Then Honda threw some money at a potential PR problem, Sharpton got his cut, and the accusations stopped. “Maybe” there was something else going on, but there is no evidence of it.
Regards,
Shodan
Which facts you find necessary depends on your pre-existing beliefs about Sharpton and the Post.
For example, if you think the Post is the kind of outlet that would know that Honda donated to NAN before this but not report it, then you’re not going to infer as easily that the donation was a result of the threatened protest. Or if you think that Sharpton is a scoundrel and a shill, then you’re going to more easily infer that the company probably made no real changes and just made a payout.
These inferences will come easy to Post-reader who are predisposed to make them. More skeptical minds would probably want additional information before being persuaded.
Wait, you have reporters? I agree that there is possibility of additional evidence. It would be in Sharpton’s best interest to reveal any type of concessions he or his group was able to negotiate. The concessions could have had a non-disclosure component to them sure, but every piece of evidence presented is consistent with the shakedown angle, and nothing contradicts it as has been presented.
Sharpton is a scoundrel for many other areas so I am predisposed to believe he is a scoundrel in this one. Being a tax cheat is sufficient for me and I’m not a reader of the Post.
What stories do you have that cause you to conclude that the Post is untrustworthy on the subject of Sharpton, or race? Isn’t it possible that there are facts available, but not widely known, that would show that the Post is a bastion of racial fairness?
Regards,
Shodan
Bone: It seems odd for you to assert “every piece of evidence” is consistent when the only evidence you have is what the Post gave you. Of course it is all consistent with their theory. It’s their hit piece, after all. Has Sharpton responded? If you don’t know the answer, shouldn’t that raise questions in your mind about whether you’re really considering all the evidence?
My point is limited. It is just that whether you think the series of facts laid out by the Post makes the case for Sharpton being a fraud depends a lot on your outside beliefs. Standing on its own, reasonable people would want to know more information before forming a conclusion one way or the other.
Speaking for myself, what would persuade me is a case in which Sharpton wasn’t receiving donations, protested something, got a donation, and then stopped protesting even though the thing being protested had not changed. The Post asks you to assume two of those critical premises. You may be happy to assume them, based on other beliefs you have about Sharpton, but that’s sort of beside the point.
No assumption should be needed for this kind of thing – the writers should have tried to answer those questions themselves. Why wouldn’t they just try to find out if the GM dealership was actually closed, or if Honda made any commitment to changing their hiring practices? That’s either lazy journalism or journalism with an agenda.
I’ll note that the point of the article might be correct – I wouldn’t be particularly surprised to learn that Sharpton sort-of intimidated some big companies into donating to his organization. If the Post had actually dug a bit more, they could have supported their point (or, alternately, torpedoed it). But good journalism doesn’t have an agenda beyond finding out the truth.
I did link to another NY Times article. I agree on its own the Post article is mostly supposition. Sharpton is still a scoundrel for his many other activities.
I’m surprised no one has made any mention of him having being an FBI informant.
Al Sharpton is not a racist. He’s simply an opportunist. His job is to pretend he gives a crap about his people, even though he really doesn’t, and act as a boogeyman to stir up the ‘right’ without really doing anything constructive for ‘his people’. He may be ‘bad’, but he is certainly not ‘powerful’ (with respect to the ‘right’) nor has he ever been. Who are we kidding? If there was ever a moment he was ‘powerful’, he would have been either dead or disappeared into obscurity a long time ago.
The main reason that Sharpton is hated by the right is because he is a black leader that works against Republican politicians. It really doesn’t matter beyond that what he is like in reality, he will be painted by the conservative media as being an extremist. They do the same thing when any Democrat is nominated for President, immediately some conservative think tank labels them as the most liberal member of the senate, or the most liberal governor, regardless of their actual policies or positions.
If the right really cared about racists having access to the White House, or racists having their own talk shows, they would mention it once or twice when any famous right wing pundit says something racist. They don’t actually care. If Ann Coulter says something racist, the right wing press is more likely to defend her than to criticize her. When Sharpton says something racist they are more likely to freak out.
Sharpton doesn’t bother me. Usually he is on the correct side of whatever conflict he has inserted himself into. He has made a career of it. Sometimes he’s wrong. He could be more humble, but so could a lot of people. The fact that he gets more criticism from the right wing media than members of our government that advocate human rights abuses, more criticism for his homophobia than members of our government than have actual power to deny rights to gay people, and criticism for his racism when right wing racists are repeatedly praised should tell you all you need to know about him.