Staff Reports
MSNBC is finding itself in hot water yet again, this time with a scandal that features the Vice President and the notorious Rev. Al Sharpton in a rather cozy financial arrangement. The network, notorious for its knack for avoiding accountability, claimed it was “unaware” that Kamala Harris’s campaign had funneled a cool half million dollars into Sharpton’s nonprofit, the National Action Network. This was just weeks before a lovey-dovey interview between Harris and Sharpton aired, since we all know that $500,000 doesn’t buy an interview; it just buys some friendly chatting.
Reports surfaced that Harris’s campaign made two payments of $250,000 to Sharpton’s operation shortly before the Oct. 20 interview. How convenient! MSNBC confirmed these transactions, yet shifted the blame onto Sharpton for not raising a red flag about this apparent conflict of interest. It seems that once again, the network is attempting to absolve itself of any responsibility, much like a teenager whose parents “didn’t realize” their child was throwing wild parties.
MSNBC claims ignorance after conflict of interest with friendly Harris interview revealed https://t.co/uSt8jGmAmQ
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) November 27, 2024
To add some flavor to this tangled web, the Federal Election Commission disclosed that Harris’s campaign splurged a whopping $3.75 million to various progressive black civil rights and religious groups just in time to play the donor game ahead of the election. This revelation makes the half million to Sharpton look even more like a political investment than a charitable donation. Who knew that campaign finance could resemble a grand game of Monopoly, where funds are passed around under the guise of philanthropy?
Whether or not MSNBC will actually hold Sharpton accountable remains a mystery. Executives have yet to announce any repercussions, which probably means he won’t face so much as a slap on the wrist. This is in line with the network’s tradition of granting immunity to its star players while casting aside any semblance of journalistic integrity.
The interview itself was a masterclass in soft questioning. Sharpton seemed less like a journalist and more like a cheerleader, hurling only the easiest questions at Harris while letting her glide past any controversial topics, like her criminal justice history. His approach was about as challenging as a kindergarten teacher asking students what color the sky is. One has to wonder if the two had already prepped and rehearsed the questions and answers in advance, given how smoothly it all unfolded.
Amidst the latest scandal, it is as if these revelations support Donald Trump’s long-standing accusations that mainstream media often bends over backward to cover for the left. Claims of interference during the campaign seem more accurate now than ever, especially in light of the decision by CBS News to edit Harris’s responses in a previous interview. If there was ever a moment to raise the alarm about the cozy relationship between political candidates and their media allies, it’s now.
